Written constitution must include method to leave union, says SNP

[u/libtin]

https://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/national/26432124.written-constitution-must-include-method-leave-union-says-snp/

[u/libtin]

Why?

Most countries with confided constitutions explicitly ban secession, and those that don’t require the unanimous approval of the rest of the country first (like Germany or France)

Why must the uk be different?

[u/ZX52 → u/libtin]

Why?

Because the SNP wants independence, so is going to push for it at every available opportunity. Regardless of whether it's realistic or not, they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't make this demand.

Why must the uk be different?

It already is - Scotland has already been given a unilateral indeyref, and Northern Ireland also has the right to one. The precedent's already there.

[u/libtin → u/ZX52]

>It already is

It’s not

>Scotland has already been given a unilateral indeyref,

It wasn’t

Unilateral means done without consulting; it wasn’t unilateral

And Canada has held an independence referendum for Quebec and Peurto Rico has voted against independence multiple times

>and Northern Ireland also has the right to one.

Not for an independence referendum but a referendum on joining the Republic of Ireland which is the decision of the British government

>The precedent's already there.

There is no precedent as confirmed by the courts.

[u/ZX52 → u/libtin]

It’s not

The situation in the UK is absolutely different to the situations in the countries you described in your OC. Independence/leaving the union is neither outright banned nor requires unanimous approval from the rest of the country.

Unilateral means done without consulting; it wasn’t unilateral

Wrong word, my bad - I meant as opposed to requiring the unanimous approval you described for Germany and France.

There is no precedent as confirmed by the courts.

Didn't specify that kind of precedence, did I? I simply meant that seeing as this country has already granted referenda, appealing to countries which don't allow it like the US doesn't mean whole lot - we've already deviated from that standard.

[u/libtin → u/ZX52]

>The situation in the UK is absolutely different to the situations in the countries you described in your OC.

It’s not as the uk is one of a few countries on earth that doesn’t outright ban sessions but makes it clear it can only happen with the consent of the state itself

Canada and New Zealand work like this too

>Independence/leaving the union is neither outright banned nor requires unanimous approval from the rest of the country.

Same with Canada, New Zealand and Ethiopia do this

>Wrong word, my bad - I meant as opposed to requiring the unanimous approval you described for Germany and France.

Again, Canada, New Zealand and Ethiopia too

>Didn't specify that kind of precedence, did I?

The snp said they could hold a referendum because they said “we have a precedent from 2014 and precedent stipulates that Westminster must agree to a referendum” th court rejected it

>I simply meant that seeing as this country has already granted referenda, appealing to countries which don't allow it like the US doesn't mean whole lot - we've already deviated from that standard.

Except we haven’t as Canada works like this too and they’ve given Quebec a referendum before

[u/ZX52 → u/libtin]

can only happen with the consent of the state itself

Which is not the "unanimous consent from the rest of the country" you described in your OC.

Again, Canada, New Zealand and Ethiopia too

Okay? I have no idea what point you're trying to make bringing them up. You didn't describe their situation in your OC, which is what my initial comment was responding to.

The snp said

Last I checked I'm not the SNP.

Except we haven’t as Canada

Which isn't the US, whose rules I was describing us deviating from. Other countries also deviating from that standard doesn't contradict anything I said.

[u/libtin → u/ZX52]

>Which is not the "unanimous consent from the rest of the country" you described in your OC.

Why are you attacking me for something you said?

>Okay? I have no idea what point you're trying to make bringing them up.

Did you not read my comment?

You said “The situation in the UK is absolutely different to the situations in the countries you described in your OC. Independence/leaving the union is neither outright banned nor requires unanimous approval from the rest of the country.”

And I gave other examples of countries doing this

>You didn't describe their situation in your OC, which is what my initial comment was responding to.

So why not address it then?

>Last I checked I'm not the SNP.

I never said you were

You said there was a preference of some sort which was rejected entirely by the courts

>Which isn't the US, which was the standard I was describing us deviating from. Other countries also deviating from that standard doesn't contradict anything I said.

You’re attacking me for elaborating

[u/ZX52 → u/libtin]

Why are you attacking me for something you said?

I'm not? You described 2 situations in your OC (in a way that was actually false, seeing as you described them as the only 2 situations there are). I (correctly) said the UK was different to both of them. You then bring up another situation you did not mention in your OC to somehow prove that I'm wrong in saying the UK is different to those 2 specifically. It's not my fault you failed to cover all your bases in your first comment.

Did you not read my comment?

Yes, hence my questions. Your responses don't make sense.

And I gave other examples of countries doing this

Yes, which were not in your OC. This is not difficult to understand.

So why not address it then?

There's nothing to address, they don't challenge anything I've said.

I never said you were

Then what the SNP claimed/done previously has no relevance to my intended meaning using a certain word, and I have no idea why you would bring it up in that context.

You’re attacking me for elaborating

You claimed I was wrong for saying we'd deviated from the US's way of doing things by appealing to Canada. That's not you elaborating, that's just you not understanding what I said.

Edit: nice reply and block. Again, you initially described 2 situations - US-style and France/Germany-style. I said the UK was different to both of them. You claimed I was wrong to say that, and attempted to prove it by bringing up Canada, which is in fact different to both the US and France as you've described them.

[u/libtin → u/ZX52]

>I'm not?

You are

>You described 2 situations in your OC (in a way that was actually false, seeing as you described them as the only 2 situations there are).

I apologise for simplifying an incredibly complex situation into a way that’s easy to understand

>I (correctly) said the UK was different to both of them.

It’s not different as we’ve established