Scotland has right to hold indyref2 without Westminster

Thomas, keep fantasising, but you'll never achieve your goals.

Scotland is unionist.
Scotland doesn't want EU membership now the UK is out.
Scotland wants to stay part of the UK rather than spending years in limbo with border problems, trade stagnation and no sovereign currency of its own.

Scotland wouldn't pass the deficit rules of the EU, would have to commit to joining the Euro and would have to join Schengen.
There would be no budget rebate.

You'd be required to join the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and allow supertrawlers to plunder Scottish fishing grounds.

You'd be required to put capitalism first and socialism last and you a lefty would have a heart attack at the privatisation it would spark off as time goes on and the single market expands on to healthcare.

And Spain would veto you anyway to stop Catalonia breaking away.

Fantasy.

Empire??
Now you really are fantasising.
We're an independent sovereign country.
That's what matters.

You want to turn Scotland into a non sovereign subdjugated colony of the EU.



Saying that:
1) Scotland is unionist and wants to stay British.
2) If you want to break away, campaign to hold a referendum on the Act of Union in England.
3) You wouldn't qualify for EU membership.
4) As soon as you realised that being in the EU meant opening up public services to capitalist market competition, you'd balk at the idea anyway.

Watch Paxman in Brussels and learn what the EU actually is, instead of pretending that it's some sort of leftie love in.

What gets me is many of those going hysterical at the thought of Scotland becoming independent,are the biggest supporters of breaking other Countries into pieces like we saw with Yugoslavia and other places,i have no strong feelings one way or the other,but looking at the way Scotland has been treated over the years i wouldn't blame them for wanting independence.as for Farage i watched that pound shop fascist on TV trying to justify a Fascist mob attack on a Asylum Hotel,no matter what people think about asylum seekers to justify that was nauseating.

At least I understood the point being made in the OP, Squeaky. The approach mooted in the OP is a possible route for Scotland. The authors were correct to state that. It is a route that has been taken by several countries. However, the authors were also correct to state it is a highly impractical route (to say the least).

I'd be very interested to hear how Kelsen and Hart contradict each other. Have you confused Kelsen with Dworkin, or are you just indulging in more 'makey-uppy' jurisprudence, Squeaky?

You said it wasn't a contempt of court. I pointed out that the matter was as yet undecided. I assume it is still undecided, as you've provided no precedent. Because there is no precedent, you were bullshitting when you professed to provide a definitive statement of the law. If you've since found a precedent to support your position, feel free to cite it.

I see. So, you're not going to explain how Hart is inconsistent with Kelsen or cite a precedent? Are you just going to pretend you weren't asked? I'm here if you want to debate the legal points, Squeaky. I don't think you'll want to, though.