See this reasoning a lot but for several reasons I don't find it persuasive. We should not accept at face value the idea that the UK is a 'multinational union' alone. It is also the British national state - a 'nation of unions'. So, as @yuanyi_z points out, are other states. (1)https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1382357258902892545 …
-
Deze collectie tonen
-
I have written about how British nationhood is essential to the unionist project several times, most recently here for
@SpecCoffeeHouse. (2)https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-the-united-kingdom-still-one-nation- …3 antwoorden 0 retweets 8 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
Next, the fact that the UK has grandfathered in so many unusual divisions in realms such as law and sport makes it more important, not less, that its central constitutional architecture takes up the strain of holding it together. You can't pair weakness with weakness. (3)
1 antwoord 0 retweets 11 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
Third, I think this idea of a 'voluntary union' is a retcon. It is certainly strange to insist that denying the right to leave 'changes' the Union whilst at the same time acknowledging that the Union lacks and has never had an official legal pathway for seceding from it. (4)
1 antwoord 0 retweets 11 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
The Treaty of Union, for example, declares that Scotland and England shall become one kingdom "hereof, and forever after". Their discrete legislatures were dissolved, and sovereignty pooled in the combined one. Nor was any *right* to secede discovered in the Irish case. (5)
1 antwoord 0 retweets 13 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
None of this means that Scotland should be barred from ever testing the question again. But unionists should not be memed into accepting a false and badly enfeebled conception of their state, no more than the nonsense that devoscepticism 'betrays their traditions'. (6)
1 antwoord 0 retweets 14 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
There is a perfectly strong practical and moral case for imposing a moratorium on Scottish independence. Without it, the basic utilitarian functions of the Union become extremely hard to justify, before the national dimension is even considered. (End.)https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/10/the-case-for-a-moratorium-on-scottish-independence.html …
3 antwoorden 1 retweet 18 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
Als antwoord op @HCH_Hill
It is the duty of any mature, liberal democracy to ensure any change to its nature is hard to achieve. That's the price of stability. 92% of the UK has been given no say in the future of its existence. Ditto re: Northern Ireland.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 3 vind-ik-leuks -
Als antwoord op @JonMarcStanley @HCH_Hill
and to borrow a phrase, a supermajority have not changed their mind since last time. Polling has shown that those wanting Yes or No have barely moved. Why force a supermajority of at least 80% to vote again for the sake of maybe 5-10% who have changed their view either way?
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks
I think this is one of the strongest arguments. The Brexit referendum was based strongly on the view of many people having voted Remain and changing their minds 40 years later.
-
-
Als antwoord op @JonMarcStanley @HCH_Hill
Brexit changed the balance of power. England's choice to raise regional trade barriers has a hefty price.
0 antwoorden 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuksBedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.