International law is irrelevant. The Scotch National Party has never got close to winning the support of 50 % of the electorate at any election. Polls are for Mel Gibson, in the privacy of the voting booth and on the sofa for the sizeable number who can’t be troubled to vote, the inhabitants of Scotland, not just the bourgeois eyeing a sinecure in Brussels or The Hague, express a strong preference for the status quo. Independence is a risky business, and over the last fifty years the education system in Scotland has produced a cohort who are uncomfortable around and unprepared for risk.
Some nice detail here, though you possibly you need to follow up on internal and external self-determination in (so-called) international law? The UK can argue it supports the self-determination of peoples, that their actions towards Wales and Scotland have already met the their demands under internal self-determination, and it is even a rather grey area whether NI rejoining Ireland actually accounts as external self-determination (because they move from one interior state to another without surfacing). Instead, they'll claim external self-determination applies to colonies, and Scotland is not that, de jure.
The Declaration of Recognition of Popular Sovereign Rights doesn't sit inside any Westminster framework, yet your points try to put it there. In Scotland's situation, the Community of the Realm has no need to recognise the Scotland Act or the Union framework before it, because the right of self-determination sits above both. The right to self-determination belongs to the people of each nation whatever category anyone else files them under. For the record, though:
The distinction between internal and external self-determination was built after 1960 to keep decolonisation inside the salt-water thesis, which decides the question before it is asked and leaves the deciding to the coloniser. Common Article 1 says "all peoples", with no tiers and no geography, and 1(3) binds the States Parties, the UK included since 20 May 1976.
As for internal self-determination being met, last week answered it yet again: "off limits" from Downing Street on the 9th, a Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood cannot ask, and a Section 30 refusable at will. That is the right encased rather than satisfied.
Scotland's sovereignty has never required filtering through Chapter XI for any form of validation. It runs on an unbroken chain of heritable legal instruments on either side of the Claim of Right 1689, unrepealed, and it was validated again by a Treaty between two states, where Westminster's own royal commission said in 1954 that Scotland entered "as a partner and not as a dependency", and by a saturation of Acts and statutes in Westminster's own records that confirm the same. Ireland's sovereignty carries its own chain, and a treaty recognised by Britain's own signature. Neither needs a UN list.
What the peoples eventually choose to recorded will be for themselves and does not need to seek or wait on a definition supplied by any other party.
International law is irrelevant. The Scotch National Party has never got close to winning the support of 50 % of the electorate at any election. Polls are for Mel Gibson, in the privacy of the voting booth and on the sofa for the sizeable number who can’t be troubled to vote, the inhabitants of Scotland, not just the bourgeois eyeing a sinecure in Brussels or The Hague, express a strong preference for the status quo. Independence is a risky business, and over the last fifty years the education system in Scotland has produced a cohort who are uncomfortable around and unprepared for risk.
If international law is irrelevant, so is the objection, since it rests on nothing else.
You are confusing observation with objection.
Some nice detail here, though you possibly you need to follow up on internal and external self-determination in (so-called) international law? The UK can argue it supports the self-determination of peoples, that their actions towards Wales and Scotland have already met the their demands under internal self-determination, and it is even a rather grey area whether NI rejoining Ireland actually accounts as external self-determination (because they move from one interior state to another without surfacing). Instead, they'll claim external self-determination applies to colonies, and Scotland is not that, de jure.
The Declaration of Recognition of Popular Sovereign Rights doesn't sit inside any Westminster framework, yet your points try to put it there. In Scotland's situation, the Community of the Realm has no need to recognise the Scotland Act or the Union framework before it, because the right of self-determination sits above both. The right to self-determination belongs to the people of each nation whatever category anyone else files them under. For the record, though:
The distinction between internal and external self-determination was built after 1960 to keep decolonisation inside the salt-water thesis, which decides the question before it is asked and leaves the deciding to the coloniser. Common Article 1 says "all peoples", with no tiers and no geography, and 1(3) binds the States Parties, the UK included since 20 May 1976.
As for internal self-determination being met, last week answered it yet again: "off limits" from Downing Street on the 9th, a Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood cannot ask, and a Section 30 refusable at will. That is the right encased rather than satisfied.
Scotland's sovereignty has never required filtering through Chapter XI for any form of validation. It runs on an unbroken chain of heritable legal instruments on either side of the Claim of Right 1689, unrepealed, and it was validated again by a Treaty between two states, where Westminster's own royal commission said in 1954 that Scotland entered "as a partner and not as a dependency", and by a saturation of Acts and statutes in Westminster's own records that confirm the same. Ireland's sovereignty carries its own chain, and a treaty recognised by Britain's own signature. Neither needs a UN list.
What the peoples eventually choose to recorded will be for themselves and does not need to seek or wait on a definition supplied by any other party.