indyref2 consultation responses published

THIS blog was created because in the bill consultation indyref1 they refused to publish my submission, and gave no good reason for it.

At least this time they have published it. consult.scotland.gov.uk/elections-and-constitutional-development-division/draft-referendum-bill/consultation/view_respondent?show_all_questions=0&_q__text=maurice&uuId=590419023 They have made a mess of its readability by the way they have published it, their formatting has failed to have any paragraphs. So you have to struggle with that; but I had divided up my main points with asterisks and ~ signs, and that now helps a bit to overcome the mess. They show you where at least the more important paragraph breaks should be.

Important points about the inclusiveness of future citizenship rules are made and exist in the record. These points were of course made before Sturgeon tried to call indyref2, let alone before the election, but only after those events have they published the responses.

Gibraltar point

Spain has always been diplomatically changeable. During indyref1 it gave different indications at different times, of its vetoing intentions in the EU, so that both sides were able to quote as suited them, The Yessers always made a religion of the quote they selected, waa look a foreign minister expressed disinterest, so Spain won't veto us, ignore all other signs. But anyone who acy followed the news got to see that Spain's politicians were divided in their intentions, and we would never know, still will never know, who will be the Spanish government at the time of a Scottish application to the EU.

You can tell from the timing, that Spain's present move of saying no veto is part of its new game over Gibraltar. An unfavourable leverage upon Britain over that territorial unit which alsi has had a ref (2002) and voted British.

We have got used to always saying Spain, when discussing the veto issue, because of Catalonia's prominence, But Spain was never the only vetoing country. Belgium, Italy, Romania all remain possible vetos.

Democracy required to be one-sided ?

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642

- The petition to British govt taking a constitutional position that indyref2 now should not be authorised.

Because it is a high frequency neverendum, indyref1 has still only been over for 2 1/2 years, and had a 3 year lead in! and it is lop-sided, not parity, to gave frequent neverendum on an ussue where only 1 sice can choose to gave it after every loss, and the other side get finished by one loss. That is why Jeremy Corbyn is wrong to think democracy requires accepting it.

It would be different for an issue that both sides might want to revisit regularly, e.g. if a measurable public reaction against Brexit happens as they experience loss of European-linked facilities and open doors. Which, the EU and Spain have quickly retold us, we won't get back by the indy route.