Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If the snp are going to stir up another shitstorm to get a referendum they should negotiate the full terms of what that means in advance - otherwise it is purely emotive and for the sake of it.

You need to check your facts. It is in fact Westminster that consistently refused to enter into any pre-negotiations whatsoever. I suspect that stance would remain in the event of another referendum. The Yes side were all up for pre-negotiation. Sadly rebuffed on several occasions. So the SNP can't do as you ask.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As quoted before, a one party state is a state in which only one party is allowed to stand for election. Not when the other parties are just crap.



Nah, nothing so dramatic. They'll simply call and arrange the referendum they are mandated to hold if the SNP return a majority in May. Like Cameron did with the EU one in the Conservative's manifesto. The big fuss and hand wringing about it all will be elsewhere, not Scotland.. apart from a rapidly diminishing group ( thank you Tory majority ! ) that don't want another one.

whatever any party in scotland may choose to include in an election manifesto, it has no legal status within the sovereign state: which is why you need to start thinking about other alternative strategies.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

whatever any party in scotland may choose to include in an election manifesto, it has no legal status within the sovereign state: which is why you need to start thinking about other alternative strategies.

Advisory referenda don't need to be 'legally binding' in order to be held. The legal arguments would come afterwards. However..

. Referendums are not opinion polls: their purpose is not to test public opinion, but to make decisions. They are appeals directly to the people to make a decision that, for whatever reason, is felt to be more appropriately made by the public than by a legislature.

As the House of Lords Constitution Committee observed in its authoritative report on referendums and their place in the UK constitutional order, even where a referendum was legally only advisory, “it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion” (12th report of 2009-10, HL 99, para 197). This sense of the binding/advisory distinction may therefore not amount to very much.

http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/12/adam-tomkins-the-scottish-parliament-and-the-independence-referendum/

Prof Adam Tomkins was an advisor/prominent member of BetterTogether, negotiated on the Smith Commission, and plans to stand as a Conservative MSP in Glasgow in May. I think Hamish used a lot of his quotes during the campaign. Tomkins is not an SNP fan.

And a random quote from elsewhere on that blog...

Whatever your position on Scottish independence you must accept that Scotland could not realistically remain in the union if overwhelming support for Independence were to develop.

kabayiri

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I think it would be fair for the Scottish people to know what independence means in advance of voting for it.

Yes, it would be fair.

But there's loads on which they have no idea.

They never reached any agreement on a so called currency union. Unknown #1.

There were question marks over acceptance into Europe for the new fledgling nation, despite being an Euro-friendly party. Unknown #2.

They have no idea on timescales. Last time independence would take only 18 months. Now, FFA could take years. They are just guessing on what is needed. Unknown #3.

They have no agreement with Westminster over the future of Trident in Scotland. Unknown #4.

They have a big income gap, plugged currently by Westminster, but no clear way to close this gap. Unknown #5.

Hmm...

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Advisory referenda don't need to be 'legally binding' in order to be held. The legal arguments would come afterwards. However..

http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/12/adam-tomkins-the-scottish-parliament-and-the-independence-referendum/

Prof Adam Tomkins was an advisor/prominent member of BetterTogether, negotiated on the Smith Commission, and plans to stand as a Conservative MSP in Glasgow in May. I think Hamish used a lot of his quotes during the campaign. Tomkins is not an SNP fan.

And a random quote from elsewhere on that blog...

you know I 100% agree with you that scotland will be under german control within say 5 years

the only issue is tactics but stick to realistic arguments

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

whatever any party in scotland may choose to include in an election manifesto, it has no legal status within the sovereign state: which is why you need to start thinking about other alternative strategies.

I'm not sure why they don't call for an UK wide referendum on Scotland leaving the Union Marital home.

It's more likely to lead to a Yes vote, and that's what counts I think.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Yes, it would be fair.

But there's loads on which they have no idea.

Well you have no idea what the UK will look like in 10 years time either. Things can change very quickly in a short space of time.

They never reached any agreement on a so called currency union. Unknown #1.

It's known now. There won't be one.

There were question marks over acceptance into Europe for the new fledgling nation, despite being an Euro-friendly party. Unknown #2.

There are question marks whether the UK will even be part of the EU as early as 2017. What's the difference there ?

They have no idea on timescales. Last time independence would take only 18 months. Now, FFA could take years. They are just guessing on what is needed. Unknown #3.

The timescale's involved isn't something people will vote No over. Like 'oooh if it takes 18 months I'll vote Yes.. but if it takes longer than that, I'll vote No instead'. Is a non-issue. FFA would take years, because it involves the entire UK and other devolved parliaments too. Unravelling some things, yet keeping the union intact to everyone's satisfaction. Would take a very long time. Independence is a clean cut bar a few years worth of wrangling.

They have no agreement with Westminster over the future of Trident in Scotland. Unknown #4.

Independent Scotland. No Trident. That's it. However that is one area where 'timescales' would need to be agreed to move them.

They have a big income gap, plugged currently by Westminster, but no clear way to close this gap. Unknown #5.

So does the UK. Plugged by borrowing. It remains to be seen if Osborne's rehashed austerity measures get him any further than the last time he tried them in 2010 and promises of 'surpluses' etc back then. We'll see. Hmmmm...

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm not sure why they don't call for an UK wide referendum on Scotland leaving the Union Marital home.

It's more likely to lead to a Yes vote, and that's what counts I think.

That's the same as letting the rest of the EU vote on the UK leaving the union. Not really realistic is it.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

you know I 100% agree with you that scotland will be under german control within say 5 years

the only issue is tactics but stick to realistic arguments

I didn't say anything about Scotland and Germany. You did. There's nothing to agree with.;)

Realistically however, if there is a further significant ground swell towards independence from the polling now. And a majority of Scots residents want it. Cameron is not going to be able to stop it simply by saying 'No'. In fact he'll likely just increase support for it. Nor will the same arguments and Vow's work. Even Gordon Brown is realising the game is up re the further powers he himself promised.

Yesterday:-

Giving evidence to a parliamentary group at Westminster on devolution, the former Prime Minister expressed frustration at the process of handing over more powers to Holyrood, and said the Scotland Bill was falling short of the recommendations made by the Smith Commission.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I didn't say anything about Scotland and Germany. You did. There's nothing to agree with.;)

Realistically however, if there is a further significant ground swell towards independence from the polling now. And a majority of Scots residents want it. Cameron is not going to be able to stop it simply by saying 'No'. In fact he'll likely just increase support for it. Nor will the same arguments and Vow's work. Even Gordon Brown is realising the game is up re the further powers he himself promised.

Yesterday:-

If that's the case, Scottish people shouldn't have voted No.

There should not be a Neverendum.