The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Pot.
Kettle.
Yet again!

Aye! Well said!
:T

Like Mollycat said - clusterposts.
All repetitive stuff too that we've been through.
Pointless.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life wrote: »

Aye! Well said!
:T

Like Mollycat said - clusterposts.
All repetitive stuff too that we've been through.
Pointless.

Thanks for joining and your constructive discussion point.
They're in clusters as I pop in from time to time and respond to the points raised.

mayonnaise

And...another thread has been AMSJ-ed.
Shame.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

When you have something new to say rather than recycling old, tired arguments I will respond.
All of the above have been amply responded to earlier.

I would and could show where you failed to respond, but I don;t think there is any value.

End of discussion then

IveSeenTheLight

mayonnaise wrote: »

And...another thread has been AMSJ-ed.
Shame.

What is AMSJ?

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...If the SNP's return as the majority party in Scotland. Will you finally accept this as a legitimate mandate for the section 30 question to be answered?

It's a legitimate mandate for the SNP to table a motion in Parliament, or a private members bill, or whatever, requesting a Section 30 order.

But Parliament can still say 'No'. Parliament is sovereign. The SNP can put whatever is likes in its manifesto. It could state that every Scottish resident will receive a £10,000 tax refund on the 5th April 2018. or whatever it likes. There would be no obligation on the UK government to do so.

A mandate, as in a promise in a manifesto, is only really relevant if you win the election. The SNP can't win the election, because it's only standing in 59 seats out of 650.:)

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Thanks for joining and your constructive discussion point.
They're in clusters as I pop in from time to time and respond to the points raised.

Nah.
You are very obviously just trollling. It's been pointed out quite a few times now by a few posters too.
There's no need for multiple posts all saying the same thing.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mayonnaise wrote: »

And...another thread has been AMSJ-ed.
Shame.

Oh - not another thread ISTL'd then?

Why not the shame for that, Mayo?
:whistle:

mayonnaise

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What is AMSJ?

Abbreviation for that tiresome poster strutting around the forums pointing out spelling errors.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

It's a legitimate mandate for the SNP to table a motion in Parliament, or a private members bill, or whatever, requesting a Section 30 order.

Thanks you.
Some are still adamant it does not.

antrobus wrote: »

But Parliament can still say 'No'. Parliament is sovereign. The SNP can put whatever is likes in its manifesto. It could state that every Scottish resident will receive a £10,000 tax refund on the 5th April 2018. or whatever it likes. There would be no obligation on the UK government to do so.

I understand and accept that.
Any other discussions are hypothetical theories as to what could happen if they said no.

antrobus wrote: »

A mandate, as in a promise in a manifesto, is only really relevant if you win the election. The SNP can't win the election, because it's only standing in 59 seats out of 650.:)

Ok, I accept that definition, but in the verb context, if the SNP return the most seats on Scotland, it does reaffirm a mandate (authority) to go forward with the request again.