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

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

One could argue that our living standards already needs to play catch up.

Incidentally, I'm not pinning hopes on a miracle, but I do realise that having MP's who have full autonomy and are able to steer the country in the best direction.
This is a far better outlook than being kept in the shadows, dragged along by the policies that suit albeit a wider audience, but to the detriment of outlying areas.

The configuration of the UK currently means that Scotland does well out of it. The Barnett formula goes a long way to providing services in rural areas in Scotland. What will replace that funding in an independent Scotland? Higher taxation? Or will the funding decline?

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Your problem is if the majority of the electorate reject pro-independence parties on June 8th there is sound ground to say no. So not ignoring it but actually testing the will of the Scots in a general election before jumping into a divisive referendum campaign again. If you were convinced of 50%+ support for pro-indy parties I think you would be saying the same, that the will of the people should prevail rather than the will of the SNP and a Green party who sold their support out when they backed the bill in Holyrood.

There are now NO good grounds for saying no. The Scottish Parliament has already formally requested a section 30. Westminster ignoring the express will of the Scottish Parliament is an entirely different constitutional matter from the Tories slagging off the SNP and vice versa or what they all put on party political leaflets. You need to get your head round this. Refusing a section 30 isn't party political anymore. It's one parliament refusing to recognise the democratic legitimacy of another.

The Scottish Parliament as a democratic institution representing the wishes of the Scottish electorate has asked for this, not the SNP. Westminster isn't constitutionally saying no to the SNP as a political party it's saying no to the Scottish Parliament and all the democracy it stands for. This is not acceptable in a union between two countries and will cause a constitutional crisis. If Westminster no longer recognise the democratic legitimacy of Holyrood, then they'd better be prepared to shut it down altogether.

In short. This isn't party political anymore, it goes much higher than that now and the die has already been cast. This GE or vote shares don't make any difference to any of it.

But all this can wait till after 8th June.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

This general election is a defacto referendum on independence in Scotland.

It absolutely should not be.
The parties should be campaigning on the basis it is a General Election and what forms the government and opposition for the next 5 years.

We hear time and again how irrelevant Scotland is and how they cannot cater for the minority, hence the campaigning should be the same for the whole of the UK.

Its the unionist parties that are being divisive, segregating the Scottish electorate separately from the politics of the whole of the UK.

If this vote was for Independence, TM should not have said not right now

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The configuration of the UK currently means that Scotland does well out of it. The Barnett formula goes a long way to providing services in rural areas in Scotland. What will replace that funding in an independent Scotland? Higher taxation? Or will the funding decline?

Give us full autonomy and we will be able to redirect the economy strategy to better suit the needs.
Growing an economy is the best way to fund services.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If the SNP and Greens get less than 50% of the vote share then TM can safely say no in the knowledge that the majority of Scots back that position.

Absolute codswallop.

Once again, the General Election is not the forum for an answer to the referendum question.

Irrelevant anyway as TM knows that an outright no is not the way to unite a country.
Ignoring the democratic will and right would not go down well.

TrickyTree83

All this 'democratic will' talk goes out of the window if the Scottish electorate expresses its opinion that independence (i.e. parties that stand for it) is not what they want.

Section 30 or not. Asking for a referendum is different than being able to demand one. The constitutional power resides in Westminster, it won't be a constitutional crisis, since 1997 it's been this way, Holyrood is a devolved administration and cannot demand that which it does not have the power to demand.

Should the pro-indy parties get less than 50% vote share on June 8th, TM can say no safe in the knowledge that the only people who will be up in arms about it are the minority.

The democratic legitimacy argument you put forward doesn't wash since a referendum is not Holyrood's to choose, they simply chose to ask for one and that is the sum total of the action they can take on that matter according to the Scotland Act.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

All this 'democratic will' talk goes out of the window if the Scottish electorate expresses its opinion that independence (i.e. parties that stand for it) is not what they want.

I'll concede, if the SNP are not returned as the major party in Scotland then it makes it more difficult for the Scottish Government to pursue the already requested section 30.

Would you concede if the SNP returns as the major party in Scotland that they do have a mandate to progress as per the elected manifesto last year and as the the democratically voted for section 30 in Holyrood?

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Section 30 or not. Asking for a referendum is different than being able to demand one. The constitutional power resides in Westminster, it won't be a constitutional crisis, since 1997 it's been this way, Holyrood is a devolved administration and cannot demand that which it does not have the power to demand.

I've not argued alternatively, however democratically a section 30 was voted for and we still await the Government to answer.

We accept not right now, but stop delaying in saying when or indeed no.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Should the pro-indy parties get less than 50% vote share on June 8th, TM can say no safe in the knowledge that the only people who will be up in arms about it are the minority.

Once again, this General Election is not about Independence.
There should be a host of policies within each parties manifestos that people are voting on.

This is really a desperate call as no party since 1930 has achieved over 50%.
Indeed the SNP are the only party to be that close since

Its like saying if the Conservatives do not achieve 50% of the vote, they do not have a mandate to form a government

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The democratic legitimacy argument you put forward doesn't wash since a referendum is not Holyrood's to choose, they simply chose to ask for one and that is the sum total of the action they can take on that matter according to the Scotland Act.

Again, no argument.
They've asked for one.
when will there be an outright answer to the question asked?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Here
2012 :- 503,233
2017 :- 610,454




Sorry to burst your bubble. But the Tories and Labour simply swapped places for distant second.

Your squirming is just showing you up for what you really are - a procrastinator of the first order absolutely determined to cling on to what little hoe you have left.

Here you go:
2017 total number of votes cast: 1,889,658 SNP vote achieved 32.3%

2012 total number votes cast: 1,556,773 SNP Vote achieved 32.33%

So the SNP achieved 100,000 more votes in 2017 when overall
332,000 more votes were cast.

AGAIN - SNP vote share has not increased.
Fact.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It absolutely should not be.
The parties should be campaigning on the basis it is a General Election and what forms the government and opposition for the next 5 years.

We hear time and again how irrelevant Scotland is and how they cannot cater for the minority, hence the campaigning should be the same for the whole of the UK.

Its the unionist parties that are being divisive, segregating the Scottish electorate separately from the politics of the whole of the UK.

If this vote was for Independence, TM should not have said not right now

You don't half talk a load of tripe.
As usual.

Whether you like it or not (yes, we know already which it is) the whole of the UK now faces a general election.
The hint is in the name; "general election".
NOT "Scottish Parliamentary election".
Not "local election"; we just had one of them & it didn't exactly go the SNP's way, did it? 32%.
You, like every other eligible voter, will get the opportunity to vote for your preference.

We will see on June 8th whether enough agree with your POV to make a difference.
But I suspect you already realise what the result will be.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You don't half talk a load of tripe.
As usual.

What tripe, I'm in agreement with you

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Whether you like it or not (yes, we know already which it is) the whole of the UK now faces a general election.

The hint is in the name; "general election".
Not a vote on Independence
NOT "Scottish Parliamentary election". Agreed
Not "local election"; we just had one of them & it didn't exactly go the SNP's way, did it? 32%. Agreed

Conservatives achieved 36.9% in 2015
Conservatives achieved 36.1% in 2010
Labour achieved 35.2% in 2015
Not a kick in the behind away from the last three major parties in the UK.
But you do realise that vote in May was not a GE vote, was not a FPTP system, it was a STV sytem.
It was a council elections in which you could have voted for more than one party.

You, like every other eligible voter, will get the opportunity to vote for your preference.Agreed


We will see on June 8th whether enough agree with your POV to make a difference.
But I suspect you already realise what the result will be.

I suspect that the SNP will be the major party in Scotland.
Do you suspect otherwise?