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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

An election is perfectly legal, and what's more Westminster transferred the powers to make it so last year. As well as full control over the franchise ( ie 16-17 year olds, EU nationals etc ).

If Sturgeon dissolves Holyrood, the other parties without the Greens don't have the numbers to form a Govt = Holyrood election. Want to guess what'll be in the SNP + Greens manifestos should this scenario occur ?

It'll be a bit of both. With the SNP already in front by a fair margin over the Tories, another few % points won't hurt.

I want to say I'm surprised after our last exchange to see you say this

An election is perfectly legal, and what's more Westminster transferred the powers to make it so last year.

But I'm not.

Remember how I said this GE is a Scottish referendum on another Scottish independence referendum? And you said it's not, but you're now saying that Nicola can hold a Scottish election on similar grounds. Can you explain why you don't think that is hypocrisy?

TrickyTree83

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

COMMENT: STURGEON NOW IN FULL RETREAT ON REFERENDUM

The prevailing mood in Scotland, as in the rest of the UK, is to give Brexit a chance to work.

When Nicola Sturgeon announced in March that she was seeking the power to hold a new referendum on independence, there were anxious mutterings within the SNP. A common concern was: “I hope she isn’t painting herself into a corner.”

Well, this week the first minister stepped out from the corner, walked across the wet floor and clip-clopped down the hall, leaving high-heeled footprints in sticky paint behind her.

Nobody puts Nicola in the corner.

Ms Sturgeon is in full retreat on a second referendum. And her willingness to back away from such a talismanic policy raises a question in my mind. Is it possible that the idea of a second referendum might yet be quietly dropped?

We have just witnessed a handbrake U-turn that has scorched political rubber. In March, at the SNP’s spring conference in Aberdeen, Ms Sturgeon was admirably clear. “There will be an independence referendum,” she said, to euphoric cheering from the faithful. Yet this week, interviewed on BBC Radio Scotland, Ms Sturgeon seemed less sure. Indyref2, she said, was a matter of “if” not “when”. Pressed on what currency Scotland would use after independence, she said: “Look, when we come to an independence referendum — if we come to an independence referendum — these issues will be subject to the greatest of scrutiny.”

She is tempering her language because she knows the GE is a referendum in Scotland on having a 2nd indy ref. It's too late but she's trying damage control now. The less people think that this GE is about the SNP and Greens pushing for another indy ref the more likely the anti-indy vote will stay at home.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I want to say I'm surprised after our last exchange to see you say this

Nope. The posts I was answering were cognito's assertion that there was no legal way of holding a vote/referendum on independence without a section 30. I've just shown there is..should it come to that. Perhaps Sturgeon will go the courtroom drama route instead. We don't know yet.

But I'm not.

Remember how I said this GE is a Scottish referendum on another Scottish independence referendum? And you said it's not, but you're now saying that Nicola can hold a Scottish election on similar grounds. Can you explain why you don't think that is hypocrisy?

After today's politics in Scotland I'm beginning to wonder.

Ruth Davidson: "how embarrassing, I've had to suspend two of my councillors in Stirling for racist tweets"
Kezia Dugdale: "HOLD MY BEER!"

:rotfl:

THIS GE isn't about independence though. It's about Westminster MP's, no one on the pro-indy side as far as I can tell is standing as a candidate on an indy ref/independence basis. They're standing on anti-austerity, Brexit issues and a host of other things and the electorate voting will vote accordingly on that basis. I'm afraid it's only people such as yourself who are viewing this election as far as Scotland is concerned, as something which will determine another referendum/vote.

However, should a section 30 be refused. Other routes will have to be taken, and a Holyrood election is one of those potential routes if every other avenue has been exhausted. It's not come to that as yet.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

She is tempering her language because she knows the GE is a referendum in Scotland on having a 2nd indy ref. It's too late but she's trying damage control now. The less people think that this GE is about the SNP and Greens pushing for another indy ref the more likely the anti-indy vote will stay at home.

Yes. That's right and if posters like Shaka want to spread the message around loud and clear that Sturgeon has u-turned on another referendum... so much the better !

( She won't u-turn )

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nope. The posts I was answering were cognito's assertion that there was no legal way of holding a vote/referendum on independence without a section 30. I've just shown there is..should it come to that. Perhaps Sturgeon will go the courtroom drama route instead. We don't know yet.
After today's politics in Scotland I'm beginning to wonder. :rotfl:

THIS GE isn't about independence though. It's about Westminster MP's, no one on the pro-indy side as far as I can tell is standing as a candidate on an indy ref/independence basis. They're standing on anti-austerity, Brexit issues and a host of other things and the electorate voting will vote accordingly on that basis. I'm afraid it's only people such as yourself who are viewing this election as far as Scotland is concerned, as something which will determine another referendum/vote.

However, should a section 30 be refused. Other routes will have to be taken, and a Holyrood election is one of those potential routes if every other avenue has been exhausted. It's not come to that as yet.

It was a reply to a post where you'd said that Holyrood can force the issue by holding a Scottish election.

1. You know they can't, the power is reserved.
2. Making a Scottish election vote shares about independence but Scottish general election votes not, is completely logical according to you?

The SNP and Greens can hide what they're standing in this GE on behind some vapid statements in a manifesto that will never be implemented but everyone in Scotland knows what they stand for and what their Scottish election manifesto's said. If they're not campaigning in this GE with a pro-independence stance whilst others are campaigning against independence that's their choice. Will it be a wise one? I personally doubt it, I said many many months ago I believe the worm has turned. The stakes in the game have changed and there's less concrete answers and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow than before in 2014.

.string.

In Shakey''s post above note the words

let Davidson make an a**e of herself again with her one policy

It's interesting to see these two techniques of SNP debate.

The first "let Davidson make an a**e of herself again" is the technique of belittling anyone with a different view; well that's rather familiar I think.

But has anyone noticed the second, which is recurrent on SNP-speak: it is in the words "her one policy"?

If the SNP are accused of lying, they immediately start calling everyone else liars

If economic experts say that the SNP economic policy is rubbish, they find some economic expert to day the opposite and claim all the other experts a rubbish

If someone complains about intimidation by SNP louts, they scour the web for Unionist louts

If it is pointed out that joining the EU means loosing Scotland loosing control of Fishing, they accuse Westminster of stealing the fishing rights oblivious to the number of reassurances given.

If someone calls them trolls, they call others trolls in retaliation

And now:

The SNP has rightly been called out for having tunnel vision, now it's Davidson who has a "single policy", that same Davidson who has been pointing out that the SNP have neglected their day job and has given a number of examples.

The fuzzy copycat politics goes on and on and on.


Transparently pathetic really. The messages get more and more shrill, a steady progression from a cause for a principle to sordid fanaticism.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It was a reply to a post where you'd said that Holyrood can force the issue by holding a Scottish election.

1. You know they can't, the power is reserved.
2. Making a Scottish election vote shares about independence but Scottish general election votes not, is completely logical according to you?

The powers to change the UK constitution are reserved, I've never disputed that with you. Scottish elections on whatever the parties put on their manifestos are not. This GE is a Westminster election, not a Scottish GE. We had one of those last year.

If a majority of Scots indicate that they do want to leave the UK in any future referendum/vote. I'm not really sure what May can do other than say No, and then Sturgeon goes to the international powers that be over it.

The SNP and Greens can hide what they're standing in this GE on behind some vapid statements in a manifesto that will never be implemented but everyone in Scotland knows what they stand for and what their Scottish election manifesto's said. If they're not campaigning in this GE with a pro-independence stance whilst others are campaigning against independence that's their choice. Will it be a wise one? I personally doubt it, I said many many months ago I believe the worm has turned. The stakes in the game have changed and there's less concrete answers and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow than before in 2014.

Well, we'll see Tricky. I won't be voting on independence on 8th June as far as my own vote is concerned. I'll save that for 2019 or thereabouts.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

In Shakey''s post above note the words

It's interesting to see these two techniques of SNP debate.

The first "let Davidson make an a**e of herself again" is the technique of belittling anyone with a different view; well that's rather familiar I think.

But has anyone noticed the second, which is recurrent on SNP-speak: it is in the words "her one policy"?

If the SNP are accused of lying, they immediately start calling everyone else liars

If economic experts say that the SNP economic policy is rubbish, they find some economic expert to day the opposite and claim all the other experts a rubbish

If someone complains about intimidation by SNP louts, they scour the web for Unionist louts

If it is pointed out that joining the EU means loosing Scotland loosing control of Fishing, they accuse Westminster of stealing the fishing rights oblivious to the number of reassurances given.

If someone calls them trolls, they call others trolls in retaliation

And now:

The SNP has rightly been called out for having tunnel vision, now it's Davidson who has a "single policy", that same Davidson who has been pointing out that the SNP have neglected their day job and has given a number of examples.

The fuzzy copycat politics goes on and on and on.


Transparently pathetic really. The messages get more and more shrill, a steady progression from a cause for a principle to sordid fanaticism.

Davidson really does only have one policy at the present time. I'm not going to waste my time providing examples for you, as anyone who lives here will tell you the same. Davidson has one policy, and everyone is getting bored with it. That and her councillors falling like flies over racist and sectarian views.

As for the rest of what you've described above, it's what's known commonly as 'debate'. That thing that happens when people don't agree with each other's viewpoints.

.string.

Also recurrent is the claim that May will refuse another referendum. The SNP strategy depends on it. Without that it will falter for lack of their pantomime villain .

Well if I were May (which I'm not!), I would not refuse it.

I would stick to the well-justifyable argument that now is not the time due to the reasons we have exposed before and state that a suitable time will be after Brexit has bedded in, alternative trade agreements well under way, and the Scots know what it all means and has the information. After all why break up a Union which has enjoyed considerable success over 300 years in a frantic rush.

So Yes, the Scottish Parliament may certainly bring the subject up for consideration again in the future. So it's not a "No". The request should be not before 2022 when the Trade deal with the EU is complete and the new system is up and running.

So no refusal, no valid cause for complaining to this or that international court and in good time for the next Scottish Parliament to weigh the situation, based on real data and an indisputable mandate from the Scottish People and, by a happy coincidence the UK Government will also have a fresh mandate cognisant of the true Brexit scenario.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Davidson really does only have one policy at the present time. I'm not going to waste my time providing examples for you, as anyone who lives here will tell you the same. Davidson has one policy, and everyone is getting bored with it. That and her councillors falling like flies over racist and sectarian views.

As for the rest of what you've described above, it's what's known commonly as 'debate'. That thing that happens when people don't agree with each other's viewpoints.

Well I leave judgement on that to the Scots here who will know, better than I, if Ruth is confining herself to one topic.

As to the relevance of the GE to the referendum we both know that will be argued either which way depending on how the votes go.