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

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

As far as I know, the Scottish Parliament has not voted to hold a Referendum.

It has voted to seek permission to hold one.

Neither has it given authority to the minority SNP Government to take other Constitutional steps to achieve that aim.

So to obtain the fig leaf of a self-administered mandate, the SNP would have to have passed a motion where the Scottish Parliament gives it that permission.

Ability to have a "consultation". That presumably also needs Scottish Parliament approval, so same difference.

There, I suspect, would be the first legal hurdle. All it needs is a challenge to the courts as to the legality of such shenanigans. Recent experience with Brexit shows what can happen.

They have voted to seek permission.. until permission is denied. Then they'll 'seek permission' elsewhere. Either via the courts or the electorate.

Imagine if Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament backed down now and this whole Brexit thing turned into the biggest cluster f-- imaginable with no exit route. How popular would May be for saying no to that exit route ?

Shakethedisease

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

Thank you for that. I had read that support was declining but to see that this decline applies to party support too is confirmation.
An interesting piece in The Spectator (a comment, not a report) explained a fair bit, as well as this thread & other sources which include my family, staunchly anti-SNP. I can understand why.


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/might-nicola-sturgeons-sinking-approval-ratings-explain-appetite-referendum/#

They're getting at least a fiver monthly off 120,000 members. I don't think they're exactly short of cash. Spectator commentary is heavily union biased and always has been. I'd be as well quoting a comment piece from WingsoverScotland at you and telling you it's 'interesting'.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They're getting at least a fiver monthly off 120,000 members. I don't think they're exactly short of cash. Spectator commentary is heavily union biased and always has been. I'd be as well quoting a comment piece from WingsoverScotland at you and telling you it's 'interesting'.

Oh really?
What are they doing with it then?
And why take so much from the Government, see below?

If WoS actually provided reasoned debate rather than propaganda you would be correct with your last, however they don't.
In direct contrast to the Spectator article you so quickly scorn.

From the Herald:

The Greens, Women’s Equality Party, Co-operative Party, Plaid Cymru and the Socialist Party of Great Britain all declared more than the SNP in donations from businesses and individuals.

And this:

THE SNP has not declared a significant* cash donation from a member of the public in six months, making it increasingly reliant on state funding to operate.

How about:

At the same time, the SNP was second only to Labour in the amount it received in public funds, banking £298,635 in “Short money” from the House of Commons.
Short money is given to all opposition parties to help their costs and is based on MP numbers, so if the SNP loses seats next month this funding stream will decline.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15304613.SNP_relying_on_public_funds_as_big_donors_dry_up/
[* The threshold for declaring donations is £7500 although parties often volunteer other sums.]


But no, according to Shakey the SNP are okay.
Again then, what are the SNP doing with this money?
And why take so much Government money - also what will they do when they get less, post GE?

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Oh really?
What are they doing with it then?
And why take so much from the Government, see below?

If WoS actually provided reasoned debate rather than propaganda you would be correct with your last, however they don't.
In direct contrast to the Spectator article you so quickly scorn.

From the Herald:

And this:

How about:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15304613.SNP_relying_on_public_funds_as_big_donors_dry_up/
[* The threshold for declaring donations is £7500 although parties often volunteer other sums.]


But no, according to Shakey the SNP are okay.
Again then, what are the SNP doing with this money?
And why take so much Government money - also what will they do when they get less, post GE?

The SNP the party and the Scottish Govt are two different things. All donations listed in these party lists are for donations over £10. The vast majority of donations to the SNP are under £10, and historically if you search through previous donation lists, the SNP are always very low down the rankings.

That said these low level under a tenner donations don't seem to have done them much harm over the last 10 years ( three concurrent Holyrood victories, a Westminster victory over all the other parties ). So we can only assume that while they don't have much in the way of large single donations like the Tories.. that they actually get quite a lot of these smaller donations under £10.

Other than that your waffles about "taking Govt money" I have no clue what your point is, since they are actually in Govt in Scotland ? The Scottish Govt using Govt money... whatever next.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP the party and the Scottish Govt are two different things. All donations listed in these party lists are for donations over £10. The vast majority of donations to the SNP are under £10, and historically if you search through previous donation lists, the SNP are always very low down the rankings.

That said these low level under a tenner donations don't seem to have done them much harm over the last 10 years ( three concurrent Holyrood victories, a Westminster victory over all the other parties ). So we can only assume that while they don't have much in the way of large single donations like the Tories.. that they actually get quite a lot of these smaller donations under £10.

Other than that your waffles about "taking Govt money" I have no clue what your point is, since they are actually in Govt in Scotland ? The Scottish Govt using Govt money... whatever next.

Oh do read the posts and stop your waffling.
Let's cut to the chase.
Scroll to the last paragraph to make it easier if you want; from your supposed understanding it appears to be your usual practise.

YOU said

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't think they're exactly short of cash.

.
So I asked:

What are the SNP doing with this money?
And why take so much Government money - also what will they do when they get less, post GE?

To make perfectly clear, that is UK Government public funds money as detailed in :

At the same time, the SNP was second only to Labour in the amount it received in public funds, banking £298,635 in “Short money” from the House of Commons.

quote from my post above.

Not the Scottish government.
The SNP.
The bit below the line is the "cut to the chase" bit.
Will we get an answer, or more blether?
___________________________________________________

Why does the SNP take so much of public funds from Westminster since you say they're not short of cash?
What does the SNP do with all this money?

Shakethedisease

ex

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Oh do read the posts and stop your waffling.
Let's cut to the chase.
Scroll to the last paragraph to make it easier if you want; from your supposed understanding it appears to be your usual practise.

YOU said .
So I asked:
To make perfectly clear, that is UK Government public funds money as detailed in : quote from my post above.

Not the Scottish government.
The SNP.
The bit below the line is the "cut to the chase" bit.
Will we get an answer, or more blether?
___________________________________________________

Why does the SNP take so much of public funds from Westminster since you say they're not short of cash?
What does the SNP do with all this money?

What cash ? I have no idea what you're on about unless you're suggesting that that the SNP don't take short money ? Short money that all political parties get in proportion to their seat numbers ? You are advocating that the SNP don't take any ?

That could be arranged some time in 2019. I'm sure all of their MP's don't want to take it either, but needs must while people keep voting them in to represent them there.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They have voted to seek permission.. until permission is denied. Then they'll 'seek permission' elsewhere. Either via the courts or the electorate.

Imagine if Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament backed down now and this whole Brexit thing turned into the biggest cluster f-- imaginable with no exit route. How popular would May be for saying no to that exit route ?

Too many "What Ifs" in that for a cogent argument Shakey.

On the matter of the SNP Referendum, you feel the need to claim that a referendum has been rejected by May, using this to "justify" an action to approach some imaginary school perfect. However under our Constitution, there is no obligation to agree to a request regarding Section 30. This, a!so considering the fact that the Constitution is a Reserved Matter, means that actions to circumscribe the UK Constitution are illegitimate, and thus use of Government Money (which is not SNP money by the way) would be illegal and at the very least subject to judicial process.

However, May has not refused a Referendum, she is refusing the timing of the request which is 2 to 5 years before it would be appropriate and also before there is clear evidence from the Scottish people of a desire for a refererendum,

The SNP can maybe try again in 5 years if they're still in office.

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

Too many "What Ifs" in that for a cogent argument Shakey.

On the matter of the SNP Referendum, you feel the need to claim that a referendum has been rejected by May, using this to "justify" an action to approach some imaginary school perfect. However under our Constitution, there is no obligation to agree to a request regarding Section 30. This, a!so considering the fact that the Constitution is a Reserved Matter, means that actions to circumscribe the UK Constitution are illegitimate, and thus use of Government Money (which is not SNP money by the way) would be illegal and at the very least subject to judicial process.

However, May has not refused a Referendum, she is refusing the timing of the request which is 2 to 5 years before it would be appropriate and also before there is clear evidence from the Scottish people of a desire for a refererendum,

The SNP can maybe try again in 5 years if they're still in office.

Why the desire to push out for 5 years?
Brexit is scheduled for March 2019, which is causing a significant change in our status.

Nicola Sturgeon offered to take a second referendum off the table had the UK government worked towards a soft Brexit.
Were not getting that, it will be a hard Brexit and this GE is TM trying to get a stronger position for that Hard Brexit.

This is why a second referendum needs to occur before it was "too late" but after "the terms of Brexit are known"

5 years is too late

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

ex

What cash ? I have no idea what you're on about unless you're suggesting that that the SNP don't take short money ? Short money that all political parties get in proportion to their seat numbers ? You are advocating that the SNP don't take any ?

That could be arranged some time in 2019. I'm sure all of their MP's don't want to take it either, but needs must while people keep voting them in to represent them there.

In case readers wonder why Shakey is squirming and yet again refusing to answer the questions I posted, here is why:

In the year 2016/7 the SNP received £1.22 million in "Short money", an explanation of which is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32719087
And confirmation of payment here in a link at the bottom of the following (Short money pdf) :
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01663

Shakey says of the SNP "I don't think they're exactly short of cash."
Why then does the SNP accept such a sum from the rUK for it's 54 Westminster MP's?

Oh and no Shakey, "Short money that all political parties get in proportion to their seat numbers" is incorrect.
Only opposition parties get Short money.
Also, UKIP's Douglas Carswell wanted to reject about £650k in 2015/6 but the party overruled him.

Again then:
Shakey says of the SNP "I don't think they're exactly short of cash."
Why then does the SNP accept such a sum (£1.22 million) from the rUK for it's 54 Westminster MP's?


More waffle will undoubtedly follow.
What will most probably not follow is a straight answer.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Shakey says of the SNP "I don't think they're exactly short of cash."

Why then does the SNP accept such a sum from the rUK for it's 54 Westminster MP's?

Is there a reason why they shouldn't?