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

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...

Most likely this will be via a Scottish General election with the SNP and the Greens sticking a 'we will open negotiations asap with the UK Govt regarding independence' clause in their manifestos along with negotiations to remain in the Single Market. Possibly a timescale and an implicit pledge that SNP MP's will no longer attend Westminster after x date or y has been negotiated. Something along those lines.

The next Holyrood elections are in 2021. Brexit is in 2019, unless something exciting happens. So that might be a little on the late side.:)

If Scotland wants to be in the single European market it can sort that out for itself, when and if it becomes independent and has the capacity to do so.

Something along those lines, indeed. :rotfl:

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

No it doesn't. Whether or not you believe Scotland is a nation, or a country, or a region inhabited by a strange race of Buckfast drinking kilt wearers, is irrelevant.

It's the legal status of the Holyrood Parliament that matters. It has no power to change the constitution. End of.

On the powers to change the UK's ( unwritten ) constitution I have never disagreed with you.

But having a vote by whatever means and asking the Scottish electorate for their opinion isn't illegal in itself. Why would it be ?

Stop sending any more money to Holyrood, Freeze access to the UK banking system. Blockade the M6 and all routes north, and wait for famine to set in.

The possibilities are endless.:)

Although a simple repeal of the Scotland Act and the imposition of direct rule might be simpler. After all, "The most fundamental rule of UK constitution is parliament is sovereign and can make or unmake any law it chooses."

Scotland kept it's own legal system in 1707. There IS no UK law that applies in Scotland, simply laws which are then replicated into Scottish Law. That's actually why the Tories are going to have big problems getting Holyrood to pass the Withdrawal bill. EU law is also directly written into Scottish Law by the fact that we are in the EU.

And how would you impose direct rule once a majority of the Scots electorate has indicated they no longer wish Westminster governance ? Please expand.

P.S. The Articles of Union are what granted "full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation, to and from
any Port or Place within the said United Kingdom". So now your UDI Scotland has no free trade with anybody.:rotfl:

After Brexit, should Scotland go independent and remain in the Single Market there will probably be far more trade going through Scotland than does with an isolated little England and Wales. I'd be worried rather than laughing if I was you to be honest.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

The next Holyrood elections are in 2021. Brexit is in 2019, unless something exciting happens. So that might be a little on the late side.:)

If Scotland wants to be in the single European market it can sort that out for itself, when and if it becomes independent and has the capacity to do so.

The SNP/Greens only have to wait until an opportune time in the Brexit timeline.. perhaps a sudden break down of talks, or a crisis in the NHS,recession looming.. events etc etc.. Sturgeon resigns. The other parties don't have enough numbers to form a government between them = Scottish General Election.

Something along those lines, indeed. :rotfl:

I do admit enjoying winding you up a wee bit there. But in all honesty, vote happens Scotland votes to open negotiations on independence... Sturgeon stands out on the steps of Bute House, announces that due to the vote the Treaty of 1707 is no more from x date. There's not really a lot you can do about it if the Scottish electorate are behind her as a majority ?

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP/Greens only have to wait until an opportune time in the Brexit timeline.. perhaps a sudden break down of talks, or a crisis in the NHS,recession looming.. events etc etc.. Sturgeon resigns. The other parties don't have enough numbers to form a government between them = Scottish General Election.

Inability of a devolved parliament to form a government = direct rule. See Northern Ireland.

And the trouble with 'engineering' an election is that you don't necessarily get the result that you want.

P.S. Isn't Sturgeon responsible for NHS Scotland? Perhaps she should resign if it was in "crisis". But wouldn't the SNP just pick someone else?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
I do admit enjoying winding you up a wee bit there.

Yes, you've used similar get outs before; it was only a joke, etc and so forth, when you have nothing even remotely sensible to say.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...But in all honesty, vote happens Scotland votes to open negotiations on independence... Sturgeon stands out on the steps of Bute House, announces that due to the vote the Treaty of 1707 is no more from x date.

Wouldn't that be the job of Holyrood?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
There's not really a lot you can do about it if the Scottish electorate are behind her as a majority ?

Well they weren't behind her earlier this year, now were they? SNP 37%, sundry unionists 63%.:rotfl:

And besides, there is still a lot that can be done about it.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

On the powers to change the UK's ( unwritten ) constitution I have never disagreed with you.

But having a vote by whatever means and asking the Scottish electorate for their opinion isn't illegal in itself. Why would it be ?

Illegal means not lawful. So the answer would be, that's what the Scotland Act says.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..
Scotland kept it's own legal system in 1707. There IS no UK law that applies in Scotland, simply laws which are then replicated into Scottish Law. That's actually why the Tories are going to have big problems getting Holyrood to pass the Withdrawal bill. EU law is also directly written into Scottish Law by the fact that we are in the EU.

Apart from every piece of legislation passed between 1707 and 1999?

Anyway, by convention, the UK Parliament does not legislate for devolved matters, but there are an awful lot of reserved matters. Such as benefits, employment, trade and industry..........

http://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

I am (almost) dumbfounded by your ability to post something so stupidly wrong.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..
And how would you impose direct rule once a majority of the Scots electorate has indicated they no longer wish Westminster governance ? Please expand.

Stop sending any money to Scotland?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..

After Brexit, should Scotland go independent and remain in the Single Market there will probably be far more trade going through Scotland than does with an isolated little England and Wales. I'd be worried rather than laughing if I was you to be honest.

Scotland cannot "go independent and remain in the Single Market". Scotland goes independent and then applies to join the Single Market. Both the EU and EFTA have made this very clear. In fact, I have previously made it very clear in this very thread, with cited links to the applicable treaties.

You should really have paid more attention.:rotfl:

Shaka_Zulu

It really is time the Scotland Act 1998 was repealed.

Just another layer of ineffectual government that costs Scotland dear!

I thought devolution was about devolving power the SNP see it as centralising power.

Shakey must have been taking her braveheart pills again talking about a majority of Scots for independence..........aye right!

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Inability of a devolved parliament to form a government = direct rule. See Northern Ireland.

You're in fantasy land if you think Westminster is just going to impose direct rule and get rid of Holyrood anytime soon. If you're going to debate then at least come back with some real possibilities and a touch of reality.

And the trouble with 'engineering' an election is that you don't necessarily get the result that you want.

That is true. But I did say at 'an opportune' moment maximising chances.

Reality check is that a second section 30 won't be granted. It won't be outright refused but it won't be granted as things stand either. Should the SNP/Greens start making noises about a referendum... Folks like yourself will be crawling all over forums and comments sections, and the news will be 24/7 full of Catalonia similarities and doom warnings about 'illegal' referendums and boycotts for the truly gullible.

P.S. Isn't Sturgeon responsible for NHS Scotland? Perhaps she should resign if it was in "crisis". But wouldn't the SNP just pick someone else?

I was using possible Brexit fallout consequences as mere examples for you. But the point was that in order to get round the problem of no section 30 and the truly gullible being force fed crap about Scotland being a second Catalonia. Any vote is going to have to be something the electorate will fully participate in. This means a legal Scottish General Election. Both the SNP and the Greens will be expilict in that they will be seeking to start independence/single market negotiations in their manifestos. The Scottish electorate can make up their own minds then whatever it's to be.

If Brexit/jobs/farming/businesses/etc is truly going t**s up then the SNP/Greens need have no worries. Davidson won't be riding to the rescue on the white charger since over the last few months the increased spotlight on her and her ( whoops off to referee a football game instead of attend a vote ) party has resulted in them tanking in the polls. Neither will whoever leads Scottish Labour ( Sarwar would be much better for independence purposes though ! ).

Yes, you've used similar get outs before; it was only a joke, etc and so forth, when you have nothing even remotely sensible to say.

Wouldn't that be the job of Holyrood?

Well they weren't behind her earlier this year, now were they? SNP 37%, sundry unionists 63%.:rotfl:

And besides, there is still a lot that can be done about it.

If there's any sort of independence announcement it will indeed be Nicola Sturgeon at Bute House making it. Not sure why you think that wouldn't make sense. And what is this 'lots' can be done about it then ?

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Illegal means not lawful. So the answer would be, that's what the Scotland Act says.
Apart from every piece of legislation passed between 1707 and 1999?

Anyway, by convention, the UK Parliament does not legislate for devolved matters, but there are an awful lot of reserved matters. Such as benefits, employment, trade and industry..........

http://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

I am (almost) dumbfounded by your ability to post something so stupidly wrong.



Stop sending any money to Scotland?

Scotland cannot "go independent and remain in the Single Market". Scotland goes independent and then applies to join the Single Market. Both the EU and EFTA have made this very clear. In fact, I have previously made it very clear in this very thread, with cited links to the applicable treaties.

You should really have paid more attention.:rotfl:

How would you 'send no money to Scotland' yet Scotland still be in the UK ? You're describing independence. :T

Scottish Law and English/Welsh Law are completely different and always have been. I don't think you know what you mean when you throw words like 'UK Law' about. There's more than one version. Which one is it you keep going on about ?

Convention ? No longer necessary after the recent Article 50 ruling regarding the Sewell Convention. The word 'normally' changes things so as to be meaningless as was said at the time. But it's not really the point. It would be politically explosive to over ride Holyrood. There are are also many folks who while not convinced of independence would have to think very carefully about which way to jump should Westminster repeatedly take control. I include many from other parties in these. Shaka above is amusing to read but not particularly representative of most Scots voters views.

As for EFTA or the Single Market it doesn't really matter whether its to remain or reapply as long as a real tangible possibility is there. Should it become a certainty that staying in the UK means being out of the Single Market etc.. and if it's causing massive day to day problems especially when it comes to jobs and the money in people's pockets.. then people will vote accordingly when the opportunity presents itself.

Which it will, legally and with no boycotts as I described in the post above this one. :A

Saying all this though. May is really just clinging on at the moment. Could be all change in a heartbeat.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

How would you 'send no money to Scotland' yet Scotland still be in the UK ? You're describing independence. :T...

Let's put it this way, if the SNP were to declare UDI, how is Holyrood going to operate without any money and no bank accounts?

See what happened in Catalonia. The merest suggestion of UDI and the banks (plus hundreds of other companies) relocated their head offices somewhere else.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...Scottish Law and English/Welsh Law are completely different and always have been. I don't think you know what you mean when you throw words like 'UK Law' about. There's more than one version. Which one is it you keep going on about ?

There is only one version of the law at any one point in time.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...

Convention ? No longer necessary after the recent Article 50 ruling regarding the Sewell Convention. The word 'normally' changes things so as to be meaningless as was said at the time. But it's not really the point. It would be politically explosive to over ride Holyrood. There are are also many folks who while not convinced of independence would have to think very carefully about which way to jump should Westminster repeatedly take control. I include many from other parties in these. Shaka above is amusing to read but not particularly representative of most Scots voters views.

Parliament is sovereign. It can make or unmake any laws it likes.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
As for EFTA or the Single Market it doesn't really matter whether its to remain or reapply as long as a real tangible possibility is there. Should it become a certainty that staying in the UK means being out of the Single Market etc.. and if it's causing massive day to day problems especially when it comes to jobs and the money in people's pockets.. then people will vote accordingly when the opportunity presents itself.

Which it will, legally and with no boycotts as I described in the post above this one. :A

Anyway, know you seem to be floating a different scenario, when a post Brexit Scotland is suffering "massive day to day problems especially when it comes to jobs and the money in people's pockets"due to "being out of the Single Market".

See, I told you that Scotland could not 'remain' in the EEA.:)

kabayiri

If Scottish independence was going to happen and be a success, I think 2014 marked a pretty high watermark.

You had projected oil revenues to support the argument, and it is undeniable that the UK as a whole was in better financial health. An independent Scotland is going to rely on a healthy rUK, certainly in the early years.

Of course, the independence supporters could try sell the independence dream on the slogan "you will be worse off post-independence but not as badly as being in the Union".

It's hardly aspirational though is it? In tough times don't you batten down the hatches and wait for better economic weather?