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

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

Nope, but a high ranking SNP official none the less, who's duties include posting the kind of spin and propaganda that has poisoned this thread for 600+ pages.

Worth bearing in mind when evaluating the motivation of this poster and the level of credibility allocated to the content of their posts!

You've lost the plot. :rotfl:

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Why would they want to stop a vote that has no meaning?

P.S. in any case it would be the UK Supreme Court that would decide. The constitution is a reserved matter.

You haven't read. The Referendum Bill is primary legislation and has been deemed within Holyrood competence.

The Presiding Officer, Ken Macintosh, has agreed the bill is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Any referendum from it will not be primary legislation, so can't be challenged or referred immediately to the Supreme Court. Any referendum that comes from the Referendum Bill would be a decision of the Scottish Parliament and MSP's. This means challenges will have to follow a completely different legal path and one that starts off in Scottish legal waters. The next Scottish referendum won't actually BE legislation you see. The Supreme Court won't be involved for a while.

What Nicola Sturgeon says about a Section 30 is all said in the surest knowledge she won't get one, all designed to further boost independence support by Boris or Jeremy saying No. And it will. She uses extremely careful language about 'putting things beyond doubt' etc.. but... at no point ever has she said she won't hold one on the basis of no Section 30. And again, in front of your face, the Scottish Govt has already voted one through and is legislating for it.

Referendums are now legal in Scotland ( or will be shortly ). The Supreme Court will be the very last in line as any challenge grinds it's way though the entire Scottish legal system first. A vote will be held well before the outcome of that, by which time it'll be too late. And in any case the clamour from Scots voters themselves in a few months time may well be politically difficult to ignore.

SpiderLegs

Please please please will you lot just get on with it.

mollycat

SpiderLegs wrote: »

Please please please will you lot just get on with it.

Get on with what?

It's a minority of malcontents agitating for something they know they can't get and deep down don't really want anyway, (they know an independent Scotland wouldn't last the weekend).

No one here is suggesting your status as a UK citizen is put at risk, so with respect, can you not encourage others to "get on" with putting mine at risk? Cheers

Tromking

mollycat wrote: »

Get on with what?

It's a minority of malcontents agitating for something they know they can't get and deep down don't really want anyway, (they know an independent Scotland wouldn't last the weekend).

No one here is suggesting your status as a UK citizen is put at risk, so with respect, can you not encourage others to "get on" with putting mine at risk? Cheers

Well said.
When the SNP stoke the fires of division as is their want, we must remember there are millions of Brits in Scotland who are just as disgusted by their tactics as the rUK is.

baldelectrician

mollycat wrote: »

(they know an independent Scotland wouldn't last the weekend).

This is from a unionist who fails to realise the UK has managed the UK economo so well that the UK national debt has went from £700 BILLION to over £2200 BILLION since 2008/9

So when you say 'won't last the weekend' you fail to see the UK is already a basket case.

We need out from a 'country' that bails out the bankers to the tune of over £300 BILLION but cuts firefighters, nurses, police and other public servants who are much more useful and essential

Tromking

baldelectrician wrote: »

We need out from a 'country' that bails out the bankers to the tune of over £300 BILLION but cuts firefighters, nurses, police and other public servants who are much more useful and essential

I think a lot Scots will be grateful that as a result of the UK's multi-billion pound bail out of RBS, that the exposure to risk was shared with 55 million other Brits.
I'm also wondering what sort of austerity Scotland would have had, if it had the same sort of per capita public sector spend as England has endured.
With due deference to mollycat, I sometimes wish independence on the Nats, if only to see them explain away to the rest of Scotland the instant penury it would have to deal with.

baldelectrician

Tromking wrote: »

I think a lot Scots will be grateful that as a result of the UK's multi-billion pound bail out of RBS, that the exposure to risk was shared with 55 million other Brits.

Thanks for highlighting the RBS thing, to clarify the facts;

1. RBS was a UK based bank and regulated from Westminster (who failed to do this correctly)
2. Had Scotland been independent any Scottish Government would have been liable for around 15% of the bail out- as per the Fortis Bank situation in the Benelux conuntries.
3. The liability lies where the tax take is, 85% of RBS was in London (does not matter where the head office is- the financial activity location gives the tax liability)
4. The UK government would have had 85% of RBS taxes up to this point so they would be liable for regulation and taxation in London

Thrugelmir

baldelectrician wrote: »

This is from a unionist who fails to realise the UK has managed the UK economo so well that the UK national debt has went from £700 BILLION to over £2200 BILLION since 2008/9

The Head Office is in Edinburgh.

The London base was the old Nat West which RBS took over.

Salmond was a supporter of light touch regulation. Shows how fickle politicians can be when it suits them. Now of course everything is blamed on Westminster. As history gets rewritten.

A certain Andrew Wilson was Goodwin's chief economist. What's his role now.

Tromking

baldelectrician wrote: »

Thanks for highlighting the RBS thing, to clarify the facts;

1. RBS was a UK based bank and regulated from Westminster (who failed to do this correctly)
2. Had Scotland been independent any Scottish Government would have been liable for around 15% of the bail out- as per the Fortis Bank situation in the Benelux conuntries.
3. The liability lies where the tax take is, 85% of RBS was in London (does not matter where the head office is- the financial activity location gives the tax liability)
4. The UK government would have had 85% of RBS taxes up to this point so they would be liable for regulation and taxation in London

I thought you said that bail outs of bankers were a bad thing and now your taking solace in the fact that Scotland would only be laible to a mere 15% of any RBS bailout.
I'm making the wild assumption that the number of Scottish based customers of RBS outnumbers those based in the rUK and my original point that Scottish savers would be relieved that the whole of the UK shared the cost of the bailout still stands.
You would've let the banks go under of course, or do you?