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

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I think for Westminster to grant the current minority opinion in Scotland another indyref, they'll need to see a consistent trend in the polls in favour and of course a 50%+ vote for independence parties in a national election would help too.
In the meantime enjoy the rallies.

Westminster will never grant another section 30. Ever, no matter what. Ive been saying that here for the last few years.

Enterprise_1701C

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Westminster will never grant another section 30. Ever, no matter what. Ive been saying that here for the last few years.

Not for a generation anyway, Salmond did after all state that it was a once in a generation chance.

Shakethedisease

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Not for a generation anyway, Salmond did after all state that it was a once in a generation chance.

I guess Holyrood will have to have a ref without a sect 30 then. Legal in Scotland. Westminster will ignore/challenge and encourage boycotts but whatever the outcome it has to be done one way or another. And if the SNP don't do it.. there are plenty of others now waiting on the sidelines to form single issue parties ( I dont know how I feel about that ) in time for the next Holyrood elections.

Nicola Sturgeon's response to Boris's refusal at the end of the month will either fire the gun for some sort of event at Scottish ballot boxes ( ref, election and/or legal action )... or it will fire the gun for the formation of one or two new indy parties. All Under One Banner, the outfit that can organise 80,000 marching in Glasgow with 3 weeks notice are among the front runners.

Everyone is just waiting to see what Nicola outlines next. Mark my words though...;)

Enterprise_1701C

I would love her to have her own referendum, it would be illegal of course.

BUT would she accept the result if it went against her? I doubt it, she would then turn around and say she wanted a legal one.

Bear in mind if she goes ahead with an illegal vote she would lose all credibility. If she won the people of Scotland would lose. The only way it could be enforced by her would be if she immediately cut all ties with the UK. No currency, no foreign embassies, no lender of last resort etc etc. Oh, and I very much doubt if the eu would allow admission to their club to an illegal breakaway country.

Shakethedisease

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I would love her to have her own referendum, it would be illegal of course.

BUT would she accept the result if it went against her? I doubt it, she would then turn around and say she wanted a legal one.

Bear in mind if she goes ahead with an illegal vote she would lose all credibility. If she won the people of Scotland would lose. The only way it could be enforced by her would be if she immediately cut all ties with the UK. No currency, no foreign embassies, no lender of last resort etc etc. Oh, and I very much doubt if the eu would allow admission to their club to an illegal breakaway country.

How can it be illegal if it's deemed legal under Scottish law by the Lord Advocate and Holyrood has legislated for it ? You don't make any sense.


Sturgeon will never go ahead with any illegal referendum. But whether Holyrood has a right to go ahead with a perfectly legal one without Westminster 'permission' has never been tested in court. It probably will be very soon.

Joanna Cherry QC
The view that “legal action is unlikely to override Johnson” is wrongly attributed to me below. I’ve been quite clear that the courts may play a role in determining the limits of Holyroods powers to hold a referendum. Today a persuasive opinion from Aidan O’Neill QC has been published

He says there are good albeit untested arguments that the Scottish Parliament does have the power to legislate for the holding of a referendum on Scottish independence. Many lawyers including myself share his view. His opinion makes interesting reference to judicial opinion in both the #Wightmancase & the #Cherrycase, upon which litigations much derision was poured until we won both of them

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Not for a generation anyway, Salmond did after all state that it was a once in a generation chance.

Why do you always ignore the rest of his sentence, once in a life time unless the political landscape changes. It kind of changes the context a bit doesn't it?

Moe_The_Bartender

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I would love her to have her own referendum, it would be illegal of course.

BUT would she accept the result if it went against her? I doubt it, she would then turn around and say she wanted a legal one.

Bear in mind if she goes ahead with an illegal vote she would lose all credibility. If she won the people of Scotland would lose. The only way it could be enforced by her would be if she immediately cut all ties with the UK. No currency, no foreign embassies, no lender of last resort etc etc. Oh, and I very much doubt if the eu would allow admission to their club to an illegal breakaway country.

Any referendum that was not approved by Westminster would simply be ignored by those wanting to remain in the union. Only Ultranats would bother voting. It would be an utter sham and it’s astonishing that the likes of Shakey can’t see that.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

Why do you always ignore the rest of his sentence, once in a life time unless the political landscape changes. It kind of changes the context a bit doesn't it?

In Salmond's forward to the white paper regarding the referendum he states:

"If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation
opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new
and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about
Scotland would remain in the hands of others."

Nothing about a change of political landscape there.

And Sturgeon repeatedly said that that referendum was a once in a generation and even once in a lifetime opportunity.

Shakethedisease

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

Any referendum that was not approved by Westminster would simply be ignored by those wanting to remain in the union. Only Ultranats would bother voting. It would be an utter sham and it’s astonishing that the likes of Shakey can’t see that.

Westminster may well ignore the result. That's a given with this adminstration. They can't afford to lose Scotland.


But a legal ref is a legal ref. It'll be for other countries to ignore or recognise it. And if it's free and fair what's the problem ? Scotland isn't a region of the UK after all. It's an equal signatory in a Union. It won't be for a majority of MP's from other nations in the UK to dictate what the Scottish electorate can and cannot vote on.

Philip Sim BBC


1h
Nicola Sturgeon's "next steps" statement on indyref2 expected at Holyrood next week, according to her spokesman. 2020 is still the plan, apparently - "we are committed to what was put forward in the manifesto....it's incumbent on us to try and deliver what people have voted for"

When alls said and done though, I don't expect this process to be easy. And this stand off between Holyrood and Westminster has to be faced sooner or later. May as well be sooner imo before they negotiate all of Scotland's vast assests away in the name of a Brexit the Scots didn't vote for.

Herzlos

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

Any referendum that was not approved by Westminster would simply be ignored by those wanting to remain in the union. Only Ultranats would bother voting. It would be an utter sham and it’s astonishing that the likes of Shakey can’t see that.

Even if its completely legal in Scotland?