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

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Orkney and Shetland are Scottish. They will leave with Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. They could campaign afterwards to rejoin the UK or leave Scotland. But they'll be leaving the UK with the rest of Scotland, and any campaign to rejoin or for independence from Scotland will be conducted via Holyrood.

Thanks for the geography lesson, but as I'm over 5 years old I already knew that!

Just for clarity, as I know you are trying to deflect this from your own supporters.....

It was a YES voting member of the forum, in an attempt to address the illogical "democracy" argument you present, that said it may be possible to incorporate Northumberland and other areas of rUK into Scotland whilst retaining Orkney/Shetland/Dumfries in the UK.

A nonsensical example of the lack of joined up thinking within the Independence movement, and the lenghts they will go to make some kind of sense of their argument.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The section 30 would've put things beyond legal challenge. However, Holyrood calling a referendum without one will put in motion various legal challenges. It's never been tested legally. Should any legal challenge result in the judgement that Holyrood is perfectly within it's right to consult the Scottish people then any resulting referendum will be legal.

And if a legal challenge results in a judgement that Holyrood aren't entitled to hold their own binding referendum? What then? The SNP would not risk holding one because it becomes an almost pointless exercise they cannot enforce.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Only a referendum will tell. There are plenty that have changed their minds in the last 6 years. And imo turnout will be lower mainly due to a swathe of older Labour voters who won't vote. EU Nationals will vote Yes in droves compared to last time where some 70% of them voted No.

Yes, only a referendum will confirm it, but you need an actual mandate to have one, which you still can't show other than making overblown assumptions about HOW YOU THINK certain people will vote. As I said previously, if the SNP run in the next Scottish election on a purely Indy manifesto and gain over 50% of the vote then they have a mandate and should be allowed to hold another referendum.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I want an indyref like many others because I feel Scottish interests are best suited by being run from Holyrood. There is little desire from Orkney or Shetland to be independent of Scotland in any cirumstances. It doesn't matter. There is no current process whereby Orkney/Shetland or any other area of Scotland can stay in the UK should the rest of Scotland vote for independence. Unless you're talking about the UK annexing those areas ? What youre saying is that Yes voting areas like Glasgow and Dundee from last time round should already be independent from the UK ? So you are indeed away down a rabbit hole. Yes areas from last time aren't independent. So likewise No voting areas next time won't be staying in the UK if there's a Yes vote. Why aren't Yes voting areas independent ?

So again, you dodge the hypocrisy question which I will take it as you are fine with being a massive hypocrite as long as it suits your own personnel goal. There is little desire for Independence in Orkney and Shetland, both based on the previous IndyRef and the last GE. They actively campained for the right to remain in the UK regardless of the overall result of the last Indy Ref, that hasn't changed. There is a process, its very simple. Should there be an Indy Vote, and its a Yes but a resounding no in Orkney and Shetland, they would revert to being governed by Westminster just as they were prior to devolution. Or they could seek a similar position to the Isle of Man and become a crown dependency. Just because it hasn't been finalised HOW it would happen doesn't mean it CAN'T/WON'T happen. You can ignore the SNP comments on the issue as much as you want, it doesn't mean it simply goes away.

As to why aren't Yes voting areas independent already, did any of them request confirmation from Holyrood or Westminster that should that region vote Yes they could leave even if the rest of Scotlan said no? If not, then your argument isn't valid as Orkeny/Shetland asked for and were given confirmation that they could stay in the UK regardless.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Catalonia is a region of Spain. Scotland is an equal signatory to the Treaty of Union. The comparison is not relevant. The poll is significant as it's contrary to what the Tories keep telling us how Scots feel about second referendums in Scotland.

Catalonia is an Autonomous community in Spain with devolved powers just as Holyrood does. It is also a massive simplification of the situation calling it a "region" and ignores the whole historical side of the Catalans Union with Aragon, and Union of Castile and Aragon, the Catalan constitutions, etc. And the comparison is very relevant when you consider that an iScotland's ability to join the EU is subject to Spanish consent (as well as consent of every other EU member).
It isn't contrary to that though is it? It states the Scottish people think that the decision on a second referendum should rest with Holyrood. It does not state that the Scottish people want another referendum, which is what the Tories are stating.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

When you're reduced to posting polls from the Scotsman... But it's likely Scottish independence support is underestimated due to factors that I've posted before ( EU nationals/16/17 year olds ) and also the fact that support for the SNP across most polling in the run up to the last General Election was also significantly underestimated.

Again, this is all your opinion. Please share a poll that says the opposite then if the Scotsman one is not valid (in your opinion). I also assume that means the poll you quote about the Scottish people believing Holyrood should have the final say is also misleading as polls can't be trusted? Or is it just polls that don't back up your opinion that are wrong?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They're not going anywhere. Just like Yes voting areas last time aren't independent of the UK right now. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. And the Telegraph isn't always the best source of analysis when it comes to anything to do with Scottish independence issues.

It's not a Telegraph analysis, its a direct quote from the SNP's minister for rural affairs. At no point did or have the SNP stated otherwise, stated this was out of context or stated it is no longer the position they hold. Although you are right, they aren't going anywhere they are staying firmly in the UK!

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They're Scottish and that's that and shall be leaving with Scotland just the same as they joined the UK with the rest of Scotland. Yes voters didn't get to go independent if the UK in 2014. It's unlikely that No voters in any area of Scotland at the next ref will get to pick and choose either.

It's not your decision to make. The SNP/Scottish Government made their position on the issue, that hasn't changed. Just because you don't like it or think otherwise doesn't mean it's no longer the case. Yes voting regions didn't clarify before the vote if they could go Independent on their own, nor did they run a campaign for an iGlasgow detailing how it would be possible, so its a completely irrelevant comparison.

Shakethedisease

I'm not quoting all that.

If there's a legal challenge and it is decided that there is no democratic route for the Scottish people to decide their own future then so be it. But you lot are acting like the legality of the whole thing has already been decided. It hasn't, so you should stop acting like it has. Whether Scotland has the legal right to hold another independence referendum hasn't been through the courts yet. You're not a lawyer nor a judge and neither am I.

Mandates in First Past the Post systems are decided on seat numbers, not vote share. And in any case, the Scottish Parliament has already, I repeat for the hard of thinking, already voted for one. The Scottish Parliament has already mandated an second indy ref. Voted through ages ago.

I'm tired of arguing about Orkney and Shetland. There is no process at the current time whereby the won't be Scottish territory. I've been through this stupid narrative about a million times in this thread. You're not the first to cling on to it and I guess you won't be the last. But a Yes vote means they leave with Scotland. If they wish something else then I guess they'll have to set themselves up with a political party advocating it. Feel free to set out a step by step process other than political pressure for those areas to 'stay in the Uk' after Scotland votes to leave it ? I'll wait.

Catalonia is a region. Scotland is a nation which signed a Treaty of Union in 1707. Scotland is in a Union mate, it's not an 'autonomous region'. And as we can see with Brexit, nations can leave Unions. Ireland did so too. Scotland was a functioning independent nation until 1707. There's no reason why it couldn't revert back to the same should the electorate wish it. Along with Orkney and Shetland of course.

Polling has independence support hovering about the 47-49% mark. It hasn't fallen. It's support for the union that's falling. We don't see that 55% very often any more do we ? But we don't run countries via YouGov or Survation. If we did we'd still be in the EU according to them... ie they're not always reliable indicators are they. Wouldn't you agree ?

Shakethedisease

Here's the motion for Wednesday's debate on "Scotland's Future" at Holyrood - with the Greens backing the SNP, it will see MSPs agree that "a referendum should be held" on independence this year, urging UKgov to come to an agreement

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1221784207984418816


Wednesday should be interesting... Nicola's speech on Friday he says. Brexit day.

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

Just because you assume they will, doesn't mean they will. Lets look at EU nationals, your assumption is that every EU national is pro-EU. There has been talk in the past of Greece and Netherlands holding their own referendum votes, while neither likely would vote to leave it highlights that there are people within the EU that are against it. Another example would be any Spanish living in Scotland might not vote for Indy due to the Catalonia issue.

I can't imagine many EU citizens will vote for Scotland to stay in a UK that's left the EU - it'd largely be an own goal in terms of freedom.



Some Spanish may vote No to avoid giving a precedent to the Catalonia issue, but again I don't think it'd be many of them. In any case, Scotland is supposed to be a Sovereign Country whilst Catalonia a region so you could justify supporting independence for one and not the other.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

I can't imagine many EU citizens will vote for Scotland to stay in a UK that's left the EU - it'd largely be an own goal in terms of freedom.



Some Spanish may vote No to avoid giving a precedent to the Catalonia issue, but again I don't think it'd be many of them. In any case, Scotland is supposed to be a Sovereign Country whilst Catalonia a region so you could justify supporting independence for one and not the other.

I honestly don't think many EU nationals would turn out to vote. They have had it pretty much confirmed that there will be a right to remain in the UK after Brexit, there is no guarantee of the agreement that Scotland and the EU would reach. Scotland would want to grant similar rights that EU citizens currently have, but again, the EU (and Spain) need to agree to this. Also, they know that if the vote Yes, Scotland are still out of the EU and have to re-apply. So I can see them not bothering to vote.

Shakethedisease is completely missing the point regarding Catalonia. The point I am making is that a non-legal referendum would be meaningless much the same as Catalonia's was. It doesn't matter if its a region, country, city, province (eg Quebec) etc that hold a referendum, if it does not have the required legal standing it will not have the weight needed behind it. The SNP will not hold a referendum unless Westminster agree to transfer powers, or it is legally sanctioned through the courts that they do not need Westminster approval, which will be subject to various appeals regardless of what the outcome is.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

I honestly don't think many EU nationals would turn out to vote. They have had it pretty much confirmed that there will be a right to remain in the UK after Brexit, there is no guarantee of the agreement that Scotland and the EU would reach. Scotland would want to grant similar rights that EU citizens currently have, but again, the EU (and Spain) need to agree to this. Also, they know that if the vote Yes, Scotland are still out of the EU and have to re-apply. So I can see them not bothering to vote.

Shakethedisease is completely missing the point regarding Catalonia. The point I am making is that a non-legal referendum would be meaningless much the same as Catalonia's was. It doesn't matter if its a region, country, city, province (eg Quebec) etc that hold a referendum, if it does not have the required legal standing it will not have the weight needed behind it. The SNP will not hold a referendum unless Westminster agree to transfer powers, or it is legally sanctioned through the courts that they do not need Westminster approval, which will be subject to various appeals regardless of what the outcome is.

The referendum would be legal though. It's you that's perhaps missing the point. The Union is a reserved matter, but holding referendums isn't. Hence the Referendum Bill being passed at Holyrood as within competence.


Should an independence referendum be found legal under Scottish law then why would it not be legal ? Why don't you address that point rather than going off on one about Catalonia or Quebec. The issue of holding a referendum and the issue of independence are two different things. All referendums in the UK are advisory, the Brexit one included. A section 30 in 2014 only held the UK Govt to legally recognise the result.


This standoff has been coming for a long while. And lets face it, it's only out of fear of losing the next indy ref that the UK Govt is desperately trying to stop one taking place. We all know it. The political pressure if there's a Yes vote would be immense.

You didn't say if you think polling was/is totally reliable or not either ? What's your thoughts ?

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If there's a legal challenge and it is decided that there is no democratic route for the Scottish people to decide their own future then so be it. But you lot are acting like the legality of the whole thing has already been decided. It hasn't, so you should stop acting like it has. Whether Scotland has the legal right to hold another independence referendum hasn't been through the courts yet. You're not a lawyer nor a judge and neither am I.

It's the other way around, the legality of the whole thing is that currently the SNP do not have the ability to call a legally binding referendum. They have to take this through the courts if they wish to have it clarified. It's not the UK going via the courts to stop a referendum, its the SNP going through them to allow it. The burden of proof is therefore on the SNP to prove their case. If they are successful, then so be it, there will be a referendum once all the appeals are finished.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Mandates in First Past the Post systems are decided on seat numbers, not vote share. And in any case, the Scottish Parliament has already, I repeat for the hard of thinking, already voted for one. The Scottish Parliament has already mandated an second indy ref. Voted through ages ago.

That is not a mandate for Independence, that is a mandate for the SNP to be the elected members of parliament for the constituencies that voted for them. Even Sturgeon has stated a vote for the SNP in the GE is not necessarily a vote for Independence. They have a mandate to represent Scotland, no one is arguing that but they don't have a mandate to hold a referendum.
The Scottish Parliament voting on something isn't a mandate. If Westminster passed a vote tomorrow to scrap Brexit that doesn't mean they have a mandate for it.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm tired of arguing about Orkney and Shetland. There is no process at the current time whereby the won't be Scottish territory. I've been through this stupid narrative about a million times in this thread. You're not the first to cling on to it and I guess you won't be the last. But a Yes vote means they leave with Scotland. If they wish something else then I guess they'll have to set themselves up with a political party advocating it. Feel free to set out a step by step process other than political pressure for those areas to 'stay in the Uk' after Scotland votes to leave it ? I'll wait.

I assume that's because you are a) wrong and b) have nothing to back up your opinion. You haven't put forward any arguments other than Orkney and Shetland are Scottish. You are refusing to acknowledge the SNP/Scottish Goverment's previously stated opinion on the matter never mind the legal ramifications that precedence could have in the borders. As I said, the fact there is no defined process for them to remain is irrelevant. Why don't you set out the defined and agreed process to Scotland to leave the UK? Please include the agreed positions on currency, territorial waters, split of assets and debts, split or the military, the position on trident, NATO membership, trade deals, international treaties that the UK is a signatory of and how Scotland can continue to be signatories or the process for Scotland to join/ratify them, how commercial agreements in place for oil/gas/renewable licenses will be handled, what happens with Supreme Court judgement interpreting Scots law, Supreme Court judgement interpreting UK wide legislation, how the border will be maintained, how the civil service, Special Branch, UK intelligence services will be split. As you have said, this has to be the final step by step process and not just political pressure from the SNP of "it's our pound!" etc or your personnel opinion on it as we cannot discuss the matter of Scotland Independence until this is finalised using your logic.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Catalonia is a region. Scotland is a nation which signed a Treaty of Union in 1707. Scotland is in a Union mate, it's not an 'autonomous region'. And as we can see with Brexit, nations can leave Unions. Ireland did so too. Scotland was a functioning independent nation until 1707. There's no reason why it couldn't revert back to the same should the electorate wish it. Along with Orkney and Shetland of course.

You are missing the point, a non-legal referndum will get Scotland nowhere in the same way it got Catalonia nowhere. Scotland, even as a country, needs to have the legal powers to hold it. The SNP know this and won't attempt to hold one without it. Whether or not they get it is another discussion and one for the courts to decide.
Yes, it was an independent nation, however, have you actually read the 1707 Act of Union? It makes it very clear "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom", not a Union of equals as people state, just a union where the two kingdoms become one. "That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain" again, nowhere does it say there are equal rights under the Parliament. It even set out the number of MPs and Lords Scotland would have in the UK Parliament (since updated to the current levels) which Scotland willingly agreed to knowing full well they would be outnumbered by English MPs and Lords.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Polling has independence support hovering about the 47-49% mark. It hasn't fallen. It's support for the union that's falling. We don't see that 55% very often any more do we ? But we don't run countries via YouGov or Survation. If we did we'd still be in the EU according to them... ie they're not always reliable indicators are they. Wouldn't you agree ?

You keep claiming "40% of Labour voters". "70% of EU nationals", "47%-49%" but have yet to provide any evidence of this credible or otherwise.
I have shown you a poll that says its the opposite, support for Indy as it a low, if you have polls that suggest otherwise, I would genuinely like to see them.
I agree polls are not always reliable, but the fact still remains, the onus is on the SNP to show they have increased support for Indy (which is not the case). Which is why the next Scottish election is the perfect place to run on a purely Indy Mandate, if support is over 50% then have a referendum.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The referendum would be legal though. It's you that's perhaps missing the point. The Union is a reserved matter, but holding referendums isn't. Hence the Referendum Bill being passed at Holyrood as within competence.

You think it would be legal, but that has not been confirmed. The Union is a reserved matter, and the opinion of the UK Government is that that means a referendum on membership of the Union is also reserved. This has not been through the courts and its up to the SNP if they won't to. The problem with holding an advisory or consultative referendum is that the result wouldn't be legally binding and they would still have to go through discussions with the UK. The SNP have already acknowledged this ahead of the last referendum "Any changes to Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom will require negotiation with the UK government and legislation in the UK and Scottish parliaments."

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Should an independence referendum be found legal under Scottish law then why would it not be legal ? Why don't you address that point rather than going off on one about Catalonia or Quebec. The issue of holding a referendum and the issue of independence are two different things. All referendums in the UK are advisory, the Brexit one included. A section 30 in 2014 only held the UK Govt to legally recognise the result.

I have already said if it goes through the courts and the courts agree that an IndyRef can legally be held without Westminster consent/transfer of powers then it could go ahead.
Your statement that all referendums are advisory is incorrect. That is only the case unless a law is set up that makes the vote legally binding such as with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.
The SNP want their case to be as clear cut as possible and I do no see them holding a referendum without it being agreed to by Westminster or confirmed through the courts that the Scottish Government can legally pass a law (not all laws passed are legal and can be struck down/repealed) to hold a referendum that affects a devolved issue.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This standoff has been coming for a long while. And lets face it, it's only out of fear of losing the next indy ref that the UK Govt is desperately trying to stop one taking place. We all know it. The political pressure if there's a Yes vote would be immense.

There would only be political pressure if there was a Yes vote in a legally sanctioned Vote. That is assuming there is a vote and there is a Yes vote. Of course the rUK don't want a Yes vote as there are mutual benefits in the Union to all parties. They are currently not granting permission because they don't believe the SNP have a mandate for another referendum.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You didn't say if you think polling was/is totally reliable or not either ? What's your thoughts ?

Polling is not totally reliable in my opinion, however, there is no other way to try and understand political views outside of elections. That is why I believe the next Scottish election is where the mandate will come from. There are no tactical EU votes in play, there is no "I don't like Corbyn/BoJo etc in play" it is a much clearer way to show a mandate.

Shakethedisease

Polling Labour voters was done by Ashcroft a few months back. Look it up.

There are no legally binding referendums in the UK. All are advisory and have to be enacted by Parliament in order to take effect. Legally the simple fact of holding a referendum ( not reserved ) doesn't actually affect the Union ( reserved ). The political fallout however from a Yes vote would be immense.

In fact the very assumption that just holding a referendum would affect the Union. Is based on assuming a Yes vote win isn't it ?

The legality of holding a referendum however cannot be based on an assumed result. That's complete nonsense. Holyrood either does have the right to hold an advisory referendum or it doesn't. Regardless of the result. Many legal entities in Scotland think that Holyrood does have the right. That there will be challenges is enevitable. But it hasn't as yet been tested in court. Everything else is speculation. Have a nosey though this is you're really interested in the legal speak.


.https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bkihw5dbltfwpv/Advice%20of%20Senior%20Counsel%20%28FINAL%20at%2014-01-2020%20at%201218%29.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR2viHO_BL5u4tukOKkOk_HfajhC8T9wB10bggSlZ68Gcb96d6H7RDudous

Nicola Sturgeon will be making an announcement on Brexit day.

Chris Musson :- Nicola Sturgeon has changed her plan for revealing her"next steps" on IndyRef2 from a parliament statement on Wednesday to a speech (presumably Bute House) on Friday, Brexit Day, after which the EU flag will fly from Scottish Government building St Andrew's House for the weekend

If she's too cautious she'll be opening the doors to other indy parties in 2021 and the loss of thousands of core voters who have stuck with the SNP for years. Make of that what you will.


ps don't confuse mandates for independence with mandates for referendums.