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

Moe_The_Bartender

abz88 wrote: »

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."



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the courts that the Scottish Government can legally pass a law (not all laws passed are legal and can be struck down/repealed) to hold a referendum that affects a devolved issue.


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.


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.

Actually, the government won’t agree to another referendum because of the once in a generation one that was held in 2014. That’s a human generation, not that of a hamster.

The_Rainmaker

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

Aye it will be, Stephen Daisley's article highlights a few home truths she needs to address.

This week, Nicola Sturgeon will deliver another statement on independence to the Scottish Parliament.

It will be a response to the Prime Minister’s letter rejecting a request from the SNP leader to grant a second referendum on separation. She is expected to set out her next steps in pursuit of Scexit.

This week, Nicola Sturgeon will not open Edinburgh’s Royal Hospital for Sick Children, due in 2012 and still off-limits to youngsters for their own safety.

She will not achieve the 62-day waiting time standard for cancer treatment, a target that was last met in 2012. She will not alleviate the £5.5 billion in debt that her ‘free’ higher education system boasts, poorer students predictably more laden than their better-off peers.

Nationalists may have a mystical belief in the power of language but not one dreamy verb in their leader’s announcement will get the NHS to meet the Accident and Emergency waiting time target it last managed in 2017, nor ease the suffering of the one in five patients forced to wait more than 18 weeks to begin mental health treatment, nor undo the hurt to almost 2,000 families left in the dark about the circumstances of a loved one’s death because of post-mortem delays.

These matters should be the primary business of a first minister but we don’t have a first minister, we have an SNP leader plagued by unfortunate distractions like schools and hospital waiting times.

She may cloak herself in the rhetoric of social democracy but nationalism is what animates Sturgeon’s worldview. It gets her out of bed in the morning, replenishes her spirits when times are low, and is the prism through which she sees the problems of the job. If the answer isn’t independence, she isn’t interested.

What will Sturgeon say on Wednesday? This might be a scandalous thing for a political journalist to admit but: I don’t care. Truly, whatever scheme or device or misdirection she conjures from her deep well of poll-driven cynicism is of no interest to me.

A consultative referendum on which parliament should have the power over the independence question? Maybe, though it would be risky: she has to win over cautious-canny Middle Scotland. Kick it into the long(ish) grass of next year’s Holyrood election? Yet another delay might not sit well with her more militant activists.

Set up a new constitutional convention to work up a grandly-worded but ultimately meaningless manifesto? That could do the trick. There’s nothing Scotland’s fiercely independent civil society loves more than coming together to echo the well-worn dogmas of the political establishment.

I am fed up having to pretend that this stuff matters. I am fed up with the dull stasis, the futile lingering, the constitutional noise machine that drains oxygen from the rest of the agenda but does nothing with it. There have scarcely been more political times in Scotland than in the last five years and scarcely a time when so little got done. Scotland has been held back and, worse, dragged down.

A Scottish education was once the envy of the world. Today, we are the country that withdrew from international comparators because we didn’t like the results. Our government cut funding to alcohol and drugs programmes and now we are the drugs death capital of Europe.

We have a hospital in Livingston with a part-time children’s ward — the very phrase is absurd — because of staffing problems that have dragged on for years. Most shamefully of all, we have a ‘super-hospital’ in Glasgow where parents are afraid to take their children in case they are the latest life claimed by clinically-acquired infection.

No matter, though, because things are worse in Wales, as though it is of any comfort to someone waiting 12 hours in Wishaw General A&E that someone in Ysbyty Gwyne might be waiting 13. Or the old saw about lacking ‘the full economic levers’, an insult to the intelligence that says that by ending the £1,663 per head spending Scotland gets above the UK average every year will mean we have more money rather than less.

Finance Secretary Derek Mackay plans to start publishing alternative economic statistics imagining how wealthy Scotland might be if it were independent. It is a short step from this to ‘alternative’ figures on what school attainment or hospital waiting times would be. Orwell didn’t have a mark on this lot.

You may worry for your child’s education, an elderly parent’s operation or the financial health of your small business. You may be for or against independence, or still undecided, but reckon that it is not the most pressing matter for ministers’ attention. Know that you are wholly out of touch with those who rule over you. For them, independence is all — and all you will get out of them until they get it.

Here is a glimpse into their priorities. Constitution Secretary Mike Russell wants a parliamentary vote on whether Holyrood should fly the European flag. The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body decided on a non-political basis to draw down the Continental standard on Brexit Day. Most Nationalists don’t particularly care about the EU, having become Europeans on 24 June 2016, but they grasp the utility of the issue for setting Scotland apart from the rest of the nation.

These people can’t teach your child how to read or get you seen promptly by a doctor but they get symbolism better than a hundred tenured professors of semiotics.

Mr Russell is also concerned about rival MPs heckling Nationalists in the House of Commons, which he considers ‘a form of discrimination’. Meanwhile, his colleague Paul Wheelhouse, the minister for energy, is highly sensitive on the subjects of poetry and haggis.

After Conservative MP John Lamont tweeted a picture from this year’s Downing Street Burns Supper, Wheelhouse told him: ‘Rabbie Burns was a proud Scot every day of the year… not just once a year. Unfortunately you’re more likely to have a political epitaph of being one of a modern day “Parcel of Rogues in a nation”, for selling out Scotland’s right to choose to stay in the EU.’ It’s like someone handed Joe McCarthy a book of basic verse.

This is what charges them, what gets the blood up. Flags and symbols. Imaginary statistics and imaginary racism. Bravehearts and sell-outs. Nicola Sturgeon sits at the apex of this grand victimhood complex, this stirring of animus and poking of wounds passing for a respectable political movement.

These are not progressives or idealists or radicals. They are callous ideologues who have sacrificed the well-being of people they will never have to look in the eye to pursue the only thing they ever have or ever will give a damn about. They love Scotland but only on their terms. The nation must change to earn their ardour.

Their opponents saw 2007 as a blip or a fancy or an inevitable reshuffling of the democratic deck. Nationalists saw it as a triumph of patriots and with it the sowing of a new national consciousness that would put pride before bread. It is hard to dispute that they have captured the hearts of a large minority of Scots, many of whom are to be found suffering among the bulging statistics of 13 years of indifference and incompetence.

Nothing Nicola Sturgeon says on Wednesday will change any of this. Things are bad and they will not get better by squeezing in another chair at the United Nations between Saudi Arabia and Senegal. Things are bad and it’s no use pretending that Scotland’s troubles are a malediction cast in darkest Westminster. Things are bad and they will stay bad until enough of us decide we no longer want them to be that way. The triumph of patriots has been the ruin of Scotland.

The rest of us are patriots, too. We look at Scotland and see a country of uncommon potential, rich in natural resources, with much to sell the world and much to learn from it.

We love this nation as we find it and believe that being part of something bigger makes us stronger, not weaker; prouder, not diminished. We want to see things get better now, not have our people held back until they buckle to someone else’s political will. Scotland is enough for us.

https://stephendaisley.com/2020/01/27/triumph-of-patriots-and-the-ruin-of-a-nation/

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

I will, however, I thought we couldn't trust the polls?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

That is simply not true, while it is generally the case that a referendum is advisory, where a law is set up that makes it a legally binding vote, then it is legally binding. This was the case with the referendum held in 2011 on the Voting System and Constituencies. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 made that referendum a legally binding referendum. Don't confuse the general rule as the be all and end all.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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 ?

No, the referendum itself is a challenge to the Union as it represents a devolved parliament holding a vote on what is essentially a reserved issue. It is the effect it could have on the Union that is the issue.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

It's not nonsense, you cannot hold a referendum seeking to ask a question that legally you have no right to enforce or even ask. If was nonsense it wouldn't currently be the subject to debate and the SNP would have held one already. Correct, many legal entities and experts across the UK believe that it does have the right to hold one, however, many other's think it doesn't which is why it will go to the courts. The SNP will not risk jeopardising the result of a referendum with a challenge that it had no legally basis in the first place.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nicola Sturgeon will be making an announcement on Brexit day. 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.

It will be interesting to see what she says, whether or not she can back it up will be a different matter though.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

I am not, they don't have a mandate for either. Don't confuse a mandate to represent Scotland in Westminster with a mandate for independence or a mandate for a referendum.

Shakethedisease

The_Rainmaker wrote: »

Aye it will be, Stephen Daisley's article highlights a few home truths she needs to address.


https://stephendaisley.com/2020/01/27/triumph-of-patriots-and-the-ruin-of-a-nation/

Read it. I don't think Daisley's a particularly unbiased source. He's as biased on one side as Wings over Scotland is on the other.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

I will, however, I thought we couldn't trust the polls?

No, you asked me to back up my claims re Labour voters. And yes, I agree we can't take all polls at face value.

That is simply not true, while it is generally the case that a referendum is advisory, where a law is set up that makes it a legally binding vote, then it is legally binding. This was the case with the referendum held in 2011 on the Voting System and Constituencies. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 made that referendum a legally binding referendum. Don't confuse the general rule as the be all and end all.

The section 30

Aileen McHarg
No - the s30 order is about the validity of the rules governing the conduct of the vote - nothing to do with the bindingness or otherwise of the outcome (the outcome of the 2014 referendum was not binding.)

No, the referendum itself is a challenge to the Union as it represents a devolved parliament holding a vote on what is essentially a reserved issue. It is the effect it could have on the Union that is the issue.

No it's about asking the Scottish electorate a question. It doesn't have any effect on the Union unless it's a Yes vote. The legal issue is if Holyrood has the right to ask the Scottish electorate the question regardless of the outcome.

It's not nonsense, you cannot hold a referendum seeking to ask a question that legally you have no right to enforce or even ask. If was nonsense it wouldn't currently be the subject to debate and the SNP would have held one already. Correct, many legal entities and experts across the UK believe that it does have the right to hold one, however, many other's think it doesn't which is why it will go to the courts. The SNP will not risk jeopardising the result of a referendum with a challenge that it had no legally basis in the first place.

That Westminster won't recognise the result is probably a given. But it doesn't negate the right or not of Holyrood to ask the question.

It will be interesting to see what she says, whether or not she can back it up will be a different matter though.
I am not, they don't have a mandate for either. Don't confuse a mandate to represent Scotland in Westminster with a mandate for independence or a mandate for a referendum.

What would be a mandate then if 80% of MP seats in Scotland isn't, as well as an indy majority in the Scottish Parliament. Do you have an answer for me on that ? There is no way out of this stalemate that doesn't involve a direct confrontation between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. It's probably best just to get it over with.

The_Rainmaker

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Read it. I don't think Daisley's a particularly unbiased source. He's as biased on one side as Wings over Scotland is on the other.

Shooting the messenger again.

Did he say anything that wasn't a true representation of the misery the Nats are making the people of Scotland endure in their never ending quest for Nirvana?

abz88

Section 30 relates to the Scotland Act, it does not related to any other referendum in the UK. I did not say the 2014 vote or a future vote would be legally binding. I stated that it is incorrect that no referendum's in the UK are legally binding.

It has an effect on the Union either way. A Yes vote obviously has the potential effect of a political argument for Indy (or a policitical argument to hold another Westminster backed referendum), however, a No vote endorses the Union which in itself affects the standing of the Union by confirming that the people of Scotland want to remain. If the SNP didn't feel the need for a section 30 order, why did they ask for it?

Westminster (in my opinion) would only not recognise the result if the vote was held without the proper legal confirmations in place that it can be held without their consent. This is what the SNP will want to avoid, which is why they will go through the courts to confirm they can hold a referendum. Their own manifesto stated "An agreed process means that no-one will be able to question the legitimacy of the referendum both here in Scotland and in the wider international community. For EU member states in particular, it will be essential to demonstrate that a referendum has been held legally and constitutionally", they won't risk a vote until the courts confirm this.

A mandate would be Indy parties taking over 50% of the vote in the Scottish election or 50% of the Scottish Vote in a GE standing on an Indy manifesto.

It will end up in the courts, however, the SNP likely have one shot left at Indy (for the foreseeable future) so they won't risk messing it up and will go through the court and appeals process. If they loose, they will then need to show a future mandate in the Scottish election.

Shakethedisease

The_Rainmaker wrote: »

Shooting the messenger again.

Did he say anything that wasn't a true representation of the misery the Nats are making the people of Scotland endure in their never ending quest for Nirvana?

Most of the article to be honest. You don't get to run a country for 13 years by being s**t at it. Daisley focuses his ire exclusively on the SNP and Sturgeon. He forgets who votes for them and why.

Herzlos

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

That's what they were told, but the reality is horrible inaccessible forms asking for impossible evidence followed by flat rejections. The government lost an amendment in the house if lords about not providing paper evidence of proof to reside.

Scotland is pro-EU and pro-immigration, having sought devolved powers over immigration (and been rejected). I've no doubt they'd be open to reciprocal freedom of movement.

So I think the EU citizen turnout will be very high

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

Section 30 relates to the Scotland Act, it does not related to any other referendum in the UK. I did not say the 2014 vote or a future vote would be legally binding. I stated that it is incorrect that no referendum's in the UK are legally binding.

It has an effect on the Union either way. A Yes vote obviously has the potential effect of a political argument for Indy (or a policitical argument to hold another Westminster backed referendum), however, a No vote endorses the Union which in itself affects the standing of the Union by confirming that the people of Scotland want to remain. If the SNP didn't feel the need for a section 30 order, why did they ask for it?

Westminster (in my opinion) would only not recognise the result if the vote was held without the proper legal confirmations in place that it can be held without their consent. This is what the SNP will want to avoid, which is why they will go through the courts to confirm they can hold a referendum. Their own manifesto stated "An agreed process means that no-one will be able to question the legitimacy of the referendum both here in Scotland and in the wider international community. For EU member states in particular, it will be essential to demonstrate that a referendum has been held legally and constitutionally", they won't risk a vote until the courts confirm this.

A mandate would be Indy parties taking over 50% of the vote in the Scottish election or 50% of the Scottish Vote in a GE standing on an Indy manifesto.

It will end up in the courts, however, the SNP likely have one shot left at Indy (for the foreseeable future) so they won't risk messing it up and will go through the court and appeals process. If they loose, they will then need to show a future mandate in the Scottish election.

Westiminster will ignore the vote regardless. And as for those 'mandates' you offer up.. they'll ignore those too. Vote share/seats it doesn't matter and there's little point in debating them. We both know it. The SNP want an agreed process. But they're now going to have to accept that they won't get one and get on with the rest of it.

The rest of your point is again pretending you're a constitutional lawyer. You don't know if Holyrood can legally hold a referendum or not yet. So it's all moot. If it's legally held in Scotland then it's constitutional, free and fair. There's no reason why it wouldn't be recognised. No country would ever go independent if they all had to gain 'permission' from the parent state ( think USSR etc ). There are many examples, all of whom are recognised. Some now members of the EU.

As for the SNP's one last chance. You're probably right. If Nicola doesn't go all in over the next few months new and much more radical indy parties are waiting in the wings. Blocking off democratic routes for large groups of electorates is never a good idea. The SNP either go for it now for 2020, or lose their core vote. The new parties will encourage indy minded folks to vote SNP on the constituency ballot, and other indy on the second. I can see the attraction as it would boot out most Tories, Labour and Lib Dems from Holyrood IF it went to plan ( most of them are only there via the list vote ).