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

Herzlos

I'm not sure, we've had 10 years of the Tories and that's been disaster after disaster.
However most of those points are hypocrisy; attacking the SNP for things not entirely in their control and which England is doing even worse on. The Tories are so concerned about bad waiting time stats that they are proposing to solve the issue by not recording the stats.

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

Moe_The_Bartender

Herzlos wrote: »

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

As there are only around 209,000 EU citizens living in Scotland, it probably won’t make much difference to the result if every single one of them turned out and voted. Scotland does seem to have a lot of difficulty persuading people to live there. I wonder why that is.

mollycat

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

As there are only around 209,000 EU citizens living in Scotland, it probably won’t make much difference to the result if every single one of them turned out and voted. Scotland does seem to have a lot of difficulty persuading people to live there. I wonder why that is.

The weather is cold and the politics are toxic.

Shakethedisease

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

As there are only around 209,000 EU citizens living in Scotland, it probably won’t make much difference to the result if every single one of them turned out and voted. Scotland does seem to have a lot of difficulty persuading people to live there. I wonder why that is.

The last indy vote was lost by 192,000 votes. Do the maths.

Moe_The_Bartender

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The last indy vote was lost by 192,000 votes. Do the maths.

You tell me how many of them voted in the once in a generation referendum and then you do the maths. Or are you suggesting that none of them voted last time but every single one of them will vote for independence next time including those under 16?

The_Rainmaker

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The last indy vote was lost by 192,000 votes. Do the maths.

Aye you'll need to lower the voting age to 12 to stand a chance.

Enterprise_1701C

The_Rainmaker wrote: »

Aye you'll need to lower the voting age to 12 to stand a chance.

Wouldn't put it past them. Can't link, but there was someone on msn saying that 48,000,000 people did not vote for Brexit. That has to include young children AT LEAST :eek:

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The referendum would be legal though.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Should an independence referendum be found legal under Scottish law

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 ).

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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. .

You are constantly changing your stance on this. You go between the referendum would be legal, to many legal entities think it it has the right, to there will be legal challenges, to stating I don't know if Holryood can legally hold one.

You are claiming to be the gospel on constitutional law and claiming (apart from when you change your mind and are not) that there is no doubt about the legality of a non-Westminster backed Referendum. I have simply offered counter-arguments to your points and instead of actually answering them you scream "you are not a constitutional lawyer" which I have never claimed to be. Neither are you, yet you have a black and white view of things and are adamant that you are right about the constitutional complexities of the potential referendum. You have already shown yourself to be wrong (although you simply drop the issues) about the legal standing of any referendum in the UK claiming section 30 (which only relates to Scotland Act and is irrelevant in other referendums, such as the legally binding referendum on the Parliamentary Voting System which was legally binding as a result of Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011) so what you makes to so sure you are right about an IndyRef legality? You won't answer a very simply question of why the SNP have asked for a section 30 order if they don't need it and you ignore the fact that while there are experts that "think" that Holyrood has the right to a vote there are others that do not agree with that opinion.

I have said it will go to the courts and have not claimed I know what the outcome will be, you are the only one claiming (apart from when your change your stance) that you know what the outcome will be

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

So the argument is 'why bother getting mandate, the mandate will just be ignored', the SNP's position would be lot stronger if they had a mandate with no room for discussion around seats/votes, but your right, lets not bother getting a mandate lets just hold another IndyRef because its what less than half the population want.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

I am not the one pretending to be a constitutional lawyer, thats you. I have offered a counter argument to your narrow minded black and white stance on the issue, you don't like it so instead of discussing it you deflect from it. I don't know if Holyrood can legally hold a referendum AND NEITHER DO YOU, the difference is, I accept that I don't know, you don't!

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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 ).

I'll look forward to All Under One Banners attempted coup then. How are more radical parties going to affect what the legal outcome of the courts will be? And how will they show they have a mandate for another IndyRef other than getting more than 50% of the vote for combined Indy Parties at the next election, which is exactly what I have said they should be looking to do? We will see what Nicola and the SNP come out with this week and what their next steps will be, but anything other than a long protracted court battle or push for mandate in the next Scottish election seems unlikely.

abz88

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

You tell me how many of them voted in the once in a generation referendum and then you do the maths. Or are you suggesting that none of them voted last time but every single one of them will vote for independence next time including those under 16?

Shhhh, that doesn't fit with the Nat narrative though, so you are not allowed to mention it! :rotfl:

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

Shhhh, that doesn't fit with the Nat narrative though, so you are not allowed to mention it! :rotfl:

Go find the once in a generation quote and read the whole sentence.