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

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

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

My contention has always been the same. It's never been tested. It's yourself that keeps talking about illegal referendums. If it's found legal under Scottish Law, then it's legal.

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.

Those mandates you put forward don't seem to apply to any other parties. That's wrong. If 50% of the vote in any election applies in order to claim a mandate for anything. No political party would ever get things done. This is why there is no point in discussing what you consider to be a mandate. Because they only seem to apply to the SNP. Why is that ?

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!

Well then, I hope I can look forward to any of your future posts not mentioning things like 'illegal referendums'. You're right, neither of us know. But I did provide you with the legal arguments currently that Holyrood does have the powers already to hold a second indy ref. Did you read any of it ?
Anyway, no more illegal referendum talk then. Great ! :T

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.

Erm, there is already a pro-indy majority at Holyrood. Did you forget ? They don't need to 'show' or be looking to do anything. It's already been done twice. 2011 and in 2016. Why you would think it needs to be done again, or that it would make any difference to Westminster is quite beyond me. Care to elaborate ?

However, the other indy party(ies) will set themselves in motion if Nicola doesn't go for announcing a ref or court action this week. Their aim being Holyrood 2021 and booting out most non-indy parties which gain most of their MSP's from the list vote.

It's nothing to do with mandates, as stated there's been a pro indy majority in Holyrood since 2011. It's to do with getting rid of the other parties. They're also fed up with the SNP, as they see it, being too cautious re Westminster. It'll be interesting if it happens. I'm on the fence about the whole thing. But I can definitely see the logic behind it. If the the SNP do too well on the constituency votes ( like they have been doing ) they lose out badly on the list seats which go to other parties. None of which are pro-indy. Putting pro-indy choices on the list vote and winning would change Holyrood beyond recognition.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

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

I have never mentioned the once in a generation quote, it was Salmonds opinion and nothing more. However, the Edinburgh Agreement does state "The governments are agreed that the referendum should: deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.

The part that doesn't fit with the Nat narrative is " are you suggesting that none of them voted last time but every single one of them will vote for independence next time" which was Moe the Bartenders response to Shakethedisease's statement that the EU nationals vote could turn the direct based on "doing the maths".

Seeing as we are no just asking people to back up quotes they have never used, can you please show me where in the 1707 Act of Union it states the UK should be a union of equals?

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

I have never mentioned the once in a generation quote, it was Salmonds opinion and nothing more. However, the Edinburgh Agreement does state "The governments are agreed that the referendum should: deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.

The Edinburgh agreement was then. This is now and there won't be another one.

The part that doesn't fit with the Nat narrative is " are you suggesting that none of them voted last time but every single one of them will vote for independence next time" which was Moe the Bartenders response to Shakethedisease's statement that the EU nationals vote could turn the direct based on "doing the maths".

You're taking things a little too literally to be honest. But it's a fair assumption to make that EU nationals in Scotland would be more likely to vote Yes next time. John Curtice has already indicated on his various analyses that remain voters are more likely too. As are some 40% of Labour voters.

Seeing as we are no just asking people to back up quotes they have never used, can you please show me where in the 1707 Act of Union it states the UK should be a union of equals?

It's pretty obvious it's not. That's why many want out of it.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

My contention has always been the same. It's never been tested. It's yourself that keeps talking about illegal referendums. If it's found legal under Scottish Law, then it's legal.

If its never been tested then you cannot definitively claim it would be legal which you have done "The referendum would be legal though.", "Legally the simple fact of holding a referendum ( not reserved ) doesn't actually affect the Union ( reserved )." . The fact is, it has not been found legal under Scottish Law, the SNP will likely go to court to confirm if it is legal, or they will attempt to hold a referendum and be taken to court. Either way, its hasn't been found legal yet.
The Scottish Governments position (not mine) before the previous referendum was that "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." It is the Scottish Government that will have to challenge there own assertion.
There is also a legal precedent based on the Edinburgh agreement that a valid Scottish IndyRef requires agreement and legislation between Westminster and Holyrood.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Those mandates you put forward don't seem to apply to any other parties. That's wrong. If 50% of the vote in any election applies in order to claim a mandate for anything. No political party would ever get things done. This is why there is no point in discussing what you consider to be a mandate. Because they only seem to apply to the SNP. Why is that ?

Because what the SNP are seeking is not your everyday policy making that can be reversed by the next Government, which in itself is a principle of UK democracy/Parliamentary Sovereignty, that Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments. That's why (in my opinion) it should require a stricter mandate. Compare it with the EU referendum which did have a quantifiable mandate of over 50% of the vote (not seats), in the 2015 elections. The Tories manifesto stated "We will then put these changes to the British people in a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017", UKIP (don't have to quote their manifesto for everyone to know what they ran on) and the DUP stated "The DUP believes that the people of the United Kingdom should have a say on future UK membership of the European Union. At Westminster our MPs have been at the forefront of the campaign for a referendum on the European Union." Combined, those parties had 50.6% of the vote (and that's before you add on another 1.2% for the LibDems that stated, "Ensure Britain plays a constructive part in the European Union and any referendum triggered by the EU Act is on the big question: In or Out" (which it was),

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well then, I hope I can look forward to any of your future posts not mentioning things like 'illegal referendums'. You're right, neither of us know. But I did provide you with the legal arguments currently that Holyrood does have the powers already to hold a second indy ref. Did you read any of it ?
Anyway, no more illegal referendum talk then. Great ! :T

I'll stop using the phrase "illegal referendum" if you stop using "legal referendum" until there is a defintive answer either way.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Erm, there is already a pro-indy majority at Holyrood. Did you forget ? They don't need to 'show' or be looking to do anything. It's already been done twice. 2011 and in 2016. Why you would think it needs to be done again, or that it would make any difference to Westminster is quite beyond me. Care to elaborate ?

See above, get a mandate on the same lines (% of vote) as was the case with the EU referendum and then it puts the pressure on Westminster. We will see how the SNP react tomorrow, until then its purely guesswork on what they will do.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

However, the other indy party(ies) will set themselves in motion if Nicola doesn't go for announcing a ref or court action this week. Their aim being Holyrood 2021 and booting out most non-indy parties which gain most of their MSP's from the list vote.

It's nothing to do with mandates, as stated there's been a pro indy majority in Holyrood since 2011. It's to do with getting rid of the other parties. They're also fed up with the SNP, as they see it, being too cautious re Westminster. It'll be interesting if it happens. I'm on the fence about the whole thing. But I can definitely see the logic behind it. If the the SNP do too well on the constituency votes ( like they have been doing ) they lose out badly on the list seats which go to other parties. None of which are pro-indy. Putting pro-indy choices on the list vote and winning would change Holyrood beyond recognition.

Again, if it is deemed illegal for Holyrood to hold it, then more extreme Indy parties will be in the same position.

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

I have never mentioned the once in a generation quote

You were responding to a comment about the once in a generation quote (used out of context) and making a dig based on it.

However, the Edinburgh Agreement does state "The governments are agreed that the referendum should: deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.

Indeed. The result of that referendum was respected, wasn't it?
Then Westminster changed the political landscape in a huge way (leaving the EU when threatening that remaining in the union was the only way to remain in the EU).

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Edinburgh agreement was then. This is now and there won't be another one.

Won't be another Edinburgh type agreement or vote? If it's vote, do you honestly believe that in the event that there is a vote, and its a no vote that the SNP/other Indy Groups will simply drop their calls for a referendum for ever more?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're taking things a little too literally to be honest. But it's a fair assumption to make that EU nationals in Scotland would be more likely to vote Yes next time. John Curtice has already indicated on his various analyses that remain voters are more likely too. As are some 40% of Labour voters.
It's pretty obvious it's not. That's why many want out of it.

It's still an assumption, you are assuming that they will actually bother voting and that they will vote Yes.

I agree its not, so its pretty tiresome hearing all the "Union of equals" statements that get banded around.

The_Rainmaker

Herzlos wrote: »

Indeed. The result of that referendum was respected, wasn't it?
Then Westminster changed the political landscape in a huge way (leaving the EU when threatening that remaining in the union was the only way to remain in the EU).

Westminster didn't change anything the people of the UK decided to leave the EU not Westminster.

You can't just pick and choose which referendum you like depending on whether the vote went the way you wanted or not.

A touch of hypocrisy.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

You were responding to a comment about the once in a generation quote (used out of context) and making a dig based on it.

That comment was responding to a statement that EU nationals could the vote based on "the maths", that's what the dig was about.

Herzlos wrote: »

Indeed. The result of that referendum was respected, wasn't it?
Then Westminster changed the political landscape in a huge way (leaving the EU when threatening that remaining in the union was the only way to remain in the EU).

No it wasn't as the decisive expression is being ignored and not respected by calling for another referendum.
Remaining in the Union was the only way to remain in the EU, but that didn't mean forever.
The EU referendum had been on the cards well before the 2014 vote, if voters did not realise that or consider the effect of an out vote then that's their problem. Labour party manifesto in 2005 supported a referendum on Europe, LibDems manifesto in 2010 supported one, Cameron (the PM at the time) stated in 2013 that he intended to hold a referendum, even the Greens manifesto in 2010 supported a referendum!

Herzlos

The_Rainmaker wrote: »

Westminster didn't change anything the people of the UK decided to leave the EU not Westminster.

Westminster decided to hold a referendum on it, and England and Wales voted out whilst Scotland an NI voted in.
The people were told that remaining in the UK was the only way to stay in the EU, and then took us out of the EU against our will anyway.

You can't just pick and choose which referendum you like depending on whether the vote went the way you wanted or not.

I don't. All referendum were valid in as much as they obeyed the law.

abz88 wrote: »

That comment was responding to a statement that EU nationals could the vote based on "the maths", that's what the dig was about.

Fair enough.

No it wasn't as the decisive expression is being ignored and not respected by calling for another referendum.

It was respected, no-one tried to claim it wasn't valid or overturn it.

Remaining in the Union was the only way to remain in the EU, but that didn't mean forever.

And since staying in the EU didn't mean forever, staying in the UK didn't either, right?

abz88 wrote: »

do you honestly believe that in the event that there is a vote, and its a no vote that the SNP/other Indy Groups will simply drop their calls for a referendum for ever more?

Not a chance, this independence stuff will keep going until they get what they want. Just like the Eurosceptics took 40 years of complaining to get their way.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

If its never been tested then you cannot definitively claim it would be legal which you have done "The referendum would be legal though.", "Legally the simple fact of holding a referendum ( not reserved ) doesn't actually affect the Union ( reserved )." . The fact is, it has not been found legal under Scottish Law, the SNP will likely go to court to confirm if it is legal, or they will attempt to hold a referendum and be taken to court. Either way, its hasn't been found legal yet.
The Scottish Governments position (not mine) before the previous referendum was that "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." It is the Scottish Government that will have to challenge there own assertion.
There is also a legal precedent based on the Edinburgh agreement that a valid Scottish IndyRef requires agreement and legislation between Westminster and Holyrood.

The Edinburgh Agreement wasn't legally binding. The precedent was that the first referendum giving Scots voters the choice was held at all. There won't be another Edinburgh Agreement. That doesn't mean a vote can't happen anyway.

Because what the SNP are seeking is not your everyday policy making that can be reversed by the next Government, which in itself is a principle of UK democracy/Parliamentary Sovereignty, that Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments. That's why (in my opinion) it should require a stricter mandate. Compare it with the EU referendum which did have a quantifiable mandate of over 50% of the vote (not seats), in the 2015 elections. The Tories manifesto stated "We will then put these changes to the British people in a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017", UKIP (don't have to quote their manifesto for everyone to know what they ran on) and the DUP stated "The DUP believes that the people of the United Kingdom should have a say on future UK membership of the European Union. At Westminster our MPs have been at the forefront of the campaign for a referendum on the European Union." Combined, those parties had 50.6% of the vote (and that's before you add on another 1.2% for the LibDems that stated, "Ensure Britain plays a constructive part in the European Union and any referendum triggered by the EU Act is on the big question: In or Out" (which it was),

A mandate is either a mandate or it's not. For all parties. You can't pick and choose which you 'think' are ok and which aren't just because you don't agree with them or dislike the political party. It's a principle, and it's based on actual people democratically voting for these parties who are promising things in their manifestos. Like you say though, it's only your opinon. In mine the SNP should be treated the same way all other parties are when it comes to mandates.

I'll stop using the phrase "illegal referendum" if you stop using "legal referendum" until there is a defintive answer either way.

Agreed.

See above, get a mandate on the same lines (% of vote) as was the case with the EU referendum and then it puts the pressure on Westminster. We will see how the SNP react tomorrow, until then its purely guesswork on what they will do.Again, if it is deemed illegal for Holyrood to hold it, then more extreme Indy parties will be in the same position.

No, any mandate the SNP or any pro-indy party or majority in Holyrood will be ignored. You're being naive to suggest otherwise.

I don't think the new indy parties are going to be going for independence via a referendum to be completely honest. I think they feel that that particular route might be closed by Westminster forever as long as indy support remains high ( see ignored mandates etc ). Close off one route and another one opens I guess. They aren't minded to play long nice and polite with Westminster parties such as the SNP have been doing. More likely to call MPs home or along similar lines.

Still, let's see how the week pans out. But in short Westminster saying no right now won't be the end of it. Not by a long shot and not when about half the Scottish electorate say otherwise. There's real people behind the SNP. They didn't get where they are today by magic.

ps. The 'Union of Equals' phrase was a Better Together one. It was that campaign which bandied it around endlessly for 3 years. Take it up with them if your sick hearing it.