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

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was on these boards at the time. I was laughed at repeatedly for suggesting that an EU referendum might end up with the UK and Scotland out of the EU.

It's rewriting history to suggest that most Scots 'knew' that this was what they were voting for in 2014. In fact at the time Milliband was ahead in the Westminster polls and an EU referendum looked like a practical impossibility. That's how it was. And that's how the Better Together campaign were able to get so much milage and traction from the repeated claims that Scotland voting Yes would mean losing EU membership. Most also were assuming a Labour Govt incoming which would never hold an Eu ref. Look at the polling around the few months of the Scottish ref.

I didn't state they should have known that was what they were voting for, I stated the EU referendum was on the cards and votes should have taken that into consideration. Assuming a Labour Government isn't relevant unless voters assumed we would always have a Labour government and the Tories would never get in again with their policy of an EU referendum and also assuming that Labour wouldn't revert to their 2005 manifesto advocating an EU vote.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You must have a bad memory then.

What part of that is actually wrong though? If we had voted yes, we would have been out of the EU and lost our EU citizenship. Was the statement a lie - NO, did it ignore other facts and bend the truth- Yes. Much like the Indy's claiming we could rejoin the EU without taking the Euro based on Denmark (legally exempt from taking up the Euro and was a member before the Euro came in), the other 7 countries that don't have Euro must take it up after meeting certain criteria. All new members must commit to joining it (although there's no timescale). They also, at best, bent the truth around North Sea oil revenues which in turn inflated their economic case.

Herzlos wrote: »

That's fine, we don't want them. The cost in proportion to the jobs produced from it is a joke too. We're paying something north of £1m per job. I'm pretty sure we can do something more productive with the money.

Faslane is geographically one of the best places in the world, never mind UK, to launch the Vanguard Subs. Do you really think the US and NATO countries will welcome us into the international community after putting, what they see, as the Allied's nuclear deterrent at risk? And the EU members of NATO will just let us waltz into the EU after it?

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nah, Keir Stramer is all over the Scottish news at the moment saying a Scottish referendum is for the Scottish people to decide. He's still advocating an indy majority next year as a mandate. And still channeling Federalism a la Gordon Brown. We've heard it all before. Richard Leonard is also all over the papers avocating 'Home Rule'. We've heard all this numerous times before. No one actually believes them anymore.

That makes no sense. All bar one of the Labour leader contenders have stated they would allow an Indy vote. If that was the case why would the SNP not ask for another transfer of powers and Edinburgh style agreement to put it beyond any potential legal challenge?
When have we heard it before? Boris never advocated it, May never advocated it, Cameron agreed to a vote, what other PM advocated a vote but then refused it?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Sewel Convention is no more. The Edinburgh Agreement was just that. An agreement. The indy ref itself is the precedent. Westminster in 2014 aknowledged Scotlands right to self-determine. Scotland either has the right or it doesn't. In 2014 Westminster said it does. Now in 2020 it's saying it doesn't. It's one of those things that either exists or it doesn't ( the right to self determine ). Can't have it both ways.

The Sewel Convention does still exist, its now the Legislative Consent Motions and enshrined in the Parliament's Standing Orders. No, your opinion is that the precedent is that Scotland can self-determine off its own back, the counter opinion is that the precedent is that the Scottish Government must seek UK approval to hold a referendum. Again, its one that ultimately the courts will decide.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP mandate is from Holyrood 2016. The last referendum was held when the SNP had just 6 MP's at Westminster. 6 MPs. You're not making much sense. Holyrood is where the mandates come from not Westminster. David Cameron agreed at the time.

Holyrood 2016, the SNP/Indy parties have less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% of seats and they lost seats overall. The only reason they have been able to pass pro-Indy votes is because of the Scottish Greens and the Greens manifesto in 2016 did not state they are in favour of Indy or that they would back another Indy vote, they are voting without representing their electorate.
Cameron agreed at the time to transfer powers, he did not (as I recall) agree indefinite powers for the SNP to call a vote whenever they wanted. He is also no longer the PM and his government has since been replaced by May and Borris's goverments. Parliamentary sovereignty rules mean what Cameron decided cannot bind future governments. Again, it will head to the courts.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Try the 2016 Holyrood manifesto.

I have and its a much softer stance "We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that Indy has become the preferred option." - There isn't sustained and clear evidence. It also says "should have the right" not "does have the right"
"or if there is a significant and material change...such as Scotland being taken out of the EU" - noted, that bit sounds stronger, but it still relates to 'we believe we should be allowed' not that they have the right. And as I have previously stated, their "mandate" is based on less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% of seats, combined the Union parties have a greater mandate against Indy (with the Greens changing their position after the election and therefore not representing their electorate)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's called lying. Better Together lied for 3 years solid. The SNP are right to bring it up whenever they can.

. It's called being the truth, the same way the SNP manipulated Oil figures and made claims about EU membership, the Euro etc that had no legal basis.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

I didn't state they should have known that was what they were voting for, I stated the EU referendum was on the cards and votes should have taken that into consideration. Assuming a Labour Government isn't relevant unless voters assumed we would always have a Labour government and the Tories would never get in again with their policy of an EU referendum and also assuming that Labour wouldn't revert to their 2005 manifesto advocating an EU vote

Look, I know this is hard to imagine now in 2020 when the last 4 years have been nothing else but Brexit and the EU. But an EU referendum run by the Tory party which resulted in a Leave win wasn't even vaguely on the radar. *Labour were ahead in most Westminster polls. And even in 2016 right up until the very night of the actual Brexit vote, a Remain vote was all but certain according to polling.


*To try and lift the above, Tory win/EU ref/Leave win and place it into the context of independence campaigns between 2011 and 2014 for 'consideration' ? No. It wasn't a consideration for the reasons I've just outlined. Brexit wasn't a 'thing' back then.

What part of that is actually wrong though? If we had voted yes, we would have been out of the EU and lost our EU citizenship. Was the statement a lie - NO,

It's an unknown and always will be. There are good reasons to consider that Scotland could've transitioned or remained part of the EU very quickly after a Yes result. Not least beacuse of all those European fishermen needing access to Scottish waters.

did it ignore other facts and bend the truth- Yes. Much like the Indy's claiming we could rejoin the EU without taking the Euro based on Denmark (legally exempt from taking up the Euro and was a member before the Euro came in), the other 7 countries that don't have Euro must take it up after meeting certain criteria. All new members must commit to joining it (although there's no timescale).

I can't tell you how many times this has been debunked. Members must commit, but never actually need to get round to using the Euro.

[They also, at best, bent the truth around North Sea oil revenues which in turn inflated their economic case.

They used the same estimates averaged out as everyone else did at the time of the White Paper in 2013. It was only after the ref the price fell. Estimates after all, are simply that, estimates based in information available at the time. These are all the arguments from 2014 in any case.


What it really comes down to is if you believe the people of Scotland have the right to self-determination or not. What's your thoughts ?

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

That makes no sense. All bar one of the Labour leader contenders have stated they would allow an Indy vote. If that was the case why would the SNP not ask for another transfer of powers and Edinburgh style agreement to put it beyond any potential legal challenge?
When have we heard it before? Boris never advocated it, May never advocated it, Cameron agreed to a vote, what other PM advocated a vote but then refused it?

Because at the moment Labour look like being out of power for a very long time. Ironically partly down to losing most of their Scottish MPs. No one is going to sit back and wait a decade or so before asking again for a Section 30. There are real fears of what this Tory govenment will do to Holyrood during that time. It'll be a shell by then with any meaningful powers clawed back.. We don't have the time to sit about twiddling thumbs until England decides to vote Labour again.

The Sewel Convention does still exist, its now the Legislative Consent Motions and enshrined in the Parliament's Standing Orders. No, your opinion is that the precedent is that Scotland can self-determine off its own back, the counter opinion is that the precedent is that the Scottish Government must seek UK approval to hold a referendum. Again, its one that ultimately the courts will decide.

Self determination is by definition doing things off ones own back. That's why it's called self-determination. The Sewell convention still exists. But it's been knocked out by the Withdrawal Agreement which gives Westminster the right to over rule and impose what it likes regardless.

Holyrood 2016, the SNP/Indy parties have less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% of seats and they lost seats overall. The only reason they have been able to pass pro-Indy votes is because of the Scottish Greens and the Greens manifesto in 2016 did not state they are in favour of Indy or that they would back another Indy vote, they are voting without representing their electorate.

Independence support is higher than SNP support and has been diverging for some time. The two aren't the same. We'll need a referendum to gage that.

Cameron agreed at the time to transfer powers, he did not (as I recall) agree indefinite powers for the SNP to call a vote whenever they wanted. He is also no longer the PM and his government has since been replaced by May and Borris's goverments. Parliamentary sovereignty rules mean what Cameron decided cannot bind future governments. Again, it will head to the courts.

Cameron confirmed Scotland's right to self-determine it's own future. Precedent set.

I have and its a much softer stance "We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that Indy has become the preferred option." - There isn't sustained and clear evidence. It also says "should have the right" not "does have the right"
"or if there is a significant and material change...such as Scotland being taken out of the EU" - noted, that bit sounds stronger, but it still relates to 'we believe we should be allowed' not that they have the right. And as I have previously stated, their "mandate" is based on less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% of seats, combined the Union parties have a greater mandate against Indy (with the Greens changing their position after the election and therefore not representing their electorate)

It say's OR Scotland is taken out of the EU againist it's will. Not and. Boris's mandate is less than 50% too. Are you saying he doesn't have one ?
.

It's called being the truth, the same way the SNP manipulated Oil figures and made claims about EU membership, the Euro etc that had no legal basis.

Nah it was plain old lying that Scotland was and Equal member of the UK. You've said yourself we're not.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Look, I know this is hard to imagine now in 2020 when the last 4 years have been nothing else but Brexit and the EU. But an EU referendum run by the Tory party which resulted in a Leave win wasn't even vaguely on the radar. *Labour were ahead in most Westminster polls. And even in 2016 right up until the very night of the actual Brexit vote, a Remain vote was all but certain according to polling.

How can you argue it wasn't on the radar when it was part of the Tory manifesto, the LibDem manifesto, the Green manifesto, and Cameron had stated back in 2013 that he intended to hold one? Labour were ahead in the polls, but that doesn't rule out a Tory win in the upcoming election or in future elections.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There are good reasons to consider that Scotland could've transitioned or remained part of the EU very quickly after a Yes result. Not least beacuse of all those European fishermen needing access to Scottish waters. I can't tell you how many times this has been debunked. Members must commit, but never actually need to get round to using the Euro. They used the same estimates averaged out as everyone else did at the time of the White Paper in 2013. It was only after the ref the price fell. Estimates after all, are simply that, estimates based in information available at the time. These are all the arguments from 2014 in any case.

There was no precedence for it and the EU would not confirm it. They would have been a new signatory/member, and the rUK along with any other EU country could have veto's their membership.
As I stated, they have to commit to joining but there is no timescale for it. Are the SNP saying "we don't have to use the Euro", or are they saying "We will commit to using the Euro, but we will keep putting it off indefinitely and use the pound/our own currency"? Again, its an example of a political movement bending the truth.
On Oil, they did not use the same price, they estimated $110 per barrel, whereas the IFS and UK Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast a lower (albeit still wrong) $98 per barrel. The SNP also based their projects with Scotland taking control of all the hydrocarbons inside Scottish waters. That position, along with how the UK debt would be split was never finalised and so taking the maximum possible share and using a high $ per barrel price was bending the truth.
Correct, the are arguments from 2014, I am simply using them to show both sides in any referendum will manipulate/bend facts to their advantage, but that doesn't mean they are lying.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What it really comes down to is if you believe the people of Scotland have the right to self-determination or not. What's your thoughts ?

I think we should have the ability to do so, however, I do not think there currently is enough support for an Indy Scotland to mandate a vote (whether you agree with my opinion on % of vote as a mandate or not, that is my personnel opinion)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because at the moment Labour look like being out of power for a very long time. Ironically partly down to losing most of their Scottish MPs. No one is going to sit back and wait a decade or so before asking again for a Section 30. There are real fears of what this Tory govenment will do to Holyrood during that time. It'll be a shell by then with any meaningful powers clawed back.. We don't have the time to sit about twiddling thumbs until England decides to vote Labour again.
Self determination is by definition doing things off ones own back. That's why it's called self-determination. The Sewell convention still exists. But it's been knocked out by the Withdrawal Agreement which gives Westminster the right to over rule and impose what it likes regardless. Independence support is higher than SNP support and has been diverging for some time. The two aren't the same. We'll need a referendum to gage that.

Until we hear the SNP plan on Friday, we don't know what will happen.
Until other Indy parties start to to seats, % of votes the SNP are the ones that will be forcing their route to attempt and IndyRef.
The only way to gage that is with a referendum that has no potential challenges to its legitimacy, however, at current Westminster do not agree with their being a mandate for that and it remains to be seen what will happen next.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Cameron confirmed Scotland's right to self-determine it's own future. Precedent set.
It say's OR Scotland is taken out of the EU againist it's will. Not and. Boris's mandate is less than 50% too. Are you saying he doesn't have one ?
.Nah it was plain old lying that Scotland was and Equal member of the UK. You've said yourself we're not.

Parliamentary Sovereignty does not allow for that. Cameron cannot bind future governments. That also ignores the fact that the precedent was that Scotland could self-determine with a transfer of powers. It is too complex an issue to be as black and white as your state, which is why it will end up in court.
I know it says OR but the OR still relates to the fact "We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum", should have the right and do have the right are two different things.
The part was a lie, as was claiming Oil was "a bonus" and "If oil is taken out of the equation, then Scotland’s economic output per head is almost identical to that of the UK. The benefit we get from oil and gas will be a huge bonus" when it was in fact the basis of their figures and fully baked into their numbers (confirmed by the former head of the SNP’s Growth Commission).
Boris mandate comes from the Brexit vote, the SNP don't have a similar Indy result to back them up.

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

Quite a lot of comments to go through since I logged off last night!
Coming back to this point that I had previously missed around "we have the nukes, that is a combination of an over simplification of things and being outright incorrect. The UK's nuclear deterrent is made up of 3 separate parts, 1) Nucelar Warheads 2) Ballistic missiles 3) Vanguard class submarines.

Of course it was an oversimplification, I didn't think we needed to go into painful detail on a throwaway comment.


As I said; I don't care that we wouldn't have had the ability to use it because we'd never use it. But we'd also have enough to prevent anyone else using it.


If England doesn't want Trident held ransom by the Scots, then move it to Plymouth or something.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

Of course it was an oversimplification, I didn't think we needed to go into painful detail on a throwaway comment.


As I said; I don't care that we wouldn't have had the ability to use it because we'd never use it. But we'd also have enough to prevent anyone else using it.


If England doesn't want Trident held ransom by the Scots, then move it to Plymouth or something.

We have nothing to prevent anyone else using it. At best we could hold some non-usable warheads to ransom, but that is in no way a deterrent and doesn't prevent anyone from doing whatever they want.
The UK, NATO and the US among others all want Trident to have a base in Faslane because of the georgraphical benefits of the base (multiple deep waterways in and out). None of them seriously think parts of it would be held to random, or don't care as it they would wipe out any potential attempt to hold them ransom and with the US and UK being on the UN Security Council, there would be no reprimands.

abz88

On a slightly off but related topic. How do folk in this thread feel about the current debate about flying the European flag? Wasting time that could be better spent debating more important issues, undermining the non-political SPCB? Or a valid issues that deserves this level of debate?

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

How can you argue it wasn't on the radar when it was part of the Tory manifesto, the LibDem manifesto, the Green manifesto, and Cameron had stated back in 2013 that he intended to hold one? Labour were ahead in the polls, but that doesn't rule out a Tory win in the upcoming election or in future elections.

Pretty easily. Because if it had been well known that there was a ToryGovt/Vote/Leave vote on the cards back then. BetterTogether wouldn't have used EU membership as a stick to beat the Yes campaign with. Even Ruth Davidson dismissed the possibility. There's a video of her doing so. You may argue the toss as much as you like. But the plain fact of the matter is that losing EU membership was made one of the biggest reasons to vote No. They could not have done so, in any way, shape or form, if everyone knew there was a big Tory EU Leave vote flashing red just 2 years later.

There was no precedence for it and the EU would not confirm it. They would have been a new signatory/member, and the rUK along with any other EU country could have veto's their membership.

Like I said. An unknown.

As I stated, they have to commit to joining but there is no timescale for it. Are the SNP saying "we don't have to use the Euro", or are they saying "We will commit to using the Euro, but we will keep putting it off indefinitely and use the pound/our own currency"? Again, its an example of a political movement bending the truth.

To join the Euro you must first spend two years in the ERM. No country needs commit to do so. QED.

On Oil, they did not use the same price, they estimated $110 per barrel, whereas the IFS and UK Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast a lower (albeit still wrong) $98 per barrel.

Whoo a whole $12 difference between the White Paper and the OBR. They were both basically predicting the same. It's just that when the oil price fell afterwards only the White Paper estimates were leapt on.

The SNP also based their projects with Scotland taking control of all the hydrocarbons inside Scottish waters.

There is no debate about this. Most lie in Scottish waters and will revert to Scottish assets after independence.

That position, along with how the UK debt would be split was never finalised and so taking the maximum possible share and using a high $ per barrel price was bending the truth.

Estimates are estimates based on current figures projected onto unknowable future events. They're not 'truth' or lies. They're estimates.

Correct, the are arguments from 2014, I am simply using them to show both sides in any referendum will manipulate/bend facts to their advantage, but that doesn't mean they are lying.

Yes but endless going over the same ground 6 years after the event. They do get a little tedious..

Parliamentary Sovereignty does not allow for that. Cameron cannot bind future governments. That also ignores the fact that the precedent was that Scotland could self-determine with a transfer of powers. It is too complex an issue to be as black and white as your state, which is why it will end up in court.
I know it says OR but the OR still relates to the fact "We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum", should have the right and do have the right are two different things.
The part was a lie, as was claiming Oil was "a bonus" and "If oil is taken out of the equation, then Scotland’s economic output per head is almost identical to that of the UK. The benefit we get from oil and gas will be a huge bonus" when it was in fact the basis of their figures and fully baked into their numbers (confirmed by the former head of the SNP’s Growth Commission).
Boris mandate comes from the Brexit vote, the SNP don't have a similar Indy result to back them up.

re Cameron. Parliamentary sovereignty doesn't exist in Scottish law.

The Lord President did give his opinion that "the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCormick_v_Lord_Advocate


Boris's mandate for anything isn't 50% of the vote. This is what the SNP were voted in for. With a bigger share of the Scottish vote than Boris's over the UK.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

On a slightly off but related topic. How do folk in this thread feel about the current debate about flying the European flag? Wasting time that could be better spent debating more important issues, undermining the non-political SPCB? Or a valid issues that deserves this level of debate?

It's half an hour. You'd probably spend more time eating your lunch. I don't think it'll impact much on public services lol. As for the principle, Scotland voted 62% to stay in the EU. We're not getting to stay in the EU so flying the flag for a bit might be some measure of small consolation.