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

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

Parliamentary Sovereignty does not allow for that. Cameron cannot bind future governments.

I guess it depends if Cameron said that Scotland wasn't legally entitled to hold a referendum, and it was being held purely at his governments discretion, in which case no future government was bound to it.


However, if he set the precedent that Scotland is legally allowed to hold a referendum, then it's not for a future government to just deny a further one without a change in the law or legal challenge.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Better Together put forward their argument that voting Yes would mean leaving the EU. It was up to the Indy movement to counter with the fact that there was a chance (however remote that was) that this would happen regardless is Cameron (the then PM) followed through with this promise to hold an EU referendum.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

New memebers have to to agree to the Euro, however, it is partly correct that the 5th and final criteria to qualify for adopting the Euro is the two year ERM period. To say you don't need to commit to that isn't correct as it can be a requirement under the terms of the treaty of accession (as is the case with the remaining non-euro countries (excluding Denmark). Any idea that Scotland could avoid committing to joining it would rely on them being able to not have it included in their treaty of ascension (if they ever get one). So to claim we would not have to commit to adopting the Euro is not entirely true.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Whoo a whole $12 difference between the White Paper and the OBR. They were both basically predicting the same.

When you are talking about a claimed 24 billion barrels of oil, an extra $12 per barrel results in a massive total valuation difference, and is not basically the same thing!

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's just that when the oil price fell afterwards only the White Paper estimates were leapt on.

It's not the fist oil price crash and the SNP were well warned about the volatility of the oil price. John Swinney questioned the affordability of state pensions after independence and warned internally that the country’s finances would be at the mercy of volatile oil prices but then claimed we were on the cusp of a boom. He also accepted forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility that predicted a decline in revenues.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

Again, its your opinion. There was no agreed way to split the assets and debts of the UK should Scotland have left, there still isn't a split agreed should we leave in the future.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Parliamentary sovereignty doesn't exist in Scottish law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCormick_v_Lord_Advocate

That is in no way a settled position. If your read the full judgement, Lord Cooper states " But lest this case should go further, I shall briefly express my opinion. ". It is obiter dictum and is not legally binding as a precedent. Wikipedia really isn't a great source to quote constitutional law from.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

You can argue Boris doesn't have a mandate, but then if that's the case neither do the SNP, you can't have it both ways. My argument is that the mandate came from the Brexit vote, more than 50% of voters voted for Brexit, less than 50% of voters voted for Indy.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

Better Together put forward their argument that voting Yes would mean leaving the EU. It was up to the Indy movement to counter with the fact that there was a chance (however remote that was) that this would happen regardless is Cameron (the then PM) followed through with this promise to hold an EU referendum.

They did. There's also a video of Nicola Sturgeon doing so, as well as Patrick Harvie. In fact it was Patrick Ruth was replying to when she said it wasn't a possibility. You're being a little naive again over broadcasting if you think that Nicola, Patrick or indeed anyone pointing this out got any coverage at all. In print or otherwise.

New memebers have to to agree to the Euro, however, it is partly correct that the 5th and final criteria to qualify for adopting the Euro is the two year ERM period. To say you don't need to commit to that isn't correct as it can be a requirement under the terms of the treaty of accession (as is the case with the remaining non-euro countries (excluding Denmark). Any idea that Scotland could avoid committing to joining it would rely on them being able to not have it included in their treaty of ascension (if they ever get one). So to claim we would not have to commit to adopting the Euro is not entirely true.

This has been debunked about a million times. Scotland having to join the Euro. They don't. 7 of the now 27 don't use it either. 2014 all over again. https://theferret.scot/independent-scotland-join-the-euro/

When you are talking about a claimed 24 billion barrels of oil, an extra $12 per barrel results in a massive total valuation difference, and is not basically the same thing!

The OBR were wrong too weren't they.

It's not the fist oil price crash and the SNP were well warned about the volatility of the oil price. John Swinney questioned the affordability of state pensions after independence and warned internally that the country’s finances would be at the mercy of volatile oil prices but then claimed we were on the cusp of a boom. He also accepted forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility that predicted a decline in revenues.

The SNP are well aware of the oil price volatility. In fact even on here when I was posting in the run up to the last ref. I think the word 'volatile' was my most used. They won't be making that mistake again the the next white paper ( predicting oil prices) . Scotland's nearly at 100% renewables now. That's fantastic going.

Again, its your opinion. There was no agreed way to split the assets and debts of the UK should Scotland have left, there still isn't a split agreed should we leave in the future.

No, I'm afraid there won't be. The oil goes along with Scotland. Same as Orkney and Shetland.

That is in no way a settled position. If your read the full judgement, Lord Cooper states " But lest this case should go further, I shall briefly express my opinion. ". It is obiter dictum and is not legally binding as a precedent. Wikipedia really isn't a great source to quote constitutional law from.

Wikipedia is the simplest. I'm not posting screeds of it, and the last legal opinon I posted up in full you've not mentioned again. Again it's the precedent set. There's been no differing legal opinon since which is why it's used. Then there's the Claim of Right etc etc. Whether legal or otherwise, it's a commonly held view that the people of Scotland are sovereign and it has been for 100's of years.

You can argue Boris doesn't have a mandate, but then if that's the case neither do the SNP, you can't have it both ways. My argument is that the mandate came from the Brexit vote, more than 50% of voters voted for Brexit, less than 50% of voters voted for Indy.

Abz, I don't want to patronise you. You're a refreshing change from the usual sort of posts on this thread. But it's the Scottish Parliament that passing mandates and enacting legislation based on them. Twice now. You're not really telling me and others that the Scottish Parliament can be safely ignored if we don't like the people the Scottish electorate vote in there to represent their views and carry out policies they were voted in on ?


What kind of UK of that ? The Scottish Parliament dismissed because we don't like how Scotland votes ? Surely not. I think you've all just got so used to equating the SNP with seats and vote share nonsense you've forgotten where all those MSP's sit what it stands for, and who put them there !

Fran_Klee

Nat tactics 101:
ALL opposing statements and comments must be exaggerated, misinterpreted and then used to demonstrate the alleged depravity of the opposition.
Meantime all self-made inflammatory statements up to and including the suggestion of mass murder are either:
- denied outright, even if the comment is clearly visible.
- to be dismissed as throwaway comments.

So sayeth this one:

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.

:rotfl:

Fran_Klee

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 pure daft.
Ask those wanting to fly the EU flag if they're coming to your "Leaving the EU" party or how they feel about a certain 50p coin and see the reaction from those that still won't accept a democratically-made decision.:D


A thought: why is Nic not asking the EU if they're going to continue flying the Saltire to guage EU reaction and see what they think?

Herzlos

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Nat tactics 101:
ALL opposing statements and comments must be exaggerated, misinterpreted and then used to demonstrate the alleged depravity of the opposition.
Meantime all self-made inflammatory statements up to and including the suggestion of mass murder are either:
- denied outright, even if the comment is clearly visible.
- to be dismissed as throwaway comments.

So sayeth this one:

:rotfl:

Sorry, did you actually think that I, a self confessed lefty, in a lefty country was seriously threatening to nuke our land-neighboirs when we're still inside the fallout radius?

I cant believe anyone actually thinks that, so I suspect you're laying it on a bit thick to try and discredit me because you've got nothing else to troll with.

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

Sorry, did you actually think that I, a self confessed lefty, in a lefty country was seriously threatening to nuke our land-neighboirs when we're still inside the fallout radius?

I cant believe anyone actually thinks that, so I suspect you're laying it on a bit thick to try and discredit me because you've got nothing else to troll with.

Whoa, hold on just a minute.
You do not get to call me that when YOU said:

Herzlos wrote: »

I think his point was that if you're offended by name calling, death threats should be right out.

You then followed that with the following in here:

Herzlos wrote: »

What is England going to do, occupy us? We've got the nukes.

No threat there obvs. :wall:
It's obvious you're discrediting yourself with your own contradictions.
Obviously it stings, hence the resort to name-calling.

If I was like your usual pals I would report you - and probably get a few of those pals to report you too just to make sure but us unionists aren't as dirty as that.
We have no need.

Herzlos

No threat there at all buddy, sorry you see it that way.

mollycat

Herzlos wrote: »

Sorry, did you actually think that I, a self confessed lefty, in a lefty country was seriously threatening to nuke our land-neighboirs when we're still inside the fallout radius?

I cant believe anyone actually thinks that, so I suspect you're laying it on a bit thick to try and discredit me because you've got nothing else to troll with.

A "lefty" that supports "Nationalist" politics, you're going to have to explain that one

All the true socialists /internationalists i know 100% despise the SNP and scottish nationalism.

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

No threat there at all buddy, sorry you see it that way.

I don't believe you.
I've been here long enough even though it has only been months to see the sort of dirty tactics used, and that's why I started posting in this section.
Whilever you employ the same sort of tactics as Nic & co you will never see your dream of independence come to fruition, especially after the dishonesty of the Brexit saga.
Scots are way too sensible to be blinded by the distraction.