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

Herzlos

I don't really care if you believe me, I don't believe you thought I was actually threatening to nuke England.


I also agree, the Scots aren't going to be blinded by the Better Together narrative this time round.

mollycat

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't really care if you believe me, I don't believe you thought I was actually threatening to nuke England.


I also agree, the Scots aren't going to be blinded by the Better Together narrative this time round.

What time round?

Herzlos

mollycat wrote: »

What time round?

Whether Westminster approves of a referendum or not, theres going to be a lot of disinformation should the people get a say.

mollycat

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't really care if you believe me, I don't believe you thought I was actually threatening to nuke England.


I also agree, the Scots aren't going to be blinded by the Better Together narrative this time round.

I'll try again

What time round?

You do know there isn't going to be another referendun soon?

The_Rainmaker

Not seen this mentioned on here but it looks like SNP policy to disenfranchise their constituents unless they vote SNP.

These people should start wearing brown shirts which they were quite keen on back in the day a leopard doesn't change its spots!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/john-mason-defends-refusal-to-speak-up-for-unionist-constituents-zzh3w9lqj

Herzlos

mollycat wrote: »

You do know there isn't going to be another referendun soon?

I guess we'll find out tomorrow:A

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

I'll try again

What time round?

You do know there isn't going to be another referendun soon?

Oh fab ! The Referendum Bill just received royal assent.

Current Status of the Bill :- This Scottish Government Bill was introduced by the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations, Michael Russell MSP, on 28 May 2019. Royal Assent received on 29 January 2020.

Moe_The_Bartender

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh fab ! The Referendum Bill just received royal assent.

I'd like to read about that but can’t find anything on the web. Would you post a link please.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

So we have gone from no one could have foreseen an EU referendum, never mind a leave vote, to Nicola warned us all but the mainstream media refused to show it. Was it in their White Paper? If it was not, then again, that's the Indy campaigns fault, if it was an people didn't read the White paper then we go into the territory of the electorate being uninformed and not actually knowing what they voted for (on both sides)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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/

It's not debunked, even the article from the ferret states "Two countries have negotiated opt-outs, the UK and Denmark, while seven countries do not currently fulfil the criteria for joining the euro area but are officially expected to do so in the future." "It is technically right that any country which joins the EU is expected to join the euro. The EU has been very clear over this policy" "Blackford argues that joining the ERM is “entirely voluntary”, but it is not quite that simple. The EU legislation says that “participation in ERM is voluntary for non-euro countries with an opt out from the single currency” but that members “are expected to participate”. "It is possible that Scotland could negotiate a formal opt-out, but this has not been the case for other recent EU expansion nations."."This means that to avoid joining the ERM, Scotland would likely need to negotiate an opt-out." As I said, if it is in the ascension agreement they have to commit to it, and my point was that Indy claimed they would not have to join and that this was bending the truth as they had not negotiated an opt-out and had not negotiated an accession treaty.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The OBR were wrong too weren't they.

I have already said they were wrong (although not as wrong as the SNP), you stated the SNP used exactly the same figures as everyone else, I showed this not to be true. Again a difference of $12 a barrel over 24 billion barrels is a massive difference.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

And how often did they qualify there finances with the fact there is a massive volatility in oil and how often did they skip over that part? While I won't deny being nearly at 100% is fantastic, we still have a massive Oil and Gas industry (not all oil is used for energy, its used for plastics like the type that the extinction rebellion boat and green peace boats are made from). We sell oil across the world and even if you take the income tax benefits of it it is a large contributor. It's also not going anywhere as the Oil and Gas majors are moving into renewable's and the supply chains are almost one and the same (my company works in both fields, as well as dredgin, salvage, marine transport etc)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

Again, that's your opinion, until/if there is a yes vote and Indy is finalised, only then will we know the terms. To think the Scottish Govenment will get everything they ask for is foolish at best. It didn't work for the UK in Brexit and work work for Scotland either

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

It might be the simplest, but I could easily go on and edit it if I felt like it. I am still reading the last article you posted, (its 46 pages long so not exactly a quick read), I did, however, concede there are legal opinions on both sides. Even the into to it states "there are good arguments" and "The matter has never been the subject of authoritative legal decision and is not, however, free from academic controversy". As I keep saying, these are complex and debated legal and political decisions, to have a black and white view of them (when your back-up doesn't even have that) makes little sense.
Regarding Lord Cooper, to argue its a set precedence you have to either argue his statement was not obiter dictum or that obiter dictum is not applicable under Scots law (you can head down the rabbit hole with that one). Its also never been confirmed and the only other reference to it (as far as I can find) is in Gibson vs Lord Advocate, but again it was obiter dictum "Like Lord President Cooper, I prefer to reserve my opinion what the position would be if the United Kingdom Parliament passed an Act purporting to abolish the Court of Session or the Church of Scotland or to substitute English law for the whole body of Scots private law".
see articles such as these, http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-union-and-the-constitution https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/1newwebsite/departmentsubject/law/documents/studentlawreview/Halliday_SSLR_article_1.6.pdf https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/scotlands-constitutional-position-and-brexit/
They all support the idea that it is contested and not set in stone as you claim. With the final one even stating that regardless of whether or not Scotland has Parliamentary or popular sovereignty Westminster will ignore it and follow English law. This issue came up regarding Cameron binding Westminster, if the argument it turning to should Westminster follow English or potential Scots law on issues it believes are reserved then that is one for the courts to decide on (or for them to dodge by claiming it is a political matter)
I get the feeling that even if any of the above did end up in court, and a judgement was made that didn't fit with your black and white views, you would simply contest that the judgement was wrong and you are still 100% right.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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 !

You can patronise me all you want, it makes a refreshing change from the comment on social media last night that the MSP's that opposed the SNP motion along with anyone that voted for them should be deported/lined up and shot/hung for treason or that they are all list MSP's and should be ignored. The Scottish Parliament enact legislation, unless it is a reserved issue. That is what the upcoming legal/politcal battle will be about, is holding a referendum a reserved issue. I know your position on it, but it has yet to legally confirmed or denied. And yet again, the motion past last night is that the Scottish Governement will again formally request a transfer of powers. Friday will be interesting as I assume it will be rejected by then.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh fab ! The Referendum Bill just received royal assent.

Can you post a link please?

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

It's not debunked, even the article from the ferret states "Two countries have negotiated opt-outs, the UK and Denmark, while seven countries do not currently fulfil the criteria for joining the euro area but are officially expected to do so in the future." "It is technically right that any country which joins the EU is expected to join the euro. The EU has been very clear over this policy" "Blackford argues that joining the ERM is “entirely voluntary”, but it is not quite that simple. The EU legislation says that “participation in ERM is voluntary for non-euro countries with an opt out from the single currency” but that members “are expected to participate”. "It is possible that Scotland could negotiate a formal opt-out, but this has not been the case for other recent EU expansion nations."."This means that to avoid joining the ERM, Scotland would likely need to negotiate an opt-out." As I said, if it is in the ascension agreement they have to commit to it, and my point was that Indy claimed they would not have to join and that this was bending the truth as they had not negotiated an opt-out and had not negotiated an accession treaty.

Sounds pretty debunked to me. Plus, what's so bad about taking the EUR? Solves our currency problem.

I have already said they were wrong (although not as wrong as the SNP), you stated the SNP used exactly the same figures as everyone else, I showed this not to be true. Again a difference of $12 a barrel over 24 billion barrels is a massive difference.

It's a 10% difference whether it's on 1 barrel of 24 billion. Do you think it invalidates the point somehow? 24 billion barrels is an incomprehensible sum of money at $112 or $100, for pretty much anyone. It's also well known that oil prices fluctuate pretty wildly as does the $ exchange rate.