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

paparossco

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

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

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/111844.aspx

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

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

How is it debunked? The SNP statement was that we would not have to take the EURO, as per the article that Shakethedisease shared, that would only be possible if Scotland successfully negotiated out of it as part of the ascension treaty and that that has never been successfully done.
I never said there was anything bad about it, I stated that for the SNP to claim there was no requirement to join the Euro was a a lie as it was never confirmed.

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

Again, Shakethedisease stated that the SNP used the same figures as everyone else. That is clearly not the case. And it is a comprehensible sum of money to a country that using that sum of money as an economical argument for its ability to support itself as an independent nation. They used it as a basis for Scotland's future finances without accounting for the potential volatility and showing a best and worse case. Again, I used this as an example of both sides bending the truth at the last vote.
Are you really going to try and claim that Better Together was the only side that bent or manipulated facts or told lies at points throughout the last campaign, or that they will be the only side that will do so in the future?

John_Doe

paparossco wrote: »

parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/111844

I trust that the hopeful in here do realise that this Bill is for devolved issues only.

Before I hear cries of "advisory" might I remind you all that it takes a Westminster vote to accept such an eventuality and that is why N Sturgeon has previously had to ask B Johnson to allow a vote.

Non-compliance with the rules would only lead to a Catalonia-style standoff at best for nationalists and even that looks very unlikely.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

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)

You told me the Yes campaign should've made more of an effort to bring the issue to people's attention. I gave you two examples where they did but it wasn't reported on.

The focus on voting Yes meaning a loss of EU membeership was given a million times more airtime and print inches. And when the possibility of an EU ref WAS brought up. It was dismissed as nonsense. Same as Boris Johnson being PM strangely enough ( Blair McDougall scoffed at that one ). The idea that your average ordinary Scots punter thought that there was a Leave vote round the corner isn't bourne out when you compare the coverage the BetterTogther on this issue, and that which the Yes campaign got.

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.

Let me ask you two questions. Let's say Scotland joins the EU and 10 years later hasn't joined the ERM. Is Scotland using the Euro ? Let's again say that Scotland joins the EU and 30 years later hasn't joined the ERM. Is Scotland using the Euro ? Junker said a year or so back that he wasn't going to force countries to join the Euro if they weren't 'ready' for it. Whatever 'ready' means. And in any case, there are good reasons now Scotland is out of the EU that the Scottish Govt may advocate for an EFTA solution first.

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.
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)

As I said the OBR got it massively wrong as well. And again, it's not something that will be relied on in any second ref going forward. It was harsh lesson to learn. But they'll have learnt it well. No oil forecasts in white papers and instead concentrate on renewables. Something Scotland does excel at given the amount of natural resources. Again though this is old school 2014. Going back to obsess over a 7 year old publication.

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

Well they won't have to actually ask for the sea water territory off the Scottish coast. Because they are Scottish sea waters and hence mineral rights. Are you envisioning tiny little rUK oil field encalves dotted about the North Sea ? How would you go about dividing these things up given where they are located geographically ? Feel free to elaborate.

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.

I don't have black and white views. And be careful of slipping into personlising this, I simply have different view from you. Do you think or can you state where Parliamentary sovereignty or the concept appears in Scottish Constitutional law ? That's what the Lord was saying after all. I also don't think stating that Westminster will ignore it and follow English law is particulary surprising. It's the reason many of us would like to see Scotland independent.

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.

Social media is a cesspit at times. Tends to get personal really quick. Best to avoid and block those type of people ( who appear on both sides I can assure you ).

Can you post a link please?

It's been posted now. Sooo, now we have a Scottish Govt that can hold referendums on any matter within competence. I guess now all thats needed is wording so the referendum question falls within competence. This would give the Scottish Govt complete contol of the process.

There was some discussion about this wording back in 2011/12 before the section 30 being issued resolved it. I must see if I can find it again. It didn't involve asking the independence question directly. It was something along the lines of 'Should the Scottish Govt...It was hotly debated here back then. Good times !:)

Shakethedisease

This from today is also good news ( even though polls are unreliable of course ).:cool:

A new YouGov survey on Scottish independence has Yes in the lead for the first time since 2015, by 51% to 49%.

A combination of Remain-voting Scots who backed No in 2014 switching over to Yes, plus younger generations joining the electorate, have been enough to give the pro-independence side a narrow lead

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1222871376111054848

poll found most popular advantages Scots gave for becoming independent 1) Scotland would not have to implement policies decided in London that most Scots reject 2) Scotland could stay in the EU 3) Scotland would have full powers to decide how to use North Sea oil revenue

Herzlos

Scottish Parliament approves 2nd referendum 64 to 54.


So that'll be SNP (62) + 2 others, with the usual suspects against.

Ruprecht

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This from today is also good news ( even though polls are unreliable of course )

But you forgetting:

However, a majority of Scots opposed holding a second vote on the issue this year and the survey found that many voters were still worried about the economic impact, with 42% thinking an independent Scotland would be worse off against 35% believing it would be better off.

When polls regular say majority in favor is time to gamble not before and specially not at very emotional time like now because if even that only show very very small lead then very very high risk.

Shakethedisease

Ruprecht wrote: »

But you forgetting:
When polls regular say majority in favor is time to gamble not before and specially not at very emotional time like now because if even that only show very very small lead then very very high risk.

Think there's an Ipsos Mori one due soon ( crowdfunded ). They had 50/50 in Nov.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You told me the Yes campaign should've made more of an effort to bring the issue to people's attention. I gave you two examples where they did but it wasn't reported on.

The focus on voting Yes meaning a loss of EU membeership was given a million times more airtime and print inches. And when the possibility of an EU ref WAS brought up. It was dismissed as nonsense. Same as Boris Johnson being PM strangely enough ( Blair McDougall scoffed at that one ). The idea that your average ordinary Scots punter thought that there was a Leave vote round the corner isn't bourne out when you compare the coverage the BetterTogther on this issue, and that which the Yes campaign got.

Whether they thought or should have thought are two separate issues. If its an issue of the level of coverage between the two campaigns, in the media possibly, but on social media from memory the Yes campaign and points were plastered everywhere.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Let me ask you two questions. Let's say Scotland joins the EU and 10 years later hasn't joined the ERM. Is Scotland using the Euro ? Let's again say that Scotland joins the EU and 30 years later hasn't joined the ERM. Is Scotland using the Euro ?

In answer to both those questions, at that time Scotland would not be using the Euro but that doesn't mean they will not have committed to using it in the future (unless they negotiate out of it). Can you provide a definitive answer on if the EU will decide to enforce the commitments made by its members to join the Euro in the future or a definitive answer on whether or not Scotland's treaty of accession will require them to join the Euro?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Junker said a year or so back that he wasn't going to force countries to join the Euro if they weren't 'ready' for it. Whatever 'ready' means. And in any case, there are good reasons now Scotland is out of the EU that the Scottish Govt may advocate for an EFTA solution first.

Junker isn't the be all and end all of the EU and stepped down as the the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen has a different view on that "The euro, our common currency, is more than the coins and notes in our pockets. It is a symbol of our unity and of Europe’s promise of prosperity and protection. We must never stop making it stronger. This is why I will prioritise the further deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union." (From her agenda for Europe)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As I said the OBR got it massively wrong as well. And again, it's not something that will be relied on in any second ref going forward. It was harsh lesson to learn. But they'll have learnt it well. No oil forecasts in white papers and instead concentrate on renewables. Something Scotland does excel at given the amount of natural resources. Again though this is old school 2014. Going back to obsess over a 7 year old publication.

You would hope so, however, I doubt they will completely remove it as it the O&G industry will continue to have an effect on UK/Scottish finances, even if you only consider income tax from jobs (usually fairly high paying compared to similar roles in other industries)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well they won't have to actually ask for the sea water territory off the Scottish coast. Because they are Scottish sea waters and hence mineral rights. Are you envisioning tiny little rUK oil field encalves dotted about the North Sea ? How would you go about dividing these things up given where they are located geographically ? Feel free to elaborate.

Shared oil fields are not a new thing. The Utgard and Barnacle fields are split across Norway and the UK. Equinor (Statoil) operate it but the UK retains a share in the field. If there is a split in assests, essentially it would still be case of operators operating fields and its a case of who they buy a license from and who they pay tax to (which could be some tax to Scotland and some to UK).
Then there is the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 which did re-define the territorial seas of the UK and moved some oil fields into English jurisdiction. I am not saying I agree with it, but it has happened in the past. I know your stance on Orkeny and Shetland, but you have reasoned that in future they could hold their own referendum, which in turn would require a further slip of territorial waters.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Do you think or can you state where Parliamentary sovereignty or the concept appears in Scottish Constitutional law ? That's what the Lord was saying after all.

Without doing too much research into it, from the same case Lord Russell added his opinion by pointing out in reference to Westminster: "During the last 250 years...there has grown up a system of representative government embracing adult suffrage, five-year parliaments and the like until today it seems possible to affirm that the will of the majority of the population - both in Scotland and in England - is represented by and vested in its Parliamentary representatives."
There is also Macgregor v Lord Advocate 1921 SC 847 the Lord Ordinary (Anderson) states that “the constitution of Scotland has been the same as that of England since 1707 [and] there is a presumption that the same constitutional principles apply in both countries”
Going back to Lord Cooper, there is also an argument made that he did not distinguish between the legal sovereignty of Parliamentto make law, and the democratic sovereignty of the people to elect and unelect Parliament in the first place. So in Scotland (and England) we express our democratic sovereignty through electing representatives in parliaments who in turn are legally sovereign within their particular contexts - Westminster, Holyrood and Strasbourg

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Social media is a cesspit at times. Tends to get personal really quick. Best to avoid and block those type of people ( who appear on both sides I can assure you ).

Correct, and I assume it will only get worse moving forward

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's been posted now. Sooo, now we have a Scottish Govt that can hold referendums on any matter within competence. I guess now all thats needed is wording so the referendum question falls within competence. This would give the Scottish Govt complete contol of the process.

That will likely be the part that ends up in court, as I cannot see either Westminster accepting the wording, or Holyrood accepting a counter-proposal.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

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




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.

Not really, you have to have had exchange rate stability for 2 years, with your own currency, and there are a few other problems too, like your deficit etc.