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

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

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.

Plastered on Social media ? There's a reason the older generation were ( and still are ) so misinformed over Scottish issues. They don't use it. They'd only have heard the BetterTogether versions of events. There's no way they would've expected any sort of Leave vote 2 years later. How could they ?

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?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)

I'm getting a little weary of this argument to be honest. Sorry. At the present time most who join the EU have to 'commit' to using the Euro. I agree. But they don't have to commit to the ERM. Scotland has no present plan to join the Euro upon independence and in fact the currency debate will likely be over using a new one and when.

There's also the overarching sentiment from many in 'your' camp if I can call it that. That Scotland won't be allowed to join the EU anyway. Deficit, Spain will veto, who'd want you yadda yadda. I guess you'll all have to make your minds up which one will be the biggest obstacle to persuading or frightening people into voting No again.. The Euro or not being able to join the EU. Which is it to be I wonder ?

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)

]I personally hope the remove it completely or list as 'unknown'.

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.

You framed the narrative as one wherely Scotland would have to ask for them. And wouldn't get everything they wanted in negotiations. Almost like they won't have a say in the matter. Shared oil fields will be by Scottish agreement not the other way round as you presented it.

Orkney and Shetland even independent would probably only control a 12 mile perimeter from their shores. UNCLOS III. It's not 100% legally tested in what would be the context of Orkney/Shetland gaining independence from Scotland, after Scotland gained independence from the UK. But it's all we have to go on for now. Not happening any time soon imo though ( Orkney/Shetland).

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

Holyrood isn't sovereign though. It's a subordiante institution under Westminster sovereignty. It's why Mr Jack ( Scottish sec ) was able to say this morning that it didn't matter 'a jot' what the Scottish Parliament passed. Classy.. but underlines the problem neatly.

Scottish Law IS different to English Law however. And devolution has muddied the waters massively since 1998. The testing of various laws and who has the power to do what has been very rare. Even Cameron issued the Section 30 rather than test them out. We've been relying on simple 'conventions' to sort out various differences. I guess at some point these sorts of things have to be faced head on.

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.

It depends on the wording really. It's one thing to ask the electorate about independence directly, entirely another to ask the the Scottish electorate who voted them in what they want the Scottish Govt to do about something. It's unlikely that the Scottish Govt asking the Scottish people how to proceed on any 'matter' would be outside competence. There's a big difference isn't there.

Una_Voidable

Herzlos wrote: »

I guess we'll find out tomorrow:A

You guessed wrong, no announcement on another vote which is strange when so many of you seem to think it's a done deal, it's almost as if Nicola knows something you don't.
Like it would never be seen as being entirely legal maybe.

Herzlos

Una_Voidable wrote: »

You guessed wrong, no announcement on another vote which is strange when so many of you seem to think it's a done deal, it's almost as if Nicola knows something you don't.
Like it would never be seen as being entirely legal maybe.

That's entirely my fault, I thought yesterday was Thursday. The announcement is meant to be on Friday (tomorrow now).

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Plastered on Social media ? There's a reason the older generation were ( and still are ) so misinformed over Scottish issues. They don't use it. They'd only have heard the BetterTogether versions of events. There's no way they would've expected any sort of Leave vote 2 years later. How could they ?

The older generation don't use social media (although more do now than did in 2014), the younger generation don't use the mainstream/print media so will have heard more of the Yes version of events. In the event of another referendum I would fully expect both sides to focus more on the social media side and hire in Cambridge Analytica type companies similar to the Brexit campaing.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm getting a little weary of this argument to be honest. Sorry. At the present time most who join the EU have to 'commit' to using the Euro. I agree. But they don't have to commit to the ERM. Scotland has no present plan to join the Euro upon independence and in fact the currency debate will likely be over using a new one and when.

But at the present time they don't have to commit to the ERM II. I agree, but that doesn't mean it won't change. Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen has made her intentions known that she wants to strengthen the eurozone and move more towards deeper monetary union. Only time will tell what that entails, along with what currency will be proposed by the Indy movements (last time round it was to keep GBP was it not?)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There's also the overarching sentiment from many in 'your' camp if I can call it that. That Scotland won't be allowed to join the EU anyway. Deficit, Spain will veto, who'd want you yadda yadda. I guess you'll all have to make your minds up which one will be the biggest obstacle to persuading or frightening people into voting No again.. The Euro or not being able to join the EU. Which is it to be I wonder ?

'Your' camp will claim 'my' camp of frightening people, 'my' camp will claim 'your' camp are painting a fantasy of an iScotland that cannot be achieved. Thats what happened last time and will happen in the event of another vote.
In terms of my opinion. I think there would be challenges in joining the EU and it won't be as easy as a large portion of the Indy camp made out last time round and may never happen. Whether or not we have to take the Euro if we gain membership would depend on what the current rules and state of play of the eurozone was at that time.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You framed the narrative as one wherely Scotland would have to ask for them. And wouldn't get everything they wanted in negotiations. Almost like they won't have a say in the matter. Shared oil fields will be by Scottish agreement not the other way round as you presented it.

Both parties will need to negotiate and agree a split of assets and debts. One of these assets will be oil and gas reserves and with Scotland moving towards renewable's there could well be a case where rUK receive rights to grant oil and gas licenses in exchange for a lower split of the debt being taken on by Scotland. The boundaries have been moved in the past and legally could be moved again.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Holyrood isn't sovereign though. It's a subordiante institution under Westminster sovereignty. It's why Mr Jack ( Scottish sec ) was able to say this morning that it didn't matter 'a jot' what the Scottish Parliament passed. Classy.. but underlines the problem neatly.

Scottish Parliament has legal sovereignty on devolved issues. A v The Scottish Minsters 2001 and Adams v Scottish Ministers 2003 both had the validity of Scottish parliamentary legislation affirmed by the courts. Even the EU Continuity Bill was deemed within the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament by the Supreme Court apart from 1 Section. The fact Westminster took it to court and effectively lost the legal argument shows that Westminster cannot simply over rule the ASP. The fact Westminster got Royal Assent first was essentially an underhand tactic.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scottish Law IS different to English Law however. And devolution has muddied the waters massively since 1998. The testing of various laws and who has the power to do what has been very rare. Even Cameron issued the Section 30 rather than test them out. We've been relying on simple 'conventions' to sort out various differences. I guess at some point these sorts of things have to be faced head on.

I, as was Lord Anderson, am fully aware that they are two different legal systems. However, that does not mean they cannot share the same or similar principles or reach essentially same judgement based on different facts or interpretations of statutes. Lord Anderson, Lord Cooper and Lord Russel's statements were all obiter dicta. Scots law is very clear on the difference between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi, it is drilled into 1st year law students to stop them finding anything a judge has said in an opinion and claiming it supports their view or has any legal precedence. There has never been, and probably never will be a true and final test on parliamentary sovereignty under Scottish Law or English law, as to do this would require something like the dissolving of the Church of Scotland or the dissolving of the Act of Union. They would be a political, never mind legal minefields!

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It depends on the wording really. It's one thing to ask the electorate about independence directly, entirely another to ask the the Scottish electorate who voted them in what they want the Scottish Govt to do about something. It's unlikely that the Scottish Govt asking the Scottish people how to proceed on any 'matter' would be outside competence. There's a big difference isn't there.

True, but would the Scottish Government risk a referendum that has wording that Westminster could argue to have less weight than the wording of the last one?

I see Sturgeon has stated she wants to reach agreement with Westminster on a transfer of powers before an and acknowledged it might not happen until after the next Scottish election. So are we heading towards a rise of extreme nationalists or is it a case of sit back and weight?

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

That's entirely my fault, I thought yesterday was Thursday. The announcement is meant to be on Friday (tomorrow now).

Still no announcement on another vote or of a legal challenge to Boris refusing to transfer powers. It would appear they are going to try and build a political case at the next Scottish election.

loadsacash

Herzlos wrote: »

That's entirely my fault, I thought yesterday was Thursday. The announcement is meant to be on Friday (tomorrow now).

What announcement was that?

Can't be this one

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51311288?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR1KGzckge9eX3LrzfOOblUl24bmDNJj9veskOtwzGgh5z_cjpn_SJrOVHw

penners324

Will there be a super majority requirement on any referendum?

penners324

Extracting Scotland from the UK will vastly harder, more complicated and more economically damaging to Scotland than the UK leaving the EU.

molerat

How about Nero Sturgeon getting on with he day job. https://www.northern-scot.co.uk/news/nhs-chief-must-go-moray-maternity-campaigners-190582/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

molerat

abz88 wrote: »

Still no announcement on another vote or of a legal challenge to Boris refusing to transfer powers. It would appear they are going to try and build a political case at the next Scottish election.

Exactly as anyone with any common sense had predicted. A Yes vote is by no means a certainty (except in a few blinkered eyes) and NS knows that. She may be many things but politically unaware is not one of them.