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

Shakethedisease

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

You're missing the point. A referendum on Scottish independence is nothing to do with Westminster. Only if there's a Yes vote does it become a Westminster concern. There is no route now whereby Scotland can regain it's independence without direct confrontation with Westminster and dispensing with any Westminster authority on the matter. Many in the movement are just starting to accept this having pinned hopes on Section 30's and Boris or May somehow 'coming round' to 'allowing' a referendum. This was/is never going to happen when there's a decent chance of a Yes vote. Myself and many like me have no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything.

I can totally understand why Nicola Sturgeon might be reluctant to dispense with all Westminster dicatat on the next referendum. She's cautious and moderate and it's going to start a s**t storm of epic proportions. With the media once again going into a feeding frenzy ( they're already trying to blame the SNP for a bridge closure due to bad weather... it's ridiculous ). Salmond's trial will be another one. But sooner or later it has to be faced and gotten on with. Perhaps the timing might be better when businesses up and down the country are freaking out over no EU trade deals in a few months time. But sooner or later Holyrood will have to defy Westminster. Westminster approval or not I'm afraid. Even a court case may well just end up with Westminster legislating to ban Scottish referendums altogether. Things could get very nasty indeed so yes, I can understand her reluctance.

FPTP I was pointing out that if Holyrood elections were on the same basis as Westminster ones then the SNP would have most of the seats in Holyrood. There's too much confusion over how Holyrood parliaments are elected. The SNP lost their majority last time because despite nearly a million votes on the list... they only gained 4 seats. They did far too well in the constituency seats. This is why I think looking at a second indy party standing only on the list, if they can get it right, may well be worth thinking about next year if Nicola still hasn't acted decisively. .

Enterprise_1701C

A vote on Scottish independence has EVERYTHING to do with Westminster.  You have representation there, and your MPs have stuck their nose into plenty of things that should be down to EVEL, such as extending Sunday opening hours and the suchlike.  The SNP has complained that EVEL makes Scottish MPs "second class citizens" in Westminster, but have you ever let us vote in your "parliament"?

Your independence bid affects the whole of the UK, and it is not just down to Brexit because Sturgeon stated that even if we decided to withdraw Article 50 she would still be after another referendum.

That is one reason why I can't understand why the rUK did not get a vote too, you would have been gone by now if only so we didn't have to listen to Sturgeon carping on.

Wait and see what happens with the Holyrood elections, when it comes to local government people tend to vote for parties that do the job they are supposed to, can't currently see that applying to the SNP.

Shakethedisease

Right. So you think the whole of the EU should've had a vote on the UK leaving ? 

abz88

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

You're missing the point. A referendum on Scottish independence is nothing to do with Westminster. Only if there's a Yes vote does it become a Westminster concern. There is no route now whereby Scotland can regain it's independence without direct confrontation with Westminster and dispensing with any Westminster authority on the matter. Many in the movement are just starting to accept this having pinned hopes on Section 30's and Boris or May somehow 'coming round' to 'allowing' a referendum. This was/is never going to happen when there's a decent chance of a Yes vote. Myself and many like me have no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything.

I can totally understand why Nicola Sturgeon might be reluctant to dispense with all Westminster dicatat on the next referendum. She's cautious and moderate and it's going to start a s**t storm of epic proportions. With the media once again going into a feeding frenzy ( they're already trying to blame the SNP for a bridge closure due to bad weather... it's ridiculous ). Salmond's trial will be another one. But sooner or later it has to be faced and gotten on with. Perhaps the timing might be better when businesses up and down the country are freaking out over no EU trade deals in a few months time. But sooner or later Holyrood will have to defy Westminster. Westminster approval or not I'm afraid. Even a court case may well just end up with Westminster legislating to ban Scottish referendums altogether. Things could get very nasty indeed so yes, I can understand her reluctance.

FPTP I was pointing out that if Holyrood elections were on the same basis as Westminster ones then the SNP would have most of the seats in Holyrood. There's too much confusion over how Holyrood parliaments are elected. The SNP lost their majority last time because despite nearly a million votes on the list... they only gained 4 seats. They did far too well in the constituency seats. This is why I think looking at a second indy party standing only on the list, if they can get it right, may well be worth thinking about next year if Nicola still hasn't acted decisively. .

Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts. A Scottish referendum has an effect on Westminster/rUK regardless of the vote. A Yes vote puts the Union in jeopardy, a No vote affirms the Union, add on top of that that if a second referendum is held it sets a precedent that Holryood can decide to hold one whenever they want, which dilutes the reserved issue that Westminster currently feels applies to this. 

Unless the SNP change direction or one of these other radical Indy parties you keep mentioning actually forms, runs in elections and gets a power share then that's where we are. You wanting to hold another ref and having "no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything" means nothing, its just an opinion and empty statement unless you all group together and actually do something about it.

Herzlos

Scottish independence would affect the rUK in the same way rUK leaving the EU affects the EU or me quitting my job affects my boss, but why does an equal partner need permission to leave a relationship?

Moe_The_Bartender

Herzlos said:

Not at all, I dont deny indy1 was a  narrow loss and brexit a narrower win.  I'm talking about the government majority where the Tories have a solid mandate on 34% but SNP are shakey on 45%.

55-45 is not a narrow loss.

Una_Voidable

Shakethedisease said:

Right. So you think the whole of the EU should've had a vote on the UK leaving ? 

The EU have voted numerous times to give an extension keeping us in. 

abz88

Herzlos said:

Scottish independence would affect the rUK in the same way rUK leaving the EU affects the EU or me quitting my job affects my boss, but why does an equal partner need permission to leave a relationship?

Because Brexit wasn't a reserved issue under the European Parliament, whereas Indy Referendums are reserved under Westminster. The 1707 Treaty of the Union joined two Kingdoms to create a single Union. The EU never did that, it was a membership of individual states into effectively a private members club.

Shakethedisease

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

You're missing the point. A referendum on Scottish independence is nothing to do with Westminster. Only if there's a Yes vote does it become a Westminster concern. There is no route now whereby Scotland can regain it's independence without direct confrontation with Westminster and dispensing with any Westminster authority on the matter. Many in the movement are just starting to accept this having pinned hopes on Section 30's and Boris or May somehow 'coming round' to 'allowing' a referendum. This was/is never going to happen when there's a decent chance of a Yes vote. Myself and many like me have no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything.

I can totally understand why Nicola Sturgeon might be reluctant to dispense with all Westminster dicatat on the next referendum. She's cautious and moderate and it's going to start a s**t storm of epic proportions. With the media once again going into a feeding frenzy ( they're already trying to blame the SNP for a bridge closure due to bad weather... it's ridiculous ). Salmond's trial will be another one. But sooner or later it has to be faced and gotten on with. Perhaps the timing might be better when businesses up and down the country are freaking out over no EU trade deals in a few months time. But sooner or later Holyrood will have to defy Westminster. Westminster approval or not I'm afraid. Even a court case may well just end up with Westminster legislating to ban Scottish referendums altogether. Things could get very nasty indeed so yes, I can understand her reluctance.

FPTP I was pointing out that if Holyrood elections were on the same basis as Westminster ones then the SNP would have most of the seats in Holyrood. There's too much confusion over how Holyrood parliaments are elected. The SNP lost their majority last time because despite nearly a million votes on the list... they only gained 4 seats. They did far too well in the constituency seats. This is why I think looking at a second indy party standing only on the list, if they can get it right, may well be worth thinking about next year if Nicola still hasn't acted decisively. .

Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts. A Scottish referendum has an effect on Westminster/rUK regardless of the vote. A Yes vote puts the Union in jeopardy, a No vote affirms the Union, add on top of that that if a second referendum is held it sets a precedent that Holryood can decide to hold one whenever they want, which dilutes the reserved issue that Westminster currently feels applies to this. 

Unless the SNP change direction or one of these other radical Indy parties you keep mentioning actually forms, runs in elections and gets a power share then that's where we are. You wanting to hold another ref and having "no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything" means nothing, its just an opinion and empty statement unless you all group together and actually do something about it.

The facts are that at some point in order to hold a second independence referendum Holyrood will have to go against Westminster. There's no getting around that now. A court case is already running, just not by the SNP. And the instigator of it ( and 1887 others ) did so deliberately in order to take the heat off the SNP by all accounts. I guess we'll see what response if any they get tommorrow before they proceed further. Other indy parties, will be decided upon round about April as far as I'm aware.

As for your post above you need to do some reading. Whether or not the Scottish Parliament can run an indy ref is contentious and has never been tested in court. Please do some reading before proclaiming to all what is reserved and what isn't. It's an unknown so please stop repeating what is only your own opinion as facts to others who might not be aware of this.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/02/13/iain-halliday-can-the-scottish-parliament-legislate-for-a-second-independence-referendum/

Moe_The_Bartender

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

You're missing the point. A referendum on Scottish independence is nothing to do with Westminster. Only if there's a Yes vote does it become a Westminster concern. There is no route now whereby Scotland can regain it's independence without direct confrontation with Westminster and dispensing with any Westminster authority on the matter. Many in the movement are just starting to accept this having pinned hopes on Section 30's and Boris or May somehow 'coming round' to 'allowing' a referendum. This was/is never going to happen when there's a decent chance of a Yes vote. Myself and many like me have no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything.

I can totally understand why Nicola Sturgeon might be reluctant to dispense with all Westminster dicatat on the next referendum. She's cautious and moderate and it's going to start a s**t storm of epic proportions. With the media once again going into a feeding frenzy ( they're already trying to blame the SNP for a bridge closure due to bad weather... it's ridiculous ). Salmond's trial will be another one. But sooner or later it has to be faced and gotten on with. Perhaps the timing might be better when businesses up and down the country are freaking out over no EU trade deals in a few months time. But sooner or later Holyrood will have to defy Westminster. Westminster approval or not I'm afraid. Even a court case may well just end up with Westminster legislating to ban Scottish referendums altogether. Things could get very nasty indeed so yes, I can understand her reluctance.

FPTP I was pointing out that if Holyrood elections were on the same basis as Westminster ones then the SNP would have most of the seats in Holyrood. There's too much confusion over how Holyrood parliaments are elected. The SNP lost their majority last time because despite nearly a million votes on the list... they only gained 4 seats. They did far too well in the constituency seats. This is why I think looking at a second indy party standing only on the list, if they can get it right, may well be worth thinking about next year if Nicola still hasn't acted decisively. .

Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts. A Scottish referendum has an effect on Westminster/rUK regardless of the vote. A Yes vote puts the Union in jeopardy, a No vote affirms the Union, add on top of that that if a second referendum is held it sets a precedent that Holryood can decide to hold one whenever they want, which dilutes the reserved issue that Westminster currently feels applies to this. 

Unless the SNP change direction or one of these other radical Indy parties you keep mentioning actually forms, runs in elections and gets a power share then that's where we are. You wanting to hold another ref and having "no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything" means nothing, its just an opinion and empty statement unless you all group together and actually do something about it.

The facts are that at some point in order to hold a second independence referendum Holyrood will have to go against Westminster. There's no getting around that now. A court case is already running, just not by the SNP. And the instigator of it ( and 1887 others ) did so deliberately in order to take the heat off the SNP by all accounts. I guess we'll see what response if any they get tommorrow before they proceed further. Other indy parties, will be decided upon round about April as far as I'm aware.

As for your post above you need to do some reading. Whether or not the Scottish Parliament can run an indy ref is contentious and has never been tested in court. Please do some reading before proclaiming to all what is reserved and what isn't. It's an unknown so please stop repeating what is only your own opinion as facts to others who might not be aware of this.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/02/13/iain-halliday-can-the-scottish-parliament-legislate-for-a-second-independence-referendum/

Reserved matters include the constitution. Your own parliament says so.

https://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

but you keep on posting figments of your imagination if you wish.