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

.string.

Gove made a number of interesting points, one about there being some in the SNP who favoured Brexit.

In fact as I understand it, most of the SNP wanted Brexit.

So the SNP are pushing for a Referendum to leave the UK which the Scottish people say they don't want because the UK is leaving the EU which most of the SNP want to happen.

Strange.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Gove made a number of interesting points, one about there being some in the SNP who favoured Brexit.

In fact as I understand it, most of the SNP wanted Brexit.

Wrong.

So the SNP are pushing for a Referendum to leave the UK which the Scottish people say they don't want because the UK is leaving the EU which most of the SNP want to happen.

Strange.

You're overcomplicating things. 62% of Scots voters from all parties and those not affliated with any party voted Remain. Every tab of voters from all Scottish parties in the following polls had a majority for Remain, as did every local authority area. Every political party in Scotland was pushing for a Remain vote, including Ruth Davidson.

Sturgeon has a duty to represent that majority from whatever party or area they are in or vote for. However, you seem to be suggesting that Sturgeon completely ignores this and caters to the other 38%.. is this correct ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I had not heard before of such a scheme as this was to be implemented but I would have criticised it if it was the same as this one. When was that?

Was the Labour one proposed for Scotland? Was it "universal" and applied to everyone regardless of the need for it? Did it have the same privacy implications?

It's already running very successfully in some test areas in Scotland. Children's charities back it. Only the Tories abstained on the first vote for it. It's become politically toxic due to some wacky Christian group getting coverage and the other parties jumping in on it ( like the Offensive Behaviour Football Act ) and has now been deferred before full official implementation for a year pending a few data sharing tweaks and possibly 16-17 year olds being removed from the act.

Probably so it's not a distraction in the forthcoming independence referendum.....

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Wrong.

You're overcomplicating things. 62% of Scots voters from all parties and those not affliated with any party voted Remain. Every tab of voters from all Scottish parties in the following polls had a majority for Remain, as did every local authority area. Every political party in Scotland was pushing for a Remain vote, including Ruth Davidson.

Sturgeon has a duty to represent that majority from whatever party or area they are in or vote for. However, you seem to be suggesting that Sturgeon completely ignores this and caters to the other 38%.. is this correct ?

Wrong? Oh yes I forgot, they were told to vote Remain.

As has been pointed out, the EU Referendum was about leaving the EU, not leaving the UK.

Unfortunately, the EU train has now left the station; it's a dead issue unless, as I wrote before, negotiations do not reach a good conclusion and the UK withdraws Article 50 before 2 years are up (a loophole in Article 50)

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You have your tenses wrong.
This was Tuesday.
As in, 6th September.

Now, seeing as the question has been put and agreed to, it is marked by the House Of Commons as "resolved".
Hence you should have said "Interesting debate gone down in WM."

BTW, I particularly liked Michael Gove's rejoinder:

Gove has quite a reputation in witty rejoiners. We would normally call it lying though.

“Because, under any proposals we put forward we believe that a points-based immigration policy, similar to the one that was actually put forward as a model for an independent Scotland by Nicola Sturgeon, would be the right approach.”

He added: “Holyrood would be strengthened if we left the EU.
“The Scottish Parliament would have new powers over fishing, agriculture, over some social areas and potentially over immigration.”

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/189201/holyrood-control-scottish-immigration-event-brexit-says-michael-gove/

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Wrong? Oh yes I forgot, they were told to vote Remain.

As has been pointed out, the EU Referendum was about leaving the EU, not leaving the UK.

No one is saying otherwise.

Unfortunately, the EU train has now left the station; it's a dead issue unless, as I wrote before, negotiations do not reach a good conclusion and the UK withdraws Article 50 before 2 years are up (a loophole in Article 50)

Hmmm

This constitutional conundrum was one of the omnipresent issues of the referendum campaign, and early last year Sturgeon urged David Cameron to agree to a ‘double majority’ rule, as is found in other countries such as Switzerland, to ensure that the UK could not leave the EU unless voters in all nations of the UK voted in favour. In the absence of such a rule, however, the majority support for leave in England and Wales means that Scotland and Northern Ireland, despite overwhelmingly voting to remain, may now be obliged to leave the EU.

It is arguable that the Scottish government has every right to press for Indyref2 given the terms the SNP detailed in its manifesto regarding another referendum– essentially ‘a material change in circumstances’ – have now been met. And yet, the road is long. In the wake of the Brexit vote, there is, as was predicted, a renewed interest in Scottish independence.


Many voters, particularly middle class voters, voted ‘no’ in 2014 on the premise that Scotland, as part of the UK, benefited from EU membership in terms of regional funding, political clout and voting strength. In light of the EU referendum, this argument no longer stands.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/04/brexit-and-spain-would-the-spanish-government-really-block-scotlands-eu-membership/

The above incidentally is a very balanced piece on Scotland, the EU and Spain. Worth a read if interested.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No one is saying otherwise.



Hmmm http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/04/brexit-and-spain-would-the-spanish-government-really-block-scotlands-eu-membership/

The above incidentally is a very balanced piece on Scotland, the EU and Spain. Worth a read if interested.

amasing : a very 'balanced piece' decides that its unlikely that Spain will object to scotland joining the EU
well I would never have guessed that

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Gove has quite a reputation in witty rejoiners. We would normally call it lying though.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/189201/holyrood-control-scottish-immigration-event-brexit-says-michael-gove/

Hang on, YOU are the one who said:

I just don't like to see threads descending into infantile name calling towards individuals or groups that may hold a differing opinion.

Nothing he said in my quote was untrue, so please - instead of infantile name calling and pointing to outdated media reports - stick to your own rules.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Hmmm http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/04/brexit-and-spain-would-the-spanish-government-really-block-scotlands-eu-membership/

The above incidentally is a very balanced piece on Scotland, the EU and Spain. Worth a read if interested.

Balanced?
Okay, I won't "nit-pick" about that - but the report is now woefully out of date and much has happened since then; things have moved on since July 4th.
Indeed the very first line is "A week is a long time in politics.".
Well, three months is longer.

For example Spain still has no effective government and is facing a further election. Also the Spanish are unlikely to accept iScotland into the EU if at all possible, since it could (in their opinion) pave the way for Catelonia to head in the same direction.
________________________________________________

Meanwhile, I see the latest headlines regarding the SNP and a "cash for access" upset:

in what has been condemned as a blatant example of cash for access by transparency campaigners, the party has drawn up an extensive price list for the Glasgow event promising a "valuable opportunity to reach many of Scotland's senior politicians" in return for money.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14734901.SNP_in_cash_for_access_storm_as_party_offers_up_array_of_conference_perks/

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No one is saying otherwise.



Hmmm http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/04/brexit-and-spain-would-the-spanish-government-really-block-scotlands-eu-membership/

The above incidentally is a very balanced piece on Scotland, the EU and Spain. Worth a read if interested.

No Shakey, Scotland would have to wait until it was separated, solvent, and proven its viability, as it would eventually, but not anywhere near 2020.

As far as I can discern, Anderson wrote his article before he was aware that Sturgeon got her come-uppance on June 30th on an application to join the EU.

See here

http://en.mercopress.com/2016/06/30/scotland-pleads-to-stay-in-the-eu-but-spain-rejected-the-idea-if-uk-leaves-scotland-leaves

for an account of what was said by those actually involved rather than someone theorising from the sidelines.

Read again what was said, including this bit:


EU officials stressed, as they did before Scots voted against independence in a 2014 referendum, that Scotland could not apply to join the Union until it was a sovereign state. Senior officials dismissed the notion that Scotland could take over the empty British chair at the European Council table.

Add to that the situation of any Referendum being called illegal and your case will enter the realms of farce for all to see.

To suggest otherwise is to grossly deceive the Scottish people. Shame on the SNP.