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

elantan

Feel free to take it I will know I'm always in your thoughts ... it's true ... if you choose to accept that or not that's your decision

TrickyTree83

What on earth is going on up north?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPw3-7v5wQk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnm2N16GVCY

First time I've come across these gems.

P.S. Note I've been fair to both sides.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Ah.

So in the EU referendum the situation is:

Scotland voted to remain, in a UK wide referendum, therefore we shall seek to remain in the EU as per the wishes of the Scottish people, or words to that effect. Completely ignoring the fact it was a UK wide referendum and the notion of Scotland didn't come into it. Right?

Well the notion of Scotland probably didn't come into it as far as proposing the EU referendum was concerned.. I'm afraid as far as Scotland itself was concerned just a few weeks prior, they voted for a party who with this particular policy in their manifesto.

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

http://www.snp.org/pb_will_there_be_another_independence_referendum

SNP 1,059,897
Labour 501,844
Conservatives 514,261

If that then requires indy2, and it's a Yes. But D&G said No, they are denied the special dispensation the SNP allowed themselves during the EU referendum to stop them being taken out of the UK against their will? Right?

Yes, because they haven't won the right so far, to be considered in any separate context from all other areas in Scotland. Scotland however, by means of Holyrood and the parties it puts in power there does. And the first referendum merely by being held underlined this fact absolutely.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

For those uncertain as to SNP beliefs..

What about the beliefs of those that endorse BrianSpanner on Twitter such as Stephen Daisley ?

Please tell you me you actually know what you're talking about and haven't just uploaded a smug meme without knowing the kind of things folks like Daisley and Torrance like to amuse themselves with retweeting to their followers ?

For those interested google Brian Spanner tweets 'torn faced c word' among others when talking about female politicians. An absolutely disgrace that any representative who is the face of STV digital news even admitted reading those tweets let alone recommending we all 'gave him a follow'. Same goes for Torrance who writes opinion pieces in national newspapers ( and reactivated his account days later anyway ).

Shakethedisease

Ruth Davidson's competence hasn't taken long to slip. A little bit more to real live everyday politics than PR opportunities, tanks and buffalos.





Huge gaffe by Ruth yesterday.

Leanne1812

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What on earth is going on up north?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPw3-7v5wQk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnm2N16GVCY

First time I've come across these gems.

P.S. Note I've been fair to both sides.

Funnily enough I watched the alien one just a couple of days ago. Being a young lad the consensus I read was he had been egged on or dared to ask that. Silly but that's young ones.

The second clip was widely discussed on social media when that aired. The man apparently wandered round his town preaching and ranting. He was ridiculed endlessly. Some say he is mentally ill. I felt sorry for him.

Leanne1812

Care to address any points I made Jock or are you quite determined to stick by your loon comment?

Would that abuse not put you in the same category as that meme you posted?

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ruth Davidson's competence hasn't taken long to slip. A little bit more to real live everyday politics than PR opportunities, tanks and buffalos.





Huge gaffe by Ruth yesterday.

Aye were still awaiting the apology asked for by Nicola last week regarding the racist comments made.... wonder why eh

.string.

Some time ago, I stated that when Sturgeon kept raising the SNP Referendum issue she had made a tactical mistake. On the binary choice of having a a referendum or not having one she had put herself in a lose/lose situation. But that's the danger of believing your own rhetoric .

Naturally the iNats here disagreed, countering with quoting this or that flakey poll, but I didn't elaborate because I thought that it would be nice to wait and see the SNP go over the cliff to oblivion. Now I'm not so sure and think that an SNP Referendum running in parallel with the Brexit negotiations would not help to get a good result for us all (i.e. Including Scotland).

If Cameron, who had his fluffy moments, were still prime minister I am by no means certain that he would not agree to a new Referendum, but Mrs May is made of sterner stuff I think.

So I think Mrs May will not agree to a new Referendum since she is able to cite very good and valid reasons which would resonate in Scotland (excepting 45% of them of course); these include the "once in a lifetime" argument, the obsessional nature of the request from a party to further its own aims, the premature nature of it before negotiations were complete and the ludicrous nonsense of the SNP's claim to be able to join the EU instantly, the consequences of all of which it is the duty of the UK to avoid, for the sake of all of us but notably Scotland. A parallel effort on legal challenges and political input, freed from the restrictions of Purda, would be used to discredit the SNP Referendum. Only if there were a massive[/] separatist vote and a massive turnout would the result matter. Of course, if the SNP lost. ...

The resulting demotion of the proposed referendum to advisory/illegal status will have a number of advantages; it will definitely block any possibility of SNP EU talks for the foreseeable future, it would enable the UK government to consider a future (advisory) referendum at a time of its choosing (if it wanted) and it would enable negotiations to go on without an iScotland distraction hanging over it. In fact such a later Referendum could be used as a further reason for not agreeing one which was premature.


In the meantime, Mrs May has invited all the Devolved Governments to join the negotiations, which saddles Sturgeon with a tricky choice, if she participates, of working for the common UK good or, very visibly, trying to peddling the "we are no longer part of the UK and want to take the UK's place" fantasy. But the latter is hardly practical and could not happen without her being sidelined.

It's another no-win situation; she can hardly refuse to participate because she will donate a further rationale for Mrs May not agreeing an iReferendum who would rightly accuse her of not diligently protecting the future should the "Nos " win the day.

Tricky!

... and the down side of her not asking for an SNP Referendum? Well it's the very obvious and immediate collapse of the SNP vision of instant EU membership, and the decline of separatist support when that already shaky fig leave is gone and replaced by an SNP advocating what could well a decade of austerity outside the UK while awating eventual assimilation in an intrusive EU State.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Some time ago, I stated that when Sturgeon kept raising the SNP Referendum issue she had made a tactical mistake. On the binary choice of having a a referendum or not having one she had put herself in a lose/lose situation. But that's the danger of believing your own rhetoric .

Naturally the iNats here disagreed, countering with quoting this or that flakey poll, but I didn't elaborate because I thought that it would be nice to wait and see the SNP go over the cliff to oblivion. Now I'm not so sure and think that an SNP Referendum running in parallel with the Brexit negotiations would not help to get a good result for us all (i.e. Including Scotland).

If Cameron, who had his fluffy moments, were still prime minister I am by no means certain that he would not agree to a new Referendum, but Mrs May is made of sterner stuff I think.

So I think Mrs May will not agree to a new Referendum since she is able to cite very good and valid reasons which would resonate in Scotland (excepting 45% of them of course); these include the "once in a lifetime" argument, the obsessional nature of the request from a party to further its own aims, the premature nature of it before negotiations were complete and the ludicrous nonsense of the SNP's claim to be able to join the EU instantly, the consequences of all of which it is the duty of the UK to avoid, for the sake of all of us but notably Scotland. A parallel effort on legal challenges and political input, freed from the restrictions of Purda, would be used to discredit the SNP Referendum. Only if there were a massive[/] separatist vote and a massive turnout would the result matter. Of course, if the SNP lost. ...

The resulting demotion of the proposed referendum to advisory/illegal status will have a number of advantages; it will definitely block any possibility of SNP EU talks for the foreseeable future, it would enable the UK government to consider a future (advisory) referendum at a time of its choosing (if it wanted) and it would enable negotiations to go on without an iScotland distraction hanging over it. In fact such a later Referendum could be used as a further reason for not agreeing one which was premature.


In the meantime, Mrs May has invited all the Devolved Governments to join the negotiations, which saddles Sturgeon with a tricky choice, if she participates, of working for the common UK good or, very visibly, trying to peddling the "we are no longer part of the UK and want to take the UK's place" fantasy. But the latter is hardly practical and could not happen without her being sidelined.

It's another no-win situation; she can hardly refuse to participate because she will donate a further rationale for Mrs May not agreeing an iReferendum who would rightly accuse her of not diligently protecting the future should the "Nos " win the day.

Tricky!

... and the down side of her not asking for an SNP Referendum? Well it's the very obvious and immediate collapse of the SNP vision of instant EU membership, and the decline of separatist support when that already shaky fig leave is gone and replaced by an SNP advocating what could well a decade of austerity outside the UK while awating eventual assimilation in an intrusive EU State.

Have a very brief look through this, tell me what he's gotten wrong and then reacquaint yourself with a little bit of reality here. May and co aren't even letting Westminster into what's going on with EU talks, nor the UK populous who voted recently. Let's not pretend that the Scottish govt will be any more informed than anyone else.

A cross-party committee of peers has advised Theresa May that it would be “constitutionally inappropriate” for her to invoke Article 50, triggering the Brexit process without giving Parliament the right to a vote on the terms proposed. The Prime Minister has imperiously rejected this and made clear that she intends to move Article 50 in her own time, using royal prerogative. This is a royal abomination....

...The key issue of whether or not Britain should remain in the European single market (ESM) after Brexit is central and must be debated in parliament. But Mrs May thinks differently. She will use the absolutist powers of a monarch, “the Crown in Parliament”, to push through Brexit on her terms without giving elected members a sniff...

Brexit has been less a referendum than a palace coup. Mrs May is using the plebiscite as a means of circumventing Parliament, which sets a disturbing precedent; not just Westminster but the Scottish Parliament too, which will also be denied a say on Article 50. All that talk about a “common UK approach” promised by Mrs May in her Bute House visit in June turns out to be so much hogwash. The “consultation” with Holyrood will be a one-way affair: I consult, you listen...

...It is no longer just about the EU, but about the nature of parliamentary democracy. One reason Mrs May hopes to sidestep parliamentary scrutiny may be that she realises any change in the law that affects Scotland would have to be ratified also by the Scottish Parliament in a legislative consent motion. This is the convention that any act of Westminster that cuts across the powers of the Scottish Parliament requires the consent of MSPs. In the case of Brexit, the consent of Holyrood will be hard won.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14743249.Iain_Macwhirter__Time_to_stand_up_to_May__39_s_Brexit_dictatorship/

Sturgeon and every man and his dog know Scotland and her interests will be totally ignored as per. When not even MP's or the people that voted are allowed to know what's going on then there's very little hope that anyone else will have a clue. Never mind the Scottish Govt.

Stop kidding yourself that this leaves Sturgeon in a tricky position whatsoever. Her only tricky position is the timing of the next independence ref.