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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. It's not Westminster's gift to give. Historically any area wishing independence is unlikely to have to ask or gain permission from the larger area it wishes independence from.



In that case perhaps Scotland and her representatives should simply ignore the result of the Brexit vote. Which was held only via an advisory referendum. Legal referenda in the UK are very rare things indeed, most are advisory. The Scottish government is legislating for one now and advisory ( EU referendum ) or deemed legal ( Scotland 2014 ) it will be held regardless of Westminster's or Theresa May's wishes.

You can honestly post 'all you can hold is an advisory' with a straight face after the advisory Brexit vote then ?

The EU referendum act, enacted by the sovereign parliament in the land gives the UK government the ability to push it through even though it was advisory.

The Scottish parliament has no sovereignty.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that Holyrood can simply secede without issue?

No, didn't think so.

Everything I've said is bang on the money and you know it, you simply cannot admit it for fear of losing face. It's tiring.

The_Last_Username

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The EU referendum act, enacted by the sovereign parliament in the land gives the UK government the ability to push it through even though it was advisory.

The Scottish parliament has no sovereignty.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that Holyrood can simply secede without issue?

No, didn't think so.

Everything I've said is bang on the money and you know it, you simply cannot admit it for fear of losing face. It's tiring.

Quite so.
No matter how may times this is said though and by whom, SOME just do not want to accept that there will not - indeed, cannot - be a Scottish Independence Referendum until after the UK as a whole has left the EU.
Nor will some accept that Scotland will NOT remain part of the EU whilst the rUK leaves.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The EU referendum act, enacted by the sovereign parliament in the land gives the UK government the ability to push it through even though it was advisory.

The Scottish parliament has no sovereignty.

It does in Scotland, which is where the vote will be legislated for and held by an act of Scottish parliament.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that Holyrood can simply secede without issue?

No, didn't think so.

Everything I've said is bang on the money and you know it, you simply cannot admit it for fear of losing face. It's tiring.

Nothing you've said has been bang on the money. Scroll past if you no longer wish to exchange views with me. But don't bleat about it when you do wish to exchange views.

Of course Scotland leaving the UK comes with issues. But holding an advisory referendum isn't one of them which you were trying to imply. I rather think Theresa May is going to be hoist on her own petard regarding the holding, recognising and then acting on the results of those when it comes to any future ref in Scotland I'm afraid.

The_Last_Username

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It does in Scotland, which is where the vote will be legislated and held by an act of Scottish parliament.

Not so.
Go back a few pages to see (again) the powers devolved to Scotland.
Constitutional matters are for Westminster to decide.
This is very clear.

Shakethedisease

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Quite so.
No matter how may times this is said though and by whom, SOME just do not want to accept that there will not - indeed, cannot - be a Scottish Independence Referendum until after the UK as a whole has left the EU.
Nor will some accept that Scotland will NOT remain part of the EU whilst the rUK leaves.

There will be one legislated for and held within the two year window between Article 50 being invoked and rUK leaving. Sturgeon, the SNP and the Scottish Greens have never wavered from this stance since the Brexit vote. They will attempt to keep Scotland seamlessly within the EU ( with caveats of course ) and if they wish to do this, then they must do do before the UK leaves taking Scotland with it. There is no two ways about it. May has ruled out any special deals for Scotland in terms of the single market etc.

Please note that whenever Sturgeon addresses this issue she always replies with 'Scotland remaining' within the EU. Never leaving and re-applying, there's a reason for this very careful narrative.

When asked if she would be happy to have an independence referendum in the first half of next year, she said: "I will have an independence referendum if I come to conclusion that is in the best interests of Scotland."I've always said that. It would be up to Scottish people ultimately to decide if that is right way to go."
She added that if a referendum was going to be held it would make sense for that to happen before the UK left the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36819182

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It does in Scotland, which is where the vote will be legislated for and held by an act of Scottish parliament.

Nothing you've said has been bang on the money. Scroll past if you no longer wish to exchange views with me. But don't bleat about it when you do wish to exchange views.

Of course Scotland leaving the UK comes with issues. But holding an advisory referendum isn't one of them which you were trying to imply. I rather think Theresa May is going to be hoist on her own petard regarding the holding, recognising and then acting on the results of those when it comes to any future ref in Scotland I'm afraid.

You can not be serious?

That is the height of delusion if so. Even the Scottish government in their own literature recognise the fact they are not sovereign.

It is because of this very reason the Scottish government are unable to do some things they claim they would like to do.

You can legislate for a vote to be held. But it carries no weight on constitutional affairs. Unlike the EU Referendum Act which was voted through Westminster by a majority of MP's.

If there was a new Scottish Referendum Act voted through Westminster by a majority of MP's then we wouldn't be arguing as it'd be legal, sovereign and indisputable. But a referendum in which the electoral commission would not be taking part - a joke.

Look. I've come around and conceded that should it ever make sense for Scotland to become independent then I wouldn't be here arguing the toss. But it doesn't, the economics don't work. In my opinion once the deficit is dealt with and the trade balance doesn't mean 11% of your EU trade would be protected at the expense of risking 64% of your trade then it would make sense to go forward.

Can you at least concede that Holyrood can hold an advisory referendum, maximum, it has no power to enact anything once the result of such a vote is known? Any action it did take constitutionally after such a vote would be illegal under UK and probably international law.

So when I said Scotland cannot simply secede from the UK without issue was I or was I not correct?

Shakethedisease

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Not so.
Go back a few pages to see (again) the powers devolved to Scotland.
Constitutional matters are for Westminster to decide.
This is very clear.

I'm sure they are. But holding advisory referendums isn't a specifically reserved power listed to Westminster. Recognising the result is another matter altogether. May will have a hard time not recognising the result of any advisory referendum after going all out to recognise an advisory Brexit one to the extent she's bypassing parliament.

There's also the possibility that the next Scotland one will be worded along the lines of 'Should the Scottish Govt seek to negotiate independence/further devo max/ with the UK government' or something like that. It might not necessarily be a straight Yes or No to outright independence. I should imagine support for that would be very high if the wording is subtle and inclusive enough even for former solid No voters to get behind.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm sure they are. But holding advisory referendums isn't a specifically reserved power listed to Westminster. Recognising the result is another matter altogether. May will have a hard time not recognising the result of any advisory referendum after going all out to recognise an advisory Brexit one to the extent she's bypassing parliament.

There's also the possibility that the next Scotland one will be worded along the lines of 'Should the Scottish Govt seek to negotiate independence/further devo max/ with the UK government' or something like that. It might not necessarily be a straight Yes or No to outright independence. I should imagine support for that would be very high if the wording is subtle and inclusive enough even for former solid No voters to get behind.

good thinking : try to cheat the gullible in scotland

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You can not be serious?

That is the height of delusion if so. Even the Scottish government in their own literature recognise the fact they are not sovereign.

It is because of this very reason the Scottish government are unable to do some things they claim they would like to do.

You can legislate for a vote to be held. But it carries no weight on constitutional affairs. Unlike the EU Referendum Act which was voted through Westminster by a majority of MP's.

If there was a new Scottish Referendum Act voted through Westminster by a majority of MP's then we wouldn't be arguing as it'd be legal, sovereign and indisputable. But a referendum in which the electoral commission would not be taking part - a joke.

Look. I've come around and conceded that should it ever make sense for Scotland to become independent then I wouldn't be here arguing the toss. But it doesn't, the economics don't work. In my opinion once the deficit is dealt with and the trade balance doesn't mean 11% of your EU trade would be protected at the expense of risking 64% of your trade then it would make sense to go forward.

Can you at least concede that Holyrood can hold an advisory referendum, maximum, it has no power to enact anything once the result of such a vote is known? Any action it did take constitutionally after such a vote would be illegal under UK and probably international law.

So when I said Scotland cannot simply secede from the UK without issue was I or was I not correct?

Scotland has held three constitutional referendums so far. Two were advisory/consultative, one legally binding. You keep conflating the act of simply holding and advisory/consulatative referendum with what happens when the results are in.

They WILL hold a referendum. Consultative/advisory/legal or otherwise Sturgeon and her predecessor were expressly clear on that and the fact that Scottish governance going forward, is explicitly for Scottish voters to decide and no one else.

The only people it needs to 'hold weight' with are those who are voting for or against self-determination. If there is a Yes or similar vote then Westminster can recognise or not afterwards. But as I've stated several times before, trying to cling onto a country that has just voted by a majority to leave simply by refusing to recognise the result, isn't going to be helpful for anyone. There will be very little point in Westminster doing so at the end of the day. They will have lost all authority going forward and would find it impossible to legislate for. There's a high likelyhood most Scots MP's wouldn't even be turning up to Westminster anymore anyway following such a vote.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland has held three constitutional referendums so far. Two were advisory/consultative, one legally binding. You keep conflating the act of simply holding and advisory/consulatative referendum with what happens when the results are in.

They WILL hold a referendum. Consultative/advisory/legal or otherwise Sturgeon and her predecessor were expressly clear on that and the fact that Scottish governance going forward, is explicitly for Scottish voters to decide and no one else.

The only people it needs to 'hold weight' with are those who are voting for or against self-determination. If there is a Yes or similar vote then Westminster can recognise or not afterwards. But as I've stated several times before, trying to cling onto a country that has just voted by a majority to leave simply by refusing to recognise the result, isn't going to be helpful for anyone. There will be very little point in Westminster doing so at the end of the day. They will have lost all authority going forward and would find it impossible to legislate for. There's a high likelyhood most Scots MP's wouldn't even be turning up to Westminster anymore anyway following such a vote.

I'm not conflating anything.

You've just conceded what I've been after.

Holyrood can hold as many referenda as you like, unless it's sanctioned by Westminster or recognised by Westminster - nothing happens, ever.

Edit: See Crimea for what happens when territory secedes due to illegal referenda. If you follow my other posts you'll know I follow Ukrainian politics and current affairs also.

Scotland will not be able to seize UK assets as their own or break away from the UK without sitting down to negotiate. If the UK is un-willing to negotiate until a legal referendum is held, an advisory sanctioned only by Holyrood won't cut the mustard. If the Electoral Commission isn't involved there's no telling if the ballot boxes are stuffed, miscounted, etc... if you're going to do it then it should be done properly so it's not open to challenge.