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

.string.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Tell us, do they plan on publishing any of this data?

And who paid for it?

Moto2

.string. wrote: »

And who paid for it?

You'll have to do a FOI request for that info, they'll then spend thousands in legal costs trying to prevent you knowing.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Tell us, do they plan on publishing any of this data?

When was the last time a political party published canvassing results ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

And who paid for it?

The SNP did.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP did.

Normally I believe everything you say, Shakey, but I shall believe that claim when it comes from a credible non-SNP source.

By the way, did I mention that I recently decided to canvas opinion on Scotland myself. The target was more than I million and one respondent which I achieved. I funded it all myself and was not paid by anyone while I was doing it.

No I'm not going to give a detailed report on the results - who would? But I can confirm that it clearly showed that the overwhelming Scottish response to the survey was that the SNP should return to their day jobs and quit the referendum game or, better still, revert to Thistle Farming.

.string.

So the Government's appeal is now being heard by all those judges.

I have a somewhat open mind on this and await their decision with interest. There seems to be good arguments on both sides.

My main interest in that process is to be sure that the Goverments acts according to law

beecher2

String, it was an snp funded attempt to canvass opinion. Of course it was funded by the snp

.string.

beecher2 wrote: »

String, it was an snp funded attempt to canvass opinion. Of course it was funded by the snp

Yeah, Yeah - a bit like the White Book or White Paper or whatever it was called.

Don't worry, I expect the SNP is probably not the only party to have form on this.

But, going to the Supreme Court matter, what is your take?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Yeah, Yeah - a bit like the White Book or White Paper or whatever it was called.

Don't worry, I expect the SNP is probably not the only party to have form on this.

But, going to the Supreme Court matter, what is your take?

Here's mine, as far as Scotland is concerned.

1) Either Holyrood will get a vote on aspects of Brexit.

2) Or, the Scotland Act/Smith Commission/Vow will be proved legally to have been a complete fabrication from start to finish. Westminster can do whatever they want, however and whenever they want as long as they say something falls outwith 'normal' devolved matters.

"... whether circumstances are ‘normal’ is a quintessential matter of political judgment for the Westminster Parliament

So how do they reach this conclusion? While recognising that the statutes establishing Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff assemblies are "very significant pieces of legislation", they contend that the Sewel convention is not justiciable - which is to say, unsuitable for judicial decision-making. It is, they say, a "legal irrelevance", just a "political convention", and not part of UK constitutional law...

... But where the UK government's case hits a potential wrinkle is that Westminster chose in 2016 to inscribe this convention on the face of the Scotland Act. They simultaneously "recognised" the "permanence" of the Scottish Parliament.

...The new Scotland Act recognised only that "the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament." "Normally" isn't a word you encounter very often in statutes. "Must" and "may", certainly. But not "normally." UK lawyers, unsurprisingly, have hung up their wigs on these words.

You didn't hear this kind of reasoning - at least in public - when David Mundell was talking up the virtues of the new Act, invoking the idea of a "new parliament, new powers, and new partnerships."

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/a-quintessential-matter-of-political.html

This is just as much about LCM's and Sewell for the Scottish Govt as it is about Brexit and Parliament having to pass it. I doubt the Tory Govt will want to touch Scotland Act 2016 scrutiny from the SC with a 1000ft bargepole, so will argue that it's not relevant. The Scottish Govt will argue that it most certainly is.

Full article at link. Good layman's explanation if interested.

Shakethedisease

Dugdale also building castles in the air. She knows Hammond dismissing the SNP's plans to stay in the single market last week will hit her party and the Scottish Lib Dems far more than it will worry the SNP. It's their last card to play on the Brexit issue and neither Hammond nor May will play along. Awww...:(

Dugdale expected to talk up prospect of a more federal UK in London speech this week

“More than ever, we have two governing parties in Scotland that are out of step with what the majority of people in Scotland want. The Tories want Scotland in the UK and out of Europe, and the SNP wants Scotland in the EU but out of the UK; continuing to pull our country in each of these directions risks breaking the Union once and for all."

She went on: “Our Union is worth fighting for. Only Scottish Labour can stand up for what the majority of Scots want: maintaining our relationship with Europe and securing our place in the United Kingdom

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14945645.Dugdale_expected_to_talk_up_prospect_of_a_more_federal_UK_in_London_speech_this_week/?ref=rss