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

.string.

@Shakey .... In Post 5646 I wrote

”I await the definitive result with interest as I'm sure you do and while having an opinion on it am prepared to accept the Court's ruling.

Are you?”

To which you replied with post 5647

I replied that as follows

.string. wrote:

No, Shakey, I don't miss the point you would like to make at all. It is a regular feature of the SNP thought process, and what you write is spin, not fact. The SNP will play their games regardless, lost in their obsession and pet hates.

I am awaiting the objective judgement that I trust the Supreme Court will deliver so that the country can make progress on this Brexit business, one way or another.

You then wrote

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What's with this SNP this and SNP that guff. This is about the Scottish parliament being made permanent and as 'close to federalism as it's possible to get', and all the things that carried on from that.

This SC argument by the UK Advocate makes it clear this wasn't really the case, and deliberately so.

So a couple of things:

Sometimes in responding to your posts in is difficult to avoid getting personal so I use the SNP as the target of my remarks in the belief, hopefully not misplaced, that you come up with your more outrageous remarks because you have been duped into repeating them without thought. Hence the SNP this or that in this case. I expect you are really a lovely person.

Such second hand spin is the first para (in your above post) which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision on the letter of the law and the way it is to be applied but not the way people feel politically. It is politics which is the origin of the second paragraph (again) spoon fed by the SNP spin machine to those wishing to repeated it without thought on context.

So again I’d like to ask you

”I await the definitive result with interest as I'm sure you do and while having an opinion on it am prepared to accept the Court's ruling.

Are you?”

.string.

In view of the assertion (by the SNP!) that any change to the EU derived laws, which are written into Scottish Law due to the UK Government having agreed to them by virtue of their responsibility for foreign affairs, can be vetoed by the Scottish Government, , a couple of points occur to me.

o Was Scottish agreement needed to put them there in the first place and if not why was it not an issue at the time?

o Between now and Brexit, the EU will pass more laws which will duly be passed on to Scottish Law - is Scottish Approval now required before the UK can accede to those laws? What will the SNP do?

o If, prior to Brexit, the EU decide to revoke certain privileges which the UK has currently, what will the SNP do? Will they veto the EU?

o If the Scottish Government decides to incorporate into its laws a statement mirroring or even referencing a UK-wide law, does that mean that the rest of the UK is unable to change its own law without the approval of the Scottish Parliament?

I'm sure the latter has occurred to the SNP - I'm just surprised they haven't proposed it yet.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey .... In Post 5646 I wrote

”I await the definitive result with interest as I'm sure you do and while having an opinion on it am prepared to accept the Court's ruling.

Are you?”


”I await the definitive result with interest as I'm sure you do and while having an opinion on it am prepared to accept the Court's ruling.

Are you?”

Yes, of course. But there are two facets to the Scottish Advocate's arguments as far as Brexit is concerned, which is the point you keep missing. The main one and Sewel.

In a nutshell, James Wolffe is pursuing two distinct lines of argument. The first focuses on whether ministers can use the royal prerogative to activate Article 50 and the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union.

The second concerns the so-called "Sewel" convention. Is Holyrood's consent constitutionally necessary, if Article 50 is to be activated

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/ane-absolute-power-to-cass-annull.html

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

In view of the assertion (by the SNP!) that any change to the EU derived laws, which are written into Scottish Law due to the UK Government having agreed to them by virtue of their responsibility for foreign affairs, can be vetoed by the Scottish Government, , a couple of points occur to me.

o Was Scottish agreement needed to put them there in the first place and if not why was it not an issue at the time?

o Between now and Brexit, the EU will pass more laws which will duly be passed on to Scottish Law - is Scottish Approval now required before the UK can accede to those laws? What will the SNP do?

o If, prior to Brexit, the EU decide to revoke certain privileges which the UK has currently, what will the SNP do? Will they veto the EU?

o If the Scottish Government decides to incorporate into its laws a statement mirroring or even referencing a UK-wide law, does that mean that the rest of the UK is unable to change its own law without the approval of the Scottish Parliament?

I'm sure the latter has occurred to the SNP - I'm just surprised they haven't proposed it yet.

The Scottish people don't want Brexit laws passed though or EU laws repealed. A majority voted against doing so.
Scottish parliament has only been up since 1999. Scottish Law has always been separate. Before that an amendment or bill would've went through Westminster which the Scottish Judicary would have to write into Scottish law.

A reverse Great Repeal Bill. But now there is a Scottish Parliament, who don't want to write Brexit or repeal EU law out of Scottish Law. Westminster's going to have to do it regardless as Holyrood won't vote for it. What will the SNP do when Scots get very annoyed about that ? Who knows..

As for Brexit in Westminster, they'll vote against it unless it's a soft Brexit. And probably even then given how their own constituents voted.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Scottish people don't want Brexit laws passed though or EU laws repealed. A majority voted against doing so.
Scottish parliament has only been up since 1999. Scottish Law has always been separate. Before that an amendment or bill would've went through Westminster which the Scottish Judicary would have to write into Scottish law.

A reverse Great Repeal Bill. But now there is a Scottish Parliament, who don't want to write Brexit or repeal EU law out of Scottish Law. Westminster's going to have to do it regardless as Holyrood won't vote for it. What will the SNP do when Scots get very annoyed about that ? Who knows..

As for Brexit in Westminster, they'll vote against it unless it's a soft Brexit. And probably even then given how their own constituents voted.

Whether or not Holyrood has these rights will hopefully come out in the wash. Based on the 4 hours of the hearing I watched today, don't count on it, the Northern Irish representative was having a hard time saying similar things about Sewel and the general response from the court appeared to be that it was a polite modus operandi placed on the statue books by Westminster and not power or sovereignty that would allow Holyrood or Stormont to block Article 50. They seemed amused by the suggestion that Sewel was a method to stop Article 50.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Whether or not Holyrood has these rights will hopefully come out in the wash. Based on the 4 hours of the hearing I watched today, don't count on it, the Northern Irish representative was having a hard time saying similar things about Sewel and the general response from the court appeared to be that it was a polite modus operandi placed on the statue books by Westminster and not power or sovereignty that would allow Holyrood or Stormont to block Article 50. They seemed amused by the suggestion that Sewel was a method to stop Article 50.

Am far from counting on it. It's what the UK advocate said about Sewel that's going to run and run up here ( take note ). Polite modus operandi was not what Scots were told about the Scotland Act. Far from it.

The dam is bursting anyway. Scottish Labour now coming out for Home Rule and/or Federalisation with Kezia Dugdale arguing for things she was totally against a short time ago. She knows the score, what's on the cards next and is panicking badly. This recycled Vow made for the third or fourth time is too little, far too late.

The UK needs a new Act of Union to prevent it breaking once and for all

The Tories’ reckless Brexit gamble threatens to end our historic union. My proposals would meet the demands of the Scottish people and benefit all the UK

Today, I am proposing a reform which would have far-reaching consequences not just for Scotland, but for the entire United Kingdom: we need a new Act of Union for this century.

And we need a federal solution for the nations and regions of our country: a radical reshaping where every component part of the United Kingdom – Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions – takes more responsibility for what happens in their own communities, but where we still maintain the protection of being part of a greater whole as the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/07/uk-needs-new-act-union-stop-break-brexit-scotland

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Scottish people don't want Brexit laws passed though or EU laws repealed. A majority voted against doing so.
..

No they didn't.

A third couldn't even care enough to vote on the EU.

The turnout in places like Boston and London puts you to shame.

I thought you were passionate about having a say up there. The reality is many simply don't care.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Am far from counting on it. It's what the UK advocate said about Sewel that's going to run and run up here ( take note ). Polite modus operandi was not what Scots were told about the Scotland Act. Far from it.

The dam is bursting anyway. Scottish Labour now coming out for Home Rule and/or Federalisation with Kezia Dugdale arguing for things she was totally against a short time ago. She knows the score, what's on the cards next and is panicking badly. This recycled Vow made for the third or fourth time is too little, far too late.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/07/uk-needs-new-act-union-stop-break-brexit-scotland

If you're right about the political landscape in Scotland, then what Kezia says and does is of little if not no consequence.

I read the vow, Holyrood is still in place, there is no bill to dissolve it, there is no possible way parliament could create a bill that cannot be repealed by parliament at a later date. Holyrood is permanent by Westminster's consent. Always was, and always will be as part of the UK in its current form.

mollycat

kabayiri wrote: »

No they didn't.

A third couldn't even care enough to vote on the EU.

The turnout in places like Boston and London puts you to shame.

I thought you were passionate about having a say up there. The reality is many simply don't care.

Absolutely spot on.

When given a Leave/ Remain binary choice about 2/3rds of those who voted wished to stay in the EU; but TBH it not that a big deal to the vast majority of people.

Most people are genuinely attempting to make the best of a democratic decision and getting on with life....with the notable exceptions of some who post here.

I haven't heard anyone even mention Brexit/independence for weeks, ordinary blokes and gals have more important matters to focus on.

I suppose if you have an agenda to give the impression to rUK readers of this forum that most Scots are up in arms and demanding further referenda; then you will post accordingly.

I think spin, misrepresentation and a skillful but sinister use of propaganda are pretty much exposed for what they are on this thread now though

Night comrades :cool:

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

No they didn't.

A third couldn't even care enough to vote on the EU.

The turnout in places like Boston and London puts you to shame.

I thought you were passionate about having a say up there. The reality is many simply don't care.

Well there were warnings about holding the referendum so close to the Scottish elections. And let's face it, it was always going to be Remain by a huge margin up here anyway.

It's not that people didn't care. It's that it was a forgone conclusion compared to the rUK.