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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Tricky there's a difference between Westminster having to give permission for another referendum, and Westminster having to sign off on the result. No one has ever claimed that Westminster wouldn't have to vote ultimately to repeal the Act of Union.

It's the permission to hold a referendum in the first place where we disagree. You're treating the two things as one and the same. It wouldn't be unlawful to hold an advisory referendum. The UK allows those ( Brexit ). Timing will be of the Scottish Govt's choosing. A section 30 will be asked for same as the last time. We'll have to see how that plays out.

Who sanctioned the EU referendum?

Who sanctioned 2014?

Unionists will be able to argue against a unilateral referendum until the cows come home and likely win as it would be in accordance with precedent and law as we're now understanding through the courts with regards to Brexit.

Westminster holds the power, not Holyrood. They've offered a referendum to you, take it or leave it, the choice is Nicola's.

You will not get one before the UK leaves the EU, with Scotland in the UK.

.string.

Well, I don't believe Westminster will sign off on anything. The disruption of having a legal Referendum at this time would severely disrupt the Brexit negotiations and so it is simply not acceptable.

Some time ago in post 3060, I gave a summary of what I thought would be the issues in this scenario; they still stand. But there were some things I did not include: one was what I thought of as "the Nuclear Option" and that was the offer of a referendum when the Brexit was done and known. I thought of it in those terms because it had risks, even though it would cut the ground away from the SNP Referendum. Who would vote in an illegal poll for independence when there was a chance of a legal one down the road? Cautiously, I would have waited until later, but apparently May has done it earlier. It seems that Sturgeon, being hog-tied by her own logic has rejected it.

Perhaps May is even more astute than I thought. She has made the offer but is not now on the hook for it and has effectively warned that no Referendum will be agreed during the Brexit talks.

So I am not so sure that offer of a later Referendum is still on offer, TT, it would be daft to leave it on the table. There is no gain for the UK in that, regardless of the "result" of the SNP vanity project. However the fact that it was offered can still be used to convince the undecided voter they are voting prematurely and without all the facts.

On another, related issue:

The experience of both the Scottish Referendum and the EU Referendum was that such things are hugely divisive. Damagingly so. There is a case for insisting on a minimum majority in the result so that the country does not become divided.

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There's still 500,000 Labour voters in Scotland who will agree with a lot of what's going to be said in the coming months.

Nah, pretty sure that they will think that rejecting a beneficial union with rUK because we have a temporary government that the majority of Scots didn't vote for is short sightedness in the extreme.

Most people up here have a greater regard for democracy than the pro indy posters here realise.

How these people would hope to explain away an economic desert in an independent Scotland to their kids, colleagues etc is anyone's guess...scapegoat someone other than "Westminster", "the tories", etc etc would be my anticipation

Foisting any further referenda on a electorate that is clearly dreading further division a la 2014, is behaving in exactly the out of touch way SNP would accuse Westminster of. People up here want to heal and move forward with our rUK cousins, creating spurious differences where none exist and the politics of scapegoating belong in a different age IMHO.

The argument has been won here, (many times over), and also on tbe ground, (2014 binding referendum), but that does not mean we should all become complacent regarding the spin, lies and attempts to manipulate the vulnerable that will continue to take place here.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Who sanctioned the EU referendum?

Who sanctioned 2014?

Unionists will be able to argue against a unilateral referendum until the cows come home and likely win as it would be in accordance with precedent and law as we're now understanding through the courts with regards to Brexit.

Westminster holds the power, not Holyrood. They've offered a referendum to you, take it or leave it, the choice is Nicola's.

You will not get one before the UK leaves the EU, with Scotland in the UK.

Yes, it's this kind of attitude to Scots that is the point of independence in the first place.

No one has officially offered Sturgeon a referendum. If there is one to be held it will be legislated for in Holyrood and presented to Westminster before the UK leaves the EU. Sturgeon will ask for a section 30 order all nicely, politely and above board.

Is the political fallout from Westminster refusing a section 30 that would be interesting. Note I said section 30, not referendum in the above sentence just for clarity.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Well, I don't believe Westminster will sign off on anything. The disruption of having a legal Referendum at this time would severely disrupt the Brexit negotiations and so it is simply not acceptable.

Some time ago in post 3060, I gave a summary of what I thought would be the issues in this scenario; they still stand. But there were some things I did not include: one was what I thought of as "the Nuclear Option" and that was the offer of a referendum when the Brexit was done and known. I thought of it in those terms because it had risks, even though it would cut the ground away from the SNP Referendum. Who would vote in an illegal poll for independence when there was a chance of a legal one down the road? Cautiously, I would have waited until later, but apparently May has done it earlier. It seems that Sturgeon, being hog-tied by her own logic has rejected it.

Perhaps May is even more astute than I thought. She has made the offer but is not now on the hook for it and has effectively warned that no Referendum will be agreed during the Brexit talks.

So I am not so sure that offer of a later Referendum is still on offer, TT, it would be daft to leave it on the table. There is no gain for the UK in that, regardless of the "result" of the SNP vanity project. However the fact that it was offered can still be used to convince the undecided voter they are voting prematurely and without all the facts.

On another, related issue:

The experience of both the Scottish Referendum and the EU Referendum was that such things are hugely divisive. Damagingly so. There is a case for insisting on a minimum majority in the result so that the country does not become divided.

May hasn't made an offer of a referendum. There will be no illegal poll on independence, however an advisory/consultative referendum might be on the cards in the event a Section 30 order is refused by Westminster.

The Scottish Government’s present legal position on entitlement to hold a referendum is a strong one. Any conditions sought to be imposed by the UK Government can therefore be considered strictly on their merits and not as a price that must be paid, however reluctantly, in order to secure authority lawfully to hold a referendum at all.

Notwithstanding the restrictions on the Scottish Government’s devolved competence contained in the Scotland Act 1998, no-one disputes that it can lawfully make proposals to, or hold conversations or enter into negotiations with, the United Kingdom Government about (i) altering the constitutional position of Scotland or (ii) widening the devolved powers of the Scottish Government and Parliament (including amending or removing some or all of the matters reserved to the United Kingdom which are set out in Schedule 5 of the Act).

That being the case, it is inconceivable that any court would hold that it was beyond the legal power of the Scottish Government to promote legislation to enable it to consult the Scottish electorate (by means of a referendum) about whether the Scottish Government should or should not make such proposals to, or hold such conversations or enter into such negotiations with, the Government of the United Kingdom. This is reinforced by section 101(2) of the 1998 Act which provides that any provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament is “to be read as narrowly as is required for it to be within competence, if such a reading is possible, and is to have effect accordingly”.

That does not, of course, exclude the possibility that referendum legislation might be challenged, as being beyond the Scottish Parliament’s powers, in the courts of Scotland and all the way to the UK Supreme Court. But any such challenge would be doomed to failure.

Professor Robert Black QC

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Is the political fallout from Westminster refusing a section 30 that would be interesting. Note I said section 30, not referendum in the above sentence just for clarity.

haven't the hated english insulted, marginalised, robbed, cheated etc the proud people of scotland about 100 times since 2014; each time massively increasing the support for independence

what exactly does the support iscotland stand at now?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

haven't the hated english insulted, marginalised, robbed, cheated etc the proud people of scotland about 100 times since 2014; each time massively increasing the support for independence

what exactly does the support iscotland stand at now?

Close enough for a fair shot at it.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Close enough for a fair shot at it.

seriously you would support a referendum merely with a 'fair shot'?

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If I were a Unionist that 45% figure staying stubbornly (give or take margin of error) solid for two full years would worry me greatly.

Unless there's actually a referendum held then it's an unknown quantity. Polls recently now been proved to be so highly unreliable as to hold no credibility at all.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Tricky there's a difference between Westminster having to give permission for another referendum, and Westminster having to sign off on the result. No one has ever claimed that Westminster wouldn't have to vote ultimately to repeal the Act of Union.

It's the permission to hold a referendum in the first place where we disagree. You're treating the two things as one and the same. It wouldn't be unlawful to hold an advisory referendum. The UK allows those ( Brexit ). Timing will be of the Scottish Govt's choosing. A section 30 will be asked for same as the last time. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The UK had to pass an act for the EU advisory referendum, it went through parliament. If Scotland wanted a referendum on independence it would make sense, given the 2014 precedent that it too would have to go through parliament.