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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not really. The SNP are doing a great job in proving an point beyond all doubt which started with the Feeble 50 ( Labour ) in the 1980s and paved the way ultimately for devolution due to the democratic defict which was already widely recognised.



Scottish MP's = little point in being there when it comes to Scottish interests no matter which party they are in, as history shows. Labour MP's were just as pointless as SNP ones, the only difference being that they didn't like highlighting the fact too much. Something the SNP are never shy of doing fortunately. Ian Murray incidentally ( Labour ) was just as vocal about the sham of a debate last night as SNP MP's were. He was appalled by the whole thing.

And voting for the SNP improves your chances at governmental representation how?

It doesn't, like I keep saying. It's a huge mistake by Scots to vote SNP I'm afraid. Nicola admitted this when she considered standing SNP candidates in the rest of the UK. Theyd get a hammering but at least there would be a negligible chance of governing instead of nil which is the position you currently put yourselves in.

Rainbowgirl84

elantan wrote: »

Wow ... you choose to pick on spelling ... you so clever ... can I get yer autograph ?

The idea of predictive text flies right over yer heid I take it ?

Does the idea of checking what you put your name to not occur to you?

Shakethedisease

mrginge wrote: »

A whole five paragraphs wow.

Couldn't you have just said 'I have no evidence that the UK will try to claw back devolved powers'.

I know posting a lovely big response helps to push the awkward questions off the front page but it's a fairly standard tactic these days.

Next up you'll be showing us a delightful, yet pointless image as well.
Oh look you did.

So let's recap.

You have no evidence of any clawback of powers.
You want to use Scottish fishing waters as a bargaining tool rather than for the benefit of Scottish fishermen.
You want negotiations between the EU and UK to fail.
You think a 'plan' which is somewhere between widely discredited and impossible is a sure-fire vote winner.
You couldn't give a monkeys about Scottish domestic politics.
You still have no solutions for any of the economic points raised in 2014.
You believe the case for independence is strengthened by brexit despite there being zero actual evidence (outside of twitter of course) since the result was delivered.
You want to wait-and-see on indyref2 until the red line of SM is crossed, despite it already being crossed.

Keep up the good work.

There's plenty of 'evidence'. I've posted it all the way through the thread the most recent being Ruth Davidson's speech to Scottish Farmers the other day reported in the Telegraph. John Redwood in the commons yesterday, the fact Leadsom keeps cancelling meetings with Scottish and Welsh MSP's, May's speech a few weeks ago and the bit crap but there you go 'White Paper' the other day.

Don't believe Davidson or anything else if you like ( let's face it there's a lot of Scots don't ) but time will tell who's right with this one. Get back to me when Westminster and May meekly hand over all controls of fishing grounds and agriculture to Sturgeon won't you.

As for the rest. I was a Yes in 2014, I personally don't need convinced of anything. But in there is debate to be had, especially for those who make assumptions on matters where they are a bit misinformed or unaware of points of interest. Either you want to debate, or you can scroll past and talk about something else.
All the sentences beginning with 'You' above are a surefire way of trying to personalise debate off the issues being generally discussed and on to a posting individual. Doesn't work with me am afraid. I'm here to talk with people interested in politics etc. Not me and your opinions on me. So lets move on from that.

Does this below sound like May is planning on handing devolved adminstrations control and further powers to you ? Honestly now...

What we will be looking at, and what we will be discussing with the devolved administrations, is how we deal with those powers that are currently in Brussels when they come back to the UK. And what we want to ensure is that those powers are dealt with so that we can maintain the important single market of the UK.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And voting for the SNP improves your chances at governmental representation how?

It doesn't, like I keep saying. It's a huge mistake by Scots to vote SNP I'm afraid. Nicola admitted this when she considered standing SNP candidates in the rest of the UK. Theyd get a hammering but at least there would be a negligible chance of governing instead of nil which is the position you currently put yourselves in.

People have a choice of parties in Scotland to vote for. 45% of the country don't want Scottish MP's in Westminster anyway.

I guess the answer is just to play them at their own game really if they're not going to play fair in serious debate. As Patrick Grady did tonight when he filibustered for well over an hour during a Brexit debate, tag teaming with other SNP MP's and making all the points he and his colleagues didn't get to make yesterday. While Labour and Tory MP's were all over Twitter/social media fuming carping about bad manners and how much time he was taking up.

Sauce for the goose....

Shakethedisease

49% in new poll for independence on the front page of the Herald tomorrow. Should be worth a read.

HeraldScotland Support for independence has risen to 49% according to the latest poll by @heraldscotland.

Angus B MacNeil MP
49% with no campaign. Imagine result when Scots machine does independence campaign mode!!

Alex Salmond 26m26 minutes ago
Game on...

beecher2

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15076307.Poll__Scots_almost_evenly_split_on_independence_after_May__39_s___39_hard__39__Brexit_speech/

This must be a real puzzle for those on this thread that think independence is never going to happen. Surely you all must've thought polling would be very different at this stage?

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm talking about an independence campaign and the options, in my opinion, Sturgeon and the Yes campaign should put in front of voters. EEA and EFTA should certainly be presented as options during the next campaign. Again, during the next CAMPAIGN.

Hence an independence CAMPAIGN. ..

So what? An independence campaign that claims that that EFTA/EEA is a transitional option "until independence and Brexit is sorted out" is still making a claim that is both stupid and wrong.

EFTA/EEA is only an option after independence is achieved.

What is it about that fact that you find so difficult to understand?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..Do me and others here a wee favour and either brush up on Scottish politics or else read posts a bit more carefully..

You should take your own advice and read your own posts more carefully, and whilst you are at it do all of us here a wee favour and brush up on the UK consitution (such as it is), the EFTA convention, and the various EU treaties. Whatever is going on in Scottish politics at the moment does not change any of these things.

Lies and misinformation do not help your cause.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...Fishing and Agriculture powers are already devolved to Scotland via the Scotland Act and have been since it's inception. For the moment though control is under the EU. Once the UK leaves these areas default to Holyrood... since, again they are already devolved to Holyrood ( same in Wales/NI for agriculture etc ).

If Westminster wishes control over fishing and agriculture then they will have to write a new Scotland Act repatriating these powers away from Holyrood. However, Holyrood won't vote for this to happen. Not in a million years will they ever pass a new Scotland Act which takes powers away from the Scottish Parliament.

Hence as Ruth Davidson says, there's going to be an almighty political row coming. Is this clear enough for you to understand yet ? There will have to be a new Scotland Act if Westminster wants control of fishing grounds and agriculture since they are already devolved. Holyrood won't pass a new Scotland Act and they need to if it's to become law.

Mike Russell ( SNP Brexit minister ) has just been on Scottish parliament tv reiterating in no uncertain terms that any repatriation of powers already devolved will be opposed robustly. The Greens will support the SNP and there's a good chance a fair few if not all Labour MSP's will too on this issue.

If Westminster wants control of these it will have to over ride Holyrood. This will be absolutely explosive in political and constitutional terms, certainly due to the many promises made by Leave campaigners during the Brexit vote ( see below ).

I never said otherwise. I was simply responding to your statement that "Those fishing grounds eh.. lots of Single Market participants with huge interests there. Hopefully Westminster will do as Ruth Davidson is alluding to and make a power grab for them."

Apart from the fact that "Single Market participants" don't have "huge interests there" because fishing grounds are not covered by the EEA aka 'single market, (it's EU members only through the CFP) I am simply puzzled about why the UK would make a "power grab" for something it already has? The fact that fishing is a devolved matter doesn't change that one little bit. The UK is still the UK. It still has to negotiate the terms of any exit from the CFP as part of Brexit. No doubt the hope is that consultations with the relevant devolved administrations will produce a result that keeps everyone happy.

elantan

I hear the SNP were playing a few tricks of their own last night ... they must've been awfy fed up with their treatment the night before

Its sad that the UK has came to this ... but it is what it is I spose

mayonnaise

CLAPTON wrote: »

is that yet another 10% for iscotland?

No, just 4%.
For now.

.string.

So - back to the "jousting" for a while.

I saw the "debate" last night and was shocked to see the hate spilling from the SNP speakers. Much was said that was very silly, but it was, basically, a whinge cultivation session as far as they were concerned. Those under their thrall will have loved it but probably can't see how foolish it all was.

The whole business over the matter of "Parliamentary Sovereignty" has been a bit of a damp squid. Personally, I was happy with the Court rulings on this and also happy that the negotiation tactics of the Government are not hampered by ludicrous amendments. Also the final business on the final vote is the right result in my opinion. It is now not just the EU that can the play the argument of "agree to this or the European Parliament will not agree it", the UK Government can also do that with more credibility than before when asking for a vote would have been just an option.

As far as a Neverendum being called, I still think that if that were tried it would (and should) be rejected on the grounds that (at least)
1 There has been a referendum recently
2 The Referendum would damage the negotiations and thus the economic future of the UK, including the Scots within the Union
3 There is no clear appetite in Scotland for a new Referendum - see the article Shakey recently incompletely quoted
4 Scots need to see all the facts before making an informed judgement

The Indy argument on fishing is so clearly based on what is now called Fake News and cynically artificial paranoia.