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

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sorry, but you're in la la land too. There will be another indy vote soon in some form. Either Westminster approved or not, or Holyrood dissolved and all SNP/Green candidates standing on an independence mandate, and/or SNP MP's coming home and standing on the same in 59 by-elections ( which would make either a de facto independence referendum anyway ). One way or another it'll happen, and before Brexit happens too.

Oh look, here's some new nonsense thought up recently at SNP HQ and given to the lacky to put out there :rotfl:

Talking of "de facto" referendums!

Desperation stuff.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sorry, but you're in la la land too. There will be another indy vote soon in some form.

Interesting that you admit that you are in "la la land".:)

Although of course, had you bothered to actually read what I had posted, I did not say that there would not be "another indy vote soon in some form". I simply noted that (a) it might well be subject to what the Supreme Court had to say on the matter and (b) this indy vote will have no legal basis, and thus would not change anything.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..Either Westminster approved or not, or Holyrood dissolved and all SNP/Green candidates standing on an independence mandate, and/or SNP MP's coming home and standing on the same in 59 by-elections ( which would make either a de facto independence referendum anyway ). ....

Interesting. So why is the SNP waffling on about a 'referendum', if it has alternatives? Might it be because the SNP lacks the two-thirds majority to dissolve Holyrood? You really should have fact checked that one first.:)

There are in fact 56 SNP MPs at Westminster. I don't think that you can force by-elections in those 3 other Scottish constituencies that have non-SNP MPs. I think you should have fact checked that one as well.:)

In any event, I'm not sure why having 56 SNP members standing for re-election makes a difference. I presume all 56 are pro-independence, and thus their success in 2015 could equally well be considered a "de facto independence referendum". That didn't change the UK constitution, so I can't see that doing it all over again would make any difference.

I think you need a de jure referendum.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...One way or another it'll happen, and before Brexit happens too. Best you get used to the idea. Mrs May only just seems to have just grasped what's going on. ..

Best you get used to the idea that whether this vote happens before Brexit, it won't change Brexit. The UK will still exit the EU, and since Scotland is part of the UK, it will exit too.

I also think that you might also best you get used to the possibility that even if it happens, you still might not get the result that you hope for.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Interesting that you admit that you are in "la la land".:)

Although of course, had you bothered to actually read what I had posted, I did not say that there would not be "another indy vote soon in some form". I simply noted that (a) it might well be subject to what the Supreme Court had to say on the matter and (b) this indy vote will have no legal basis, and thus would not change anything.



Interesting. So why is the SNP waffling on about a 'referendum', if it has alternatives? Might it be because the SNP lacks the two-thirds majority to dissolve Holyrood? You really should have fact checked that one first.:)

There are in fact 56 SNP MPs at Westminster. I don't think that you can force by-elections in those 3 other Scottish constituencies that have non-SNP MPs. I think you should have fact checked that one as well.:)

In any event, I'm not sure why having 56 SNP members standing for re-election makes a difference. I presume all 56 are pro-independence, and thus their success in 2015 could equally well be considered a "de facto independence referendum". That didn't change the UK constitution, so I can't see that doing it all over again would make any difference.

I think you need a de jure referendum.



Best you get used to the idea that whether this vote happens before Brexit, it won't change Brexit. The UK will still exit the EU, and since Scotland is part of the UK, it will exit too.

I also think that you might also best you get used to the possibility that even if it happens, you still might not get the result that you hope for.

I think you've gotten this self-determination thing the wrong way round. Westminster doesn't get to decide if Scotland leaves , it's the people of Scotland who do. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the concept ?

The Supreme Court won't work either. Because when I say 'a vote in some form' I mean the wording can be framed so as to legally make any vote a 'conversation' between the Scottish Govt and Scottish voters asking if the Scottish Govt should enter into negotiations with the UK Govt... which no court in the land, not even the Supreme Court can legally say is wrong.

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

That's why I say 'in some form'. However here's how it's going to go imo roughly.

1) The Scottish Govt will ask for a Section 30, and it will possibly be refused.
2) The Scottish Govt will produce a second bill calling a vote on whether the Scottish Govt should enter into negotiations with the UK Govt over all reserved powers being returned to Scotland ( in other words a de-facto referendum with different wording which would make it entirely legal without a Section 30 order).
3) Should the UK Govt delay their response or seek to delay things through the courts. Then the nuclear dissolve Holyrood and/or call all 56 MP's home option becomes likely. As well as 56 by-elections on an independence mandate ( ie a defacto referendum ). 56 v's the other 3 is still a majority if you can add up and subtract ? And it wasn't very long ago that a majority of MP's standing on an independence mandate would've been enough to ensure independence. Look it up.

If any/all of the above happen.. it'll be before 2019. Best get used to it like I said, because there is no way of stopping this should the Scottish Govt decide to go for it. All taking place among the Scottish Labour party voting for full on federalism today and massive political rows likely to be happening over fishing, agriculture, the Great Repeal Bill and Scotland leaving the ECJ. None of which Holyrood will vote through.

Sturgeon just needs to be patient for a little longer. The result is unpredictable. However a real case of nothing ventured nothing gained imo in light of the Brexit vote.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think you've gotten this self-determination thing the wrong way round. Westminster doesn't get to decide if Scotland leaves , it's the people of Scotland who do. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the concept ?

The Supreme Court won't work either. Because when I say 'a vote in some form' I mean the wording can be framed so as to legally make any vote a 'conversation' between the Scottish Govt and Scottish voters asking if the Scottish Govt should enter into negotiations with the UK Govt... which no court in the land, not even the Supreme Court can legally say is wrong.

That's why I say 'in some form'. However here's how it's going to go imo roughly.

1) The Scottish Govt will ask for a Section 30, and it will possibly be refused.
2) The Scottish Govt will produce a second bill calling a vote on whether the Scottish Govt should enter into negotiations with the UK Govt over all reserved powers being returned to Scotland ( in other words a de-facto referendum with different wording which would make it entirely legal without a Section 30 order).
3) Should the UK Govt delay their response or seek to delay things through the courts. Then the nuclear dissolve Holyrood and/or call all 56 MP's home option becomes likely. As well as 56 by-elections on an independence mandate ( ie a defacto referendum ). 56 v's the other 3 is still a majority if you can add up and subtract ? And it wasn't very long ago that a majority of MP's standing on an independence mandate would've been enough to ensure independence. Look it up.

lol "look it up".

Have you?

Can you name a region (now country) that has declared independence without a history of abuse against it as a reason for self-determination?

That'll be because under international law territorial sovereignty trumps self-determination except under extenuating circumstances, such as civil war.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

lol "look it up".

Have you?

Can you name a region (now country) that has declared independence without a history of abuse against it as a reason for self-determination?

That'll be because under international law territorial sovereignty trumps self-determination except under extenuating circumstances, such as civil war.

Err it wasn't that I was asking antrbus to look up ?

And it wasn't very long ago that a majority of MP's standing on an independence mandate would've been enough to ensure independence. Look it up.

We're talking about Scotland leaving a Union which it joined in equal partnership via a treaty it was a signatory to.. Not a region. And after Brexit you should know all about that.;)

I know it hurts that the facts don't fit your initial point but there you go. When Scotland signed the treaty of Union she didn't actually become a region.. it just suits you better to think so but it's not really the case. An independence referendum/vote just dissolves an ( outdated ) Treaty of Union between two countries. End of story. UK no more. No need for extenuating circumstances, nor bloodshed, nor war.. just the peaceful democracy of the ballot box.

Even Scottish Labour have abandoned the old treaty and want a new sparkly fresh one written. Unworkable and too late of course.. but the plates are starting to shift in Scottish Labour. They voted this 'idea' through today at their conference.

Kezia Dugdale calls for 'new Act of Union'

Ms Dugdale pointed out that the 1707 Act of Union still underpins the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, arguing that there should be a new act "for this new century".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38223719

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Err it wasn't that I was asking antrbus to look up ?
We're talking about Scotland leaving a Union which it joined in equal partnership via a treaty it was a signatory to.. Not a region. And after Brexit you should know all about that.;)

I know it hurts that the facts don't fit your initial point but there you go. When Scotland signed the treaty of Union she didn't actually become a region.. it just suits you better to think so but it's not really the case. An independence referendum/vote just dissolves an ( outdated ) Treaty of Union between two countries. End of story. UK no more. No need for extenuating circumstances, nor bloodshed, nor war.. just the peaceful democracy of the ballot box.

Even Scottish Labour have abandoned the old treaty and want a new sparkly fresh one written. Unworkable and too late of course.. but the plates are starting to shift in Scottish Labour. They voted this 'idea' through today at their conference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38223719

And yet, Scotland is referred to as a region of the UK in UK government documentation.

Sooooo..... it seems more like you've convinced yourself (or someone did it for you) that you're correct about Scotland still being a country in its own right.. yet without power.. or sovereignty.. somehow..

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Scottish politics is a joke at the moment. I couldn't care less what Kezia does or doesn't want, it's almost like you think that political leaders in Scotland are pied-pipers and everyone will follow their tune just because of who they are. Those days are over. People will make pragmatic political decisions these days, even if it means voting against the latest loon in charge of the political party they used to support.

antrobus

And the response form Shakethedisease is the usual blathering waffle.

Let's make this clear.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.... There will be another indy vote soon in some form. Either Westminster approved or not, or Holyrood dissolved and all SNP/Green candidates standing on an independence mandate.. .

Consider this;

Section 3 Scotland Act 1998 Extraordinary general elections.

The Presiding Officer shall propose a day for the holding of a poll if (a) the Parliament resolves that it should be dissolved and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/3

There are 129 members of the Scottish Parliament, and thus a dissolution would require 86 of them to vote in favour. The SNP currently has 63 seats, the Scottish Greens have 6. 63+6=69 which is less than 86. Thus Holyrood can only be dissolved with the support of either the Scottish Conservatives or Scottish Labour.

Thus your cunning plan of a Holyrood dissolution is unlikely to come to fruition. I must admit I don't know whether this means you are too stupid to look up what is says in the Scotland Act 1998, or too stupid to perform basic arithmetic. But it's one of the two, or possibly both.

However I do know that it means that nothing you post can be taken seriously. Although I am beginning to think that you are nothing more than a Unionist Troll who has dedicated themselves to the task of making Scottish nationalists look like complete and utter idiots.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And yet, Scotland is referred to as a region of the UK in UK government documentation.

Sooooo..... it seems more like you've convinced yourself (or someone did it for you) that you're correct about Scotland still being a country in its own right.. yet without power.. or sovereignty.. somehow..

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Oh my goodness. You actually think that people have imagined the Treaty of Union ( 1707 ) with which the UK was created because of a few documents. Scotland is no more a region than England is. A region when it suits ( Brexit vote), a country when it comes to other things eh ? ( EVEL, the SNP sorting out the Scottish economy, GERS etc etc ).

Scottish politics is a joke at the moment. I couldn't care less what Kezia does or doesn't want, it's almost like you think that political leaders in Scotland are pied-pipers and everyone will follow their tune just because of who they are. Those days are over. People will make pragmatic political decisions these days, even if it means voting against the latest loon in charge of the political party they used to support.

Scottish Labour are a joke. But nonetheless it's a measure of how quickly Scottish politics, and how far support for the current status quo, which Dugdale made sure to state today that she no longer supported and would prefer federalism.. has fallen in just two and a bit years. This is a big thing for Scottish Labour. No longer Unionists, but Federalists. Even they can see the writing on the wall unless something radical changes soon.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh my goodness. You actually think that people have imagined the Treaty of Union ( 1707 ) with which the UK was created because of a few documents. Scotland is no more a region than England is. A region when it suits ( Brexit vote), a country when it comes to other things eh ? ( EVEL, the SNP sorting out the Scottish economy, GERS etc etc ).

Scottish Labour are a joke. But nonetheless it's a measure of how quickly Scottish politics, and how far support for the current status quo, which Dugdale made sure to state today that she no longer supported and would prefer federalism.. has fallen in just two and a bit years. This is a big thing for Scottish Labour. No longer Unionists, but Federalists. Even they can see the writing on the wall unless something radical changes soon.

EVEL exists because of Scotland and the tragic voting patterns the normal people have allowed the jokers to inflict on us all.

Never forget who the perpetrators of division are in this sorry escapade. It's not Westminster and it's not the English, Welsh or Northern Irish, and just for balance it's not the majority of Scotland either.

The treaty of Union effectively dissolved Scotland and England as nation states. Scotland and England are no more countries than Bavaria or Saxony, it's a quirk of the respective governing bodies that we are allowed provincial teams for Rugby, Football, and probably a few other things.

Thrugelmir

The jittery Prime Minister symbolically put the future of the UK at the top of the Cabinet agenda – a sign that she is preparing for an independence showdown with Nicola Sturgeon within months.

Has Enid Blyton been employed by the SNP PR department?