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

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Taken from the Guardian:-

I typed a really long reply and then realised, it says nothing about saying "No" to Indy2 increasing support for it. Which was the point I was asking for clarification on. The independence campaign has never really stopped, and short of die hard pro-EU moving to Yes and die hard anti-EU moving to No, of which we're told there's equal amounts if not more headed towards No (see SNP vote share that voted to Leave) there's not much to sway. So saying no is really of no consequence, some people on here just want to believe that to be the case.

edinburgher

elantan wrote: »

Aye ... sometimes it's good to be wrong

Have you had any thoughts about how you might vote El?

Shakethedisease

Moby wrote: »

Anyone know the constitutional position....can Sturgeon go ahead with a referendum even if the UK Govmt opposes it?

Yes a consultative/advisory referendum like the Brexit one was if no section 30. There is nothing in the Scotland Act that bars the Scottish Govt from holding one of those.

It could go to the courts, but the Scottish Govt has never accepted that they have no right to call a referendum. The first time round Salmond was 100% unequivocal about being able to call one. It's never been tested in court though so there are a lot of if's/why's/maybe's and legal opinion out there.

However Cameron blinked first as it turned out. May might not, but is a risky move for her to block and go through the courts on this one. Since it involves having to prove that the Scottish Govt has no legal right to enter into a conversation with it's own voters and constituents. Which obviously is total nonsense.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes a consultative/advisory referendum like the Brexit one was if no section 30. There is nothing in the Scotland Act that bars the Scottish Govt from holding one of those.

It could go to the courts, but the Scottish Govt has never accepted that they have no right to call a referendum. The first time round Salmond was 100% unequivocal about being able to call one. It's never been tested in court though so there are a lot of if's/why's/maybe's and legal opinion out there.

However Cameron blinked first as it turned out. May might not, but is a risky move for her to block and go through the courts on this one. Since it involves having to prove that the Scottish Govt has no legal right to enter into a conversation with it's own voters and constituents. Which obviously is total nonsense.

On reserved matters...

Not nonsense at all. They can go ahead and ask questions but those questions can not in any way lead to an action constitutionally without the nod from Westminster, no matter how you try to spin it.

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indyref2 announced today.

Game on....:)

Err, no.

Sturgeon "will ask the Scottish Parliament next Tuesday to request a Section 30 order from Westminster".

The words 'ask' and 'request' are not synonyms for 'announce'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39255181

mayonnaise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes a consultative/advisory referendum like the Brexit one was if no section 30. There is nothing in the Scotland Act that bars the Scottish Govt from holding one of those.

If the Scottish people would vote for independence in this consultative/advisory referendum (like the Brexit one), could it be said that "the people have spoken and need to be listened to"?

beecher2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I typed a really long reply and then realised, it says nothing about saying "No" to Indy2 increasing support for it. Which was the point I was asking for clarification on. The independence campaign has never really stopped, and short of die hard pro-EU moving to Yes and die hard anti-EU moving to No, of which we're told there's equal amounts if not more headed towards No (see SNP vote share that voted to Leave) there's not much to sway. So saying no is really of no consequence, some people on here just want to believe that to be the case.

Look at the STV Mori poll. 15% could be swayed either way and most are Labour/Lib Dem voters. I know a few people who say they could be tempted either way. As for 'saying no is really of no consequence' - how democratic!

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

Look at the STV Mori poll. 15% could be swayed either way and most are Labour/Lib Dem voters. I know a few people who say they could be tempted either way. As for 'saying no is really of no consequence' - how democratic!

Personally I would say no to you and your indy buddies until Brexit is done and dusted.

Scotland voted to remain part of the UK in 2014.

Scotland knew there was an EU in/out referendum on the cards in a Conservative manifesto for the 2015 GE.

Scotland took part in a UK wide referendum on EU membership in 2016 with their eyes wide open.

I would absolutely sit Nicola down and tell her in no uncertain terms that what she is asking for will never happen before Brexit is concluded, so forget about it until after that. If the vote is taken in Holyrood to ask for another referendum, fine, the UK government can accept the request and issue a response with a caveat that it must happen once Brexit is concluded.

Why? Because there's many more millions of people that they need to get Brexit right for, many more than approximately half of the Scottish electorate.

TrickyTree83

Looks like Nicola's backlash has already started.

http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=180642

beecher2

You're not in charge Tricky so none of what you would do if you were PM is at all relevant. Weren't you originally saying there would be no second referendum full stop? I am not sure of the timing and imagine TM will have a sunrise clause on the Section 30. Delaying it until after Brexit just makes the campaign even longer though so I'm not sure the benefits for her.

See Project Fear is gearing itself up - surely someone must've come up with a positive case for the Union by now?!