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

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You've changed your tune (again), I could sift through the thread and pick out the posts where you've advocated for the referendum prior to Scots knowing the deal, I was arguing against you saying it would be fairer for Scots to know what they're voting for.

Why do your indy opinions change so often and dramatically? Where is your critical thinking and conviction?

Nope. I've always said Brexit needs to play out for a while first. Sturgeon going for a ref straight off the back of the Brexit result itself would've been madness.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nope. I've always said Brexit needs to play out for a while first. Sturgeon going for a ref straight off the back of the Brexit result itself would've been madness.

Really...

You're going to force me to sift through this massive thread to show that the above statement is false?

You absolutely did advocate for a referendum before the result of Brexit negotiations are known, it's also a huge assumption that by autumn 2018/spring 2019 the outline of a deal will be known. There's even the possibility that the article 50 time frame can be extended beyond 2 years.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Looks like Nicola will have to wait a while.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/15/scottish-independence-may-set-to-refuse-referendum-until-after-brexit

Doubt it. She'll be expecting this and anyway if the best excuse they can come up with is 'not knowing the terms of the deal' before voting in a referendum, they'll be laughed out of Scotland.

We will know the terms of the deal though by the PM's own timetable. Article 50 triggered March 2017 - Negotiations end Oct 2018 - ratification process for 6 months in EU parliament - March 2019. Sturgeon is waiting until after negotiations have completed. This doesn't seem to have filtered through/been cottoned on to yet by all the hyped up breathless jouno's currently reporting on it. But they will soon enough.

Laura Kuenssberg‏Verified account @bbclaurak
Sources say Sturgeon asking Scots to 'vote blind' before Brexit deal is done

Nicola Sturgeon‏Verified account @NicolaSturgeon Mar 13
Nicola Sturgeon Retweeted Laura Kuenssberg
I said very clearly that's not what I intended. I want informed choice when we have clarity on Brexit - based on PM's own timetable.

Peter Grant MP‏Verified account Disappointingly poor from you Laura. @NicolaSturgeon has deliberately timed #ScotRef to be after terms of Brexit are known.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Really...

You're going to force me to sift through this massive thread to show that the above statement is false?

You absolutely did advocate for a referendum before the result of Brexit negotiations are known, it's also a huge assumption that by autumn 2018/spring 2019 the outline of a deal will be known. There's even the possibility that the article 50 time frame can be extended beyond 2 years.

Waste your time if you like concentrating on my old posts. Two year window, Brexit plays out for a while, indy ref before the UK leaves. An indy ref was always once announced going to be be within that two year time frame. Whether Cameron had triggered Article 50 the day after the vote, or should May wait for nine months after. It's that two year window after triggering Article 50 that was/is always crucial to the timing of another Scottish vote.

movilogo

England/Wales/NI should have its own referendum whether they want Scotland to be part of UK exactly 7 days before Scottish referendum.

However, the crankie can choose which option to agree with (must be decided BEFORE the referendum).

1. Scotland remains or leaves union based on agreement of BOTH what rUK says and Scotland says (i.e. if rUK votes Remain and Scotland votes Out then Scotland still remains in union)

2. Scotland remains or leaves union based on EITHER of what rUK says and Scotland says (i.e. Scotland is OUT if rUK votes Out but Scotland votes for Remain).

Shakethedisease

beecher2 wrote: »

I think we've forgotten what it is like to be in election mode! Great for political anoraks or those who don't care one way or another, but I have to protect myself a bit this time round. People might scoff at this but losing the referendum felt like a bereavement to me, nowhere near as crushing as losing my parents and brother in the few years before, but still pretty awful.

So sorry to hear about your parents and brother.

I know people here think I must walk about dressed in tartan, blue face paint on, festooned in Yes badges, waving a saltire while collecting the kids from school in my car covered in 'Bairns not Bombs' stickers with Flower of Scotland blaring out from the car radio...
But I actually confine ALL my political debates solely to here and a few other places and use it to relax and think about something else other than work ! etc. Never do politics on my personal social media accounts either. I come here mainly because I have been for years and enjoy the banter back and forth. The last ref result was deeply depressing and I avoided tv for a few days. But soon bounced back into it again though I know others like you.. who were really, really down about the result and bowed out altogether from thinking about politics for a long time. So no scoffing from me either.

I guess we all approach things differently.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Waste your time if you like concentrating on my old posts. Two year window, Brexit plays out for a while, indy ref before the UK leaves. An indy ref was always once announced going to be be within that two year time frame. Whether Cameron had triggered Article 50 the day after the vote, or should May wait for nine months after. It's that two year window after triggering Article 50 that was/is always crucial to the timing of another Scottish vote.

I don't think it's a waste of time to show the inconsistency in your arguments. It speaks to the veracity of future arguments you make on here that cannot be substantiated, such as...

You state it's always going to be within the 2 year time frame, yet it hasn't been asked for and it hasn't been granted. Again I'll point out that the 2 year time frame is not set in stone either, it may be that we have to adopt transitional arrangements prior to working out the full details or that the 2 years is extended by unanimous vote. There is no guarantee that the details of a deal will be known by autumn 2018/spring 2019 which would be the very latest details would need to be known, right up to the day before this referendum you say is definitely happening.

posh*spice

Rinoa wrote: »

Looks like Nicola will have to wait a while.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/15/scottish-independence-may-set-to-refuse-referendum-until-after-brexit

Just been listening to someone from the EU who said that they would not consider any approach from Scotland at all if the UK constitution isn't followed. So all May has to do if to refuse to allow a vote - even if the nats then hold one it would be unconstitutional and the EU would refuse to parlay.

TrickyTree83

posh*spice wrote: »

Just been listening to someone from the EU who said that they would not consider any approach from Scotland at all if the UK constitution isn't followed. So all May has to do if to refuse to allow a vote - even if the nats then hold one it would be unconstitutional.

Yes it is quite simple, a vote held on constitutional matters by the Scottish government would easily be challenged in court if it was even allowed to take place. I wonder if the electoral commission or another body could step in (maybe even the courts) to stop such a vote taking place as it would be easy to claim it's a violation of the constitutional arrangement even if it's non-binding on Westminster. I would imagine there's plenty of people in Scotland and the rest of the UK that would finance such a legal challenge fronting an individual like Gina Miller, it doesn't have to come from Westminster for the courts to get involved.

mrginge

posh*spice wrote: »

Just been listening to someone from the EU who said that they would not consider any approach from Scotland at all if the UK constitution isn't followed. So all May has to do if to refuse to allow a vote - even if the nats then hold one it would be unconstitutional and the EU would refuse to parlay.

It's been pointed out before that the international community don't look too favourably on separatist movements that seem to think they can bypass a country's constitutional laws.

But apparently this doesn't apply to Scotland's nut case Indy crew, since everyone is falling over themselves to be besties with them despite not having a pot to !!!! in and a complete lack of respect for anyone or anything that doesn't immediately deliver exactly what their cry-baby leaders demand.
And it's all because of the North Sea fishing grounds. :rotfl:

Which political leader (who wasn't a total loon) would actually want the massive hassle of having to deal with the SNP?