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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The act of the Scottish Govt holding 'a' referendum isn't illegal though. There's no law in the land against the Scots Govt holding one to gauge the opinion of the Scottish electorate. The result is a different matter.

What are you scared of anyway ?

I'm just talking about the realities as I see them. Of course the Scottish government could hold a plebiscite but on reserved matters I believe there would be grounds that a constitutional plebiscite is outside the remit of the Scottish parliament and that this would easily hold up in court

posh*spice

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Some REAL news, from parliament:

Over 120,000 in what, two days?


And this in the same article where Theresa May says in response to Angus Robertson:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39282094

Any date set yet? That will be a good indication of how the land lies..

Shakethedisease

ash28 wrote: »

Part of the problem facing Scotland now is that a lot of countries who are sympathetic to Scotland's position probably won't do anything that isn't in their own best interests - namely their concerns will be with the UK/rUK not Scotland. The UK/rUK is far more valuable to them than Scotland ever could be.

I heard Spain will be looking for a bilateral deal, Spanish business in the UK is substantial, Santander and Telefonica and Iberdrola have a lot of business here and those three alone account for 30% of the Ibex35. That's without the exports to the UK. Spain won't be alone.

In my opinion Ms Sturgeon probably couldn't have chosen a worse time for an independence referendum, not only does it seem to have been made clear that Scotland will have to apply through the normal channels ('we're already members' seems to have fallen on deaf ears). Countries will be interested in keeping the UK/rUK happy, not because they like us but because of our value to their economies. They are probably really p****d off with us over Brexit and while the EU might try and play hard ball during negotiations individual member states will want deals. Without Scotland rUK is still an economy to be reckoned with while without the rUK Scotland isn't.

The UK is leaving the EU though. Why would any of those countries want to bend over backwards keeping Theresa May etc happy now ? The EU negotiate as a block anyway not separate countries. What you don't seem to have realised also is that Sturgeon even stating her intention to hold one has taken all Scottish assets off the negotiating table already. It's also stopped all casual assumptions, as May was doing at the Scottish Tory conference, of even attempting to rewrite the Scotland Act in order to take powers back from Holyrood to Westminster. I think that will be off the agenda for a while.

Good luck trying to bargain with question marks like those hanging over for example fishing grounds.

Lastly, the very, very best of luck trying to sell the idea that Scotland won't be in the EU to Scots voters as some sort of scare story.. Not when Article 50 is about to be triggered. It really is the most silly, !!!!!!, amusing case to be making against Scottish independence. :cool:

posh*spice

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The UK is leaving the EU though. Why would any of those countries want to bend over backwards keeping Theresa May etc happy now ? The EU negotiate as a block anyway not separate countries. What you don't seem to have realised also is that Sturgeon even stating her intention to hold one has taken all Scottish assets off the negotiating table already. It's also stopped all casual assumptions, as May was doing at the Scottish Tory conference, of even attempting to rewrite the Scotland Act in order to take powers back from Holyrood to Westminster. I think that will be off the agenda for a while.

Good luck trying to bargain with question marks like those hanging over for example fishing grounds.

Lastly, the very, very best of luck trying to sell the idea that Scotland won't be in the EU to Scots voters as some sort of scare story.. Not when Article 50 is about to be triggered. It really is the most silly, !!!!!!, amusing case to be making against Scottish independence. :cool:

Just a long list of reasons as to why Westminster should vote down a second referendum.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'm just talking about the realities as I see them. Of course the Scottish government could hold a plebiscite but on reserved matters I believe there would be grounds that a constitutional plebiscite is outside the remit of the Scottish parliament and that this would easily hold up in court

A plebiscite is within the remit of the Scottish Govt since the holding of referendums isn't prohibited. Is the result which will be the problem if it goes Sturgeon's way. Holding an advisory/consultative referendum in itself is only a test of public opinion and perfectly legal even without a section 30 ( which only bound the then 2014 parliaments to act on the result ). The Scottish Govt aren't actually going to be proposing to change constitutional law directly.

We're all just speculating anyway Am sure both May and Sturgeon have plans if May blocks the section 30. A bit telling though that there now only seem to be plans to delay rather than block one ?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

A plebiscite is within the remit of the Scottish Govt since the holding of referendums isn't prohibited. Is the result which will be the problem if it goes Sturgeon's way. Holding an advisory/consultative referendum in itself is only a test of public opinion and perfectly legal even without a section 30 ( which only bound the then 2014 parliaments to act on the result ). The Scottish Govt aren't actually going to be proposing to change constitutional law directly.

We're all just speculating anyway Am sure both May and Sturgeon have plans if May blocks the section 30. A bit telling though that there now only seem to be plans to delay rather than block one ?

I disagree that it's the result that is the problem, I'd say it's the question put to the Scottish people by the Scottish government about changing the nature of the constitution since that is a reserved issue. In the eyes of the law - it doesn't concern the Scottish government. They do not represent their constituents on constitutional matters at Holyrood, only the SNP MP's at Westminster can claim that.

On the topic of delay rather than block, I would consider a delay until Brexit is signed, sealed and delivered and the deal is not only known but in place as the fairest approach. Back in 2012 the Scottish government were given the opportunity to have a referendum without any political upheaval as a backdrop. Just over 2 years later from having that referendum in 2014 and you're asking for another one but this time there's more pressing issues for the UK government to deal with if it is to remain responsible to all UK citizens, including those of Scotland who do not wish to be independent.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I said this a page or so back and you've just exampled it perfectly.

A lot of pollsters have been framing the question as 'do you think there should be another indy ref before or after Brexit is complete' then newspapers and folks like Davidson are talking the obvious higher % for "after Brexit" as evidence Scots don't want it at ALL.

There is no referendum planned for now, it's 18 months at least off and you have no idea whatsoever how people will feel about staying in the UK then I'm afraid since you're not as far as I know a fortune teller.

You're just fooling yourself. In the new Survation Poll the question asked was "Should Scotland be an independent country"

48% No. 43% Yes.

http://survation.com/indyref2-new-voting-intentions-scottish-daily-mail-sunday-post/

elantan

That's really good for starting out ... last time we were 26% or something ...

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I disagree that it's the result that is the problem, I'd say it's the question put to the Scottish people by the Scottish government about changing the nature of the constitution since that is a reserved issue. In the eyes of the law - it doesn't concern the Scottish government. They do not represent their constituents on constitutional matters at Holyrood, only the SNP MP's at Westminster can claim that.

On the topic of delay rather than block, I would consider a delay until Brexit is signed, sealed and delivered and the deal is not only known but in place as the fairest approach. Back in 2012 the Scottish government were given the opportunity to have a referendum without any political upheaval as a backdrop. Just over 2 years later from having that referendum in 2014 and you're asking for another one but this time there's more pressing issues for the UK government to deal with if it is to remain responsible to all UK citizens, including those of Scotland who do not wish to be independent.

You're viewing this from a UK angle though, and through a different prism than nearly half of Scotland and many remain EU voters. I'm going to say this one last time for you.. but there is nothing stopping the Scottish Govt asking Scottish public opinion on anything it likes.

The mere asking of a question doesn't change any laws, it cannot since it's only consultative. So it's not a constitutional matter. It only becomes constitutional when the Scottish Govt ask Westminster to act on the results. The referendum itself creates political momentum, but doesn't in itself change any single facet of the UK constitution and has no direct effect whatsover on the constitution.

The Brexit vote was consultative. The results were acted on in UK parliament, but the Govt were free or not to do so. The political momentum it created however was impossible for the Govt to ignore.

Let's be honest here. Sturgeon has thrown a massive spanner into the works even though Westminster were well warned since June 24th independence was back on the table.They thought Sturgeon was bluffing. They're now floundering about not knowing really what to do about it, sending Mundell off round studios and newspapers on kite flying missions about blocks, legalities, delaying it and voters voting without 'knowing the deal' ( bit rich that one ).

Scottish assets such as fishing grounds now become big question marks in negotiations. It doesn't actually matter now when Sturgeon holds a referendum for the simple reason that she's stated the intention to do so. The Great Repeal bill and rewriting the Scotland Act to exclude previously devolved matters such as agriculture/fishing and environmental matters are going to become even more massive hot potatoes than they were before.

May might well refuse a section 30, but Sturgeon will already be well prepared for that eventuality. The SNP usually are when it comes to independence related matters, it's a cornerstone policy after all.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're viewing this from a UK angle though, and through a different prism than nearly half of Scotland and many remain EU voters. I'm going to say this one last time for you.. but there is nothing stopping the Scottish Govt asking Scottish public opinion on anything it likes.

The mere asking of a question doesn't change any laws, it cannot since it's only consultative. So it's not a constitutional matter. It only becomes constitutional when the Scottish Govt ask Westminster to act on the results. The referendum itself creates political momentum, but doesn't in itself change any single facet of the UK constitution and has no direct effect whatsover on the constitution.

The Brexit vote was consultative. The results were acted on in UK parliament, but the Govt were free or not to do so. The political momentum it created however was impossible for the Govt to ignore.

Let's be honest here. Sturgeon has thrown a massive spanner into the works even though Westminster were well warned since June 24th independence was back on the table.They thought Sturgeon was bluffing. They're now floundering about not knowing really what to do about it, sending Mundell off round studios and newspapers on kite flying missions about blocks, legalities, delaying it and voters voting without 'knowing the deal' ( bit rich that one ).

Scottish assets such as fishing grounds now become big question marks in negotiations. It doesn't actually matter now when Sturgeon holds a referendum for the simple reason that she's stated the intention to do so. The Great Repeal bill and rewriting the Scotland Act to exclude previously devolved matters such as agriculture/fishing and environmental matters are going to become even more massive hot potatoes than they were before.

May might well refuse a section 30, but Sturgeon will already be well prepared for that eventuality. The SNP usually are when it comes to independence related matters, it's a cornerstone policy after all.

I disagree since you're clearly wanting the SNP to ask a question on constitutional affairs which are not within the Scottish governments remit.

That may not be popular amongst indy support but that is the case, constitutional affairs are nothing whatsoever to do with Holyrood, so Holyrood attempting to start or create that momentum could in my view be stopped before it even begins through the legal system. After all the legal system stopped the UK government from bypassing parliament for Brexit and an act (law) was required to make it happen, the same should be said of Scottish constitutional affairs. Incidentally on that point, Holyrood had no veto on the A50 bill, they had no say on the A50 bill, they were not involved because it's a constitutional affair. The UK government has the right to hold referenda on affairs under its control, I think the SNP will find it hard to justify a unilateral referendum on independence without the permission of Westminster in front of a judge.