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

Enterprise_1701C

I think what might stop anyone acting on any possible result of a new and unconstitutional referendum in Scotland is a simple fact.

They had a once in a generation vote in 2014.

At that stage it was known that a EU referendum was planned.

If the vote had gone the other way, Sturgeon would now be campaigning for a referendum on the grounds that they were being forced to stay in the EU.

I did notice she had not been in the news for a short while before she had the latest tantrum, she does not like being out of the limelight. She will wreck Scotland just to make sure she can become eu president. Still, at least that would make sure the eu could not survive lol

elantan

Was it a once in a generation vote or a once in a generation opportunity ?

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Yes I believe you are correct TT. Exactly the same though was in my mind. Any Referendum which has the intent of altering the constitution must be approved by Westminster. Whatever the wording is, whatever weasel words are used, if the SNP Government has the intent to use it to achieve the same result as a Referendum on Scottish Independence or other Constitutional matters, it will not be legal.

Sturgeon, and her blinkered acolytes, has trumpeted long and clear that their intended aim of calling of an unauthorised referendum will be to create a constitutional change, bypassing the legal process.

Shakey has just done it yet again, all of them falling into a trap of their own making.

For those Scots reading this who are against having another referendum, I urge them to use all attempts, eg writing letters to whoever it might be within Scotland who can take such action, to encourage a Scottish-led legal challenge to any such Referendum, on the basis that it is an attempt to circumvent the law, citing the bombastic statements made by Sturgeon and her crew and SNP trumpeted expectations of its use.

It does not matter what the words are, challenge the Referendum.

Such a challenge is quiet likely to succeed I believe and in the process raise the amusing prospect of the SNP, in trying to defend their Referendum, being forced into disavowing that it would be used in any way to further constitutional change. They would bury their own Referendum if they were convincing! So it's a win/win situation for the challenge.

It is so nice to see Sturgeon fall into that trap. Other traps await no doubt.

In the meantime I hope that the SNP supporters here continue to trumpet loud and clear that they will hold that illegal referendum if a legal one is not agreed, thus providing yet further proof of its illegitimacy.

Enterprise_1701C

elantan wrote: »

Was it a once in a generation vote or a once in a generation opportunity ?

Either way they promised to stand by the result.

Their promises are worth nothing. Cameron promised the EU referendum in January 2013, well before the Scottish referendum. He kept that promise.

elantan

They did stand by the result

No one expected it to be a tory government most expected another hung parliament ... and the propaganda was the only way to stay in the EU is vote no ...

Hmm mm

Shaka_Zulu

TrickyTree83

elantan wrote: »

They did stand by the result

No one expected it to be a tory government most expected another hung parliament ... and the propaganda was the only way to stay in the EU is vote no ...

Hmm mm

So..

Aware of the manifesto pledge but didn't expect the Conservatives to win, I fail to see how that equals a broken promise, the possibility of retaining EU membership was still on the table in the intervening time up to the day after the EU referendum once the result came in.

Under those circumstances the BT campaign were absolutely correct in what they said as a 2014 Yes would have ended your EU membership right there and then. Which is ironic given the furore Yes voters from 2014 are now making over the EU since 2016.

Being internally inconsistent in arguments is the first sign of a failed ideology, like communism, where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Believe what you like then, but legally the act of holding referedum in itself isn't unconstitutional. And remember last time that Cameron blinked first, and this time round May seems to be all about delaying it rather than blocking it. She might still block a section 30 but in reality, this is a lose/lose position for her to be in right now whatever she does as far as Scotland is concerned. While no doubt it would be a popular move elsewhere in the UK.

The Sewell convention is another matter entirely and I can't be bothered going into it again with you.

Incidentally you're going to have to work a bit more on those trade scare stories.;)

Britain Elects
Scotland // On which is more valuable:

Its trade links with the EU: 40%

Its trade links with the UK: 40% (via YouGov)

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Yes I believe you are correct TT. Exactly the same though was in my mind. Any Referendum which has the intent of altering the constitution must be approved by Westminster. Whatever the wording is, whatever weasel words are used, if the SNP Government has the intent to use it to achieve the same result as a Referendum on Scottish Independence or other Constitutional matters, it will not be legal.

Sturgeon, and her blinkered acolytes, has trumpeted long and clear that their intended aim of calling of an unauthorised referendum will be to create a constitutional change, bypassing the legal process.

Shakey has just done it yet again, all of them falling into a trap of their own making.

For those Scots reading this who are against having another referendum, I urge them to use all attempts, eg writing letters to whoever it might be within Scotland who can take such action, to encourage a Scottish-led legal challenge to any such Referendum, on the basis that it is an attempt to circumvent the law, citing the bombastic statements made by Sturgeon and her crew and SNP trumpeted expectations of its use.

It does not matter what the words are, challenge the Referendum.

Such a challenge is quiet likely to succeed I believe and in the process raise the amusing prospect of the SNP, in trying to defend their Referendum, being forced into disavowing that it would be used in any way to further constitutional change. They would bury their own Referendum if they were convincing! So it's a win/win situation for the challenge.

It is so nice to see Sturgeon fall into that trap. Other traps await no doubt.

In the meantime I hope that the SNP supporters here continue to trumpet loud and clear that they will hold that illegal referendum if a legal one is not agreed, thus providing yet further proof of its illegitimacy.

You should all just really admit, that in your absolute desperation to stop/block or delay another referendum. Write to MP's, sign that meaningless petition !!! What really scares you most is the fact there's a good chance you'll lose it. And that Scotland might 'make a success of it' ..by staying in a market you're really not sure is a good idea to leave.. but are going along with it all crossing your fingers madly hoping it won't be as bad as you think it could be ( No deal/crap deal with the EU ).

May is terrified. She looked well rattled in that hastily arranged interview on Monday, cancelled announcing Article 50 the next day as everyone was expecting and is now arranging a 'tour' of the devolved nations in order to 'build consensus' before triggering it.

Sinn Fein are now also after a border poll and I saw a poll tonight that most in the Republic of Ireland agree with them. May's got a lot of domestic problems at the moment to deal with as well as Brexit. Yet has alienated the EU also with hubris over her opening negotiating stance.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So..

Aware of the manifesto pledge but didn't expect the Conservatives to win, I fail to see how that equals a broken promise, the possibility of retaining EU membership was still on the table in the intervening time up to the day after the EU referendum once the result came in.

Under those circumstances the BT campaign were absolutely correct in what they said as a 2014 Yes would have ended your EU membership right there and then. Which is ironic given the furore Yes voters from 2014 are now making over the EU since 2016.

Being internally inconsistent in arguments is the first sign of a failed ideology, like communism, where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Try these before going off on one about Tory manifesto's. Even Davidson at the time was quoted saying she didn't think the Tories would win.

NO voters in Scotland thought they would be out of the EU if they voted yes, with a Labour Govt in 2015. BetterTogether who were a cross party alliance said and repeatedly said that the only way to lose EU membership was to vote Yes.

Please don't try to rewrite history for those who were there at the time and were subject to the endless you'll be out of the EU memes, stories, articles, headlines and tv programmes. They were all talking complete mince.





And as I've been saying re transitional deals and immediate aims.. from elsewhere.

Listening to Alex Salmond on LBC, he put forward that while the SNP's position is still that full EU membership is their goal, the "primacy of membership of the Single Market" is what matters.

To me this signals (along with other soundings) that the SNP are preparing to make an EFTA based offer, securing Single Market membership while not committing to membership of the EU for Leave voters.
Personally, i think this is the best solution anyway, you keep Fishing, you can do your own trade deals (as long as you refuse the Customs Union which makes sense), allowing full free trade with rUK. I just don't see a downside to the option.
Surely if this is the proposal that goes to the people, the Unionist campaign will find it impossible to overcome?