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

TrickyTree83

antrobus wrote: »

(1)An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.

(2)A provision is outside that competence so far as any of the following paragraphs apply—

(a)it would form part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland, or confer or remove functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland,

(b)it relates to reserved matters,


Scotland Act 1998
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/29

Pretty straightforward I'd have thought.:)

Thank you very much for confirming, it would appear that holding a unilateral referendum on independence would be illegal in the clearest of terms.

Will we see a Shakey backtrack? I wait with trepidation.

.string.

beecher2 wrote: »

I feel it maybe should be down to the Scottish parliament when to hold a referendum. I think TM will just continue to be very vague, which really isn't good. Is 'now is not the time' going to be the new 'Brexit means Brexit'? No-one wants the referendum to be now anyway!
bit of a mess really.

I can t agree to that, while admitting that my case would be stronger if there were an English Parliament.

The original scheme was that the two countries would be united under a common Parliament. At that time there were two Parliament's coming together and it was decided that the Union would only be undone were both Parliament's to agree. Since that initial status we have had a long period where both Parliament's were merged and then more recently split again except for the overarching aspects of the Union except for England give or take a fudge on the EVEl issue.

So that original consensus criteria for splitting the Union is now invested in the UK Government. I can see it could be decided by Parliament without the participation of Scottish MPs but at the moment is seems the PM decided, acting on behalf of the whole of the UK.

To put the thing in another context. Suppose there was an anti-Scotish sentiment in England claiming the Scots were over subsidised and had no consideration for England's welfare, were a drain on England's prosperity, siphoned money off from important blah blah and all that sort of rubbish. Suppose that the English decided on the strength of a single figure majority in the HoC to stop all money transfer to Scotland and cut them adrift immediatel. Now the fanatics amongst the Scottish Nationalists might think that wonderful but it would basically be hugely unfair to Scotland to be abandoned on a whim without any say in the matter.

So while I do think that a genuine wish by Scots to break the Union should not be ignored, I don't think it is an act which is without consequences for the other part of GB. Added to that, when opinion in Scotland is so divided it has large consequences in Scotland too.


So I think the original concept of having consensus on such a matter is still correct and while the current arrangement could probably be improved, I at least, can't think of a better one, at least not instantly.

Arklight

Golly. I hope level heads prevail. Mrs May does seem to be acting in a most rambunctious way.

setmefree2

Arklight wrote: »

Golly. I hope level heads prevail. Mrs May does seem to be acting in a most rambunctious way.

People don't want another referendum - she's calling it right.

Shaka_Zulu

beecher2 wrote: »

'your ilk' says it all unfortunately.

What do you mean by that?

beecher2

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/03/16/may-just-handed-nicola-sturgeon-the-greatest-gift

Some interesting points here, I think

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/03/16/may-just-handed-nicola-sturgeon-the-greatest-gift

Some interesting points here, I think

From one perspective maybe.

I read that before you'd posted and I had to say it came across incredibly bias, as though the author had an axe to grind and upon investigation of who he is and where he is I'd say so. A London based liberal who is anti-brexit and anti-conservative.

Conrad

A strong leader faces down the ginger whinger. Good call, but she should let Ruth Davis do the heavy lifting, so as to draw fire away from 'bossy Westminster'.

TrickyTree83

Conrad wrote: »

A strong leader faces down the ginger whinger. Good call, but she should let Ruth Davis do the heavy lifting, so as to draw fire away from 'bossy Westminster'.

This won't increase support for independence.

Pro-EU will still vote Yes, anti-EU will still vote No, pro-independence will still vote Yes and anti-independence will still vote No whether there was a referendum in 2017/18 or 19.

After the Brexit deal has been done and put in place and having lived with it for a couple of years there will undoubtedly be some movement in those groups. Either the deal is looked upon favourably (higher No vote) or the deal is looked upon badly (higher Yes vote). An awful lot will happen between now and 2019, and if the next Holyrood elections are the starter klaxon for IndyRef2 proper even more can change besides. Holyrood could change its composition to an anti-independence majority.

setmefree2

I read (can't remember where now) - she's going to leave it until 2022 after elections in 2021 - on the basis the SNP will take a beating in 2021 Scottish GE.