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

elantan

I don't understand how you find the fact people living outside the country of voting shouldnt be allowed a vote ...

TrickyTree83

elantan wrote: »

I don't understand how you find the fact people living outside the country of voting shouldnt be allowed a vote ...

What's the reason for the disenfranchisement then?

Must be a spectacular reason because in my eyes they're still citizens of that country, they should still expect consular support from that country, pensions from that country, etc... so they have a stake in what goes on within that country even once they've settled elsewhere. On an issue like independence which is going to touch every aspect of citizenship they should be allowed a vote.

I don't understand why they would be disenfranchised except to cull the number who might support the union.

Shaka_Zulu

Scottish Schools are being ordered to screen Braveheart monthly for all secondary pupils ahead of a reduction in the voting age to 12 #scotref!

A spokesman said "That should do the trick"

Shakethedisease

posh*spice wrote: »

Sure it will be illegal in the eyes of the EU because it is unconstitutional. You don't really think they would allow you to do this when this is the situation in Spain with Catalonia. You really are naive.

So you hold a vote that it unconstitutional and you think this is going to win you friends in Europe. You are mad.

I imagine Rajoy is on the phone right now with Mrs May......

Referendums aren't unconstitutional. Scotland isn't Catalonia. Catalonia is a region of Spain. Scotland and England signed a Treaty of Union in 1707 as two distinct and separate counties agreeing to be governed by one parliament.

EU membership: Spain vs Scotland

We’ve done some Googling so you don’t have to. Long story short: Ms Cherry has a point.

The independence movement in Catalonia, a region of Spain, means that Madrid doesn’t like encouraging nationalist movements in other countries. That’s why it’s often assumed that the Spanish government is committed to vetoing an independent Scotland’s EU membership.
But there’s a possible misunderstanding here. There’s a difference between staying in the EU and rejoining it.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-membership-spain-scotland/

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

My ribs hurt!
From laughing at the increasing nonsense from pro-SNP posters in here, ranging from simply ignorant and/or distraction to frankly ridiculous and ignoring the law completely.

It has been very firmly established beyond doubt that any independence referendum clearly is a constitutional matter and thus the power to allow such a referendum lies in Westminster.

The power to issue a Section 30 lies in Westminster. Whether a Section 30 is needed legally in order to hold a carefully worded referendum in Scotland has never been established. This question would do it.

.@Law_and_policy Provided question carefully drafted, s30 Order unnecessary: eg

Referendum question not requiring s30 Order

Should the Scottish Government enter into negotiations with the Government of the United Kingdom with a view to Scotland becoming an independent country?

Yes No

Professor Emeritus of Scots Law, University of Edinburgh.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You know full well that at the time Ruth was absolutely spot on.

A 2014 Yes meant out of the EU.

A 2014 No meant retaining EU membership via being in the UK.

All were aware of a Conservative manifesto pledge to have an EU in/out referendum.

So ? Ruth Davidson spent from 2011 to 2014 telling Scots the Tories probably weren't going to win in 2015 and a No vote meant staying in the EU. Then spent the best part of last year telling Scots that voting Remain meant staying in the EU.

Scotland did both. And is going to be out of the EU. I think something Salmond said as his opinion a few years back is the least of Scotland's worries with Ruth Davidson still on the Holyrood scene. No wonder she's starting to be known as 'Ruth the Mooth' up here. I particularly loved someone describing her and Mundell as 'speaking to Scotland through the medium of interpretive unionism'... :rotfl:

NCC-1701

elantan wrote: »

You gonna miss me as well ... ahhh it's nice to feel loved .. thank you

Scotland will never miss you...not even for a nano second....go and enjoy having being previously a troll.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So ? Ruth Davidson spent from 2011 to 2014 telling Scots the Tories probably weren't going to win in 2015 and a No vote meant staying in the EU. Then spent the best part of last year telling Scots that voting Remain meant staying in the EU.

Scotland did both. And is going to be out of the EU. I think something Salmond said as his opinion a few years back is the least of Scotland's worries with Ruth Davidson still on the Holyrood scene. No wonder she's starting to be known as 'Ruth the Mooth' up here. I particularly loved someone describing her and Mundell as 'speaking to Scotland through the medium of interpretive unionism'... :rotfl:

Nothing wrong with either of those things you say Ruth did, according to the polls - she was right. If she told Scots the Conservatives probably weren't going to win, there was no other information to contradict that apart from using your own common sense that the possibility still remained open.

I know you really want her to be on the hook, I can see it in the social media presence of the indy support, but honestly the facts, the historical empirical facts show that she was correct to say *what* she said *when* she said it.

RE: The "carefully worded question", there's no such thing. It still refers to constitutional affairs, if a court case were to be lodged against it I'd fully expect to see egg on the SNP's face as the Scotland act is clear enough for lay people to understand. The court hearing would probably be the quickest on record regarding constitutional affairs in the UK.

.string.

So Sturgeon wants a conversation with May about getting Independence. We all know the answer ---

"You need to have a Referendum where the Scottish people vote for independence. To hold a referendum you need approval from the UK But you should be aware that now is not the time for a Referendum. We all have to concentrate on the Brexit negotiations so please wait until after the negotiations are finished before submitting your request so that Scots can make their decision based on the full facts.

Now, of you'll excuse me ----"

A bit of d!jà vue there -- should be a short conversation

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with either of those things you say Ruth did, according to the polls - she was right. If she told Scots the Conservatives probably weren't going to win, there was no other information to contradict that apart from using your own common sense that the possibility still remained open.

Salmond felt exactly the same way about the 2014 referendum. Nothing wrong with that either, everyone thought so.

I know you really want her to be on the hook, I can see it in the social media presence of the indy support, but honestly the facts, the historical empirical facts show that she was correct to say *what* she said *when* she said it.

As with Salmond, it really did look like being a once in a lifetime opportunity. Things changed dramatically. Politics is fluid, who knew.

RE: The "carefully worded question", there's no such thing. It still refers to constitutional affairs, if a court case were to be lodged against it I'd fully expect to see egg on the SNP's face as the Scotland act is clear enough for lay people to understand. The court hearing would probably be the quickest on record regarding constitutional affairs in the UK.

I've been over this with you 100 times before. The ability to hold a ref and what it effects afterwards are two very different legal things.

I've shown you some of the legal thinking behind the question. I've yet to see you go beyond newspaper group think and your own opinion in stating otherwise. Constitutional affairs ARE reserved and I've never disputed it. It's holding a referendum which has no effect whatsoever on Constitutional affairs ..other than perhaps building political impetus/momentum.. that I'm disputing.