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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

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



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.

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about Salmond.

So are you saying then that because Ruth said at the time that the only way to keep EU membership was to remain in the UK that conversely Salmond saying it's a "once in a lifetime opportunity" doesn't apply now? They're hardly comparable situations, Salmond's is a rather wide ranging statement, a classic case of foot in mouth in retrospect. Ruth's was absolutely 100% correct at the time she said it, unless she's able to tell the future you cannot hang her for it. Sorry. Salmond's statement transcends the period in which the referendum took place because he put a time range in there by saying lifetime, Ruth didn't.

Once in a lifetime can only mean once in a lifetime. Once in a generation can only mean once in a generation. Voting in the 2014 referendum to stay in the EU in the year 2014 was absolutely correct! There is no other way to interpret this I'm afraid it just is what it is.

Had Ruth said "vote to stay in the UK to retain your EU membership for life/a generation", she'd have been wrong. Do you see the difference yet?

Constitutional affairs are reserved, good, glad we've got that clear. So Scotland cannot hold a referendum of any sort that relates to constitutional affairs. It's beyond the Scottish parliaments purview. Therefore asking a question of the Scottish people whether the Scottish government should enter discussions about the constitutional arrangements are by definition constitutional affairs. How can you not see that?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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

Nah, she knows May will stonewall her like she does everyone else including the Westminster parliament. This is Sturgeon putting May on the spot over her 'now is not the time' comments by asking when the time is then. 'Let's set it up.. whoooo !!!.. what do you mean bluster, mumble, now is not the time, waffle, waffle. now is not the time, waffle something something now is not.... Ok we get it. Angus, dig out those Yes flags'...

We all have to concentrate on the Brexit negotiations so please wait until after the negotiations are finished

Negotiatons are finished in Oct 2018.

A final deal on Britain's exit from the EU could be reached by October 2018, the European Commission's chief negotiator says.
Setting out the European Commission's plans for the first time, Michel Barnier said: "Time will be short. It is clear that the period of actual negotiations will be shorter than two years."
Mr Barnier said if Britain triggers Article 50 by the end of March - as Theresa May has said she wants to do - an agreement would be needed by October the following year to get it through the European Parliament by March 2019.

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-deal-possible-by-october-2018-european-commission-negotiator-10685257

And Sturgeon wants a vote ideally at the same time Westminster is voting on it.. so we will all know the deal obviously.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about Salmond.

So are you saying then that because Ruth said at the time that the only way to keep EU membership was to remain in the UK that conversely Salmond saying it's a "once in a lifetime opportunity" doesn't apply now? They're hardly comparable situations, Salmond's is a rather wide ranging statement, a classic case of foot in mouth in retrospect. Ruth's was absolutely 100% correct at the time she said it, unless she's able to tell the future you cannot hang her for it. Sorry.

I disagree. Salmond said what he thought to be true at the time, as did Davidson. No difference.

Constitutional affairs are reserved, good, glad we've got that clear.

So Scotland cannot hold a referendum of any sort that relates to constitutional affairs. It's beyond the Scottish parliaments purview.

Therefore asking a question of the Scottish people whether the Scottish government should enter discussions about the constitutional arrangements are by definition constitutional affairs. How can you not see that?

Let's see your working then ? If it's only your own opinion picked up via media soundbites then just say so..

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I disagree. Salmond said what he thought to be true at the time, as did Davidson. No difference.



Let's see your working then ? If it's only your own opinion picked up via media soundbites then just say so..

It's got nothing to do with the media. I haven't read anything in the media about this particular issue because it's a non-issue.

The Scottish parliament calls an advisory referendum on whether the Scottish government should enter into discussions with the UK government on Scottish independence. The Scots vote Yes and the Scottish government goes to Westminster to have the discussion to become independent. Westminster can ignore the Scottish government because it's the responsibility and prerogative of Westminster. The Scottish government has committed an illegal action in attempting to influence constitutional affairs without permission since the powers are reserved (which you agree with me on).

Because of the advisory referendum resulting in an attempt to change the constitutional arrangements without permission from Westminster it's not a legal move the Scottish government can make, so a referendum that advises or compels the Scottish government to do something illegal has to also be illegal itself.

There is however a legal mechanism for Holyrood to ask such questions of its electorate, and this legal mechanism should be used for this purpose.

I hope that's clear now.

.string.

A short conversation, Shakey, if that because the conversation has already been had, foghorn-wise.

As for the "Advisory Referendum" - that wouldl either be shown in court to be unconstitutional and can therefore not happen, or the SNP will state so convincingly that they convince the judges that the referendum "has no effect whatsoever on Constitutional affairs ..other than perhaps building political impetus/momentum." and cannot thereafter be claimed as an an expression of the will of the Scottish people to have independence.

Either way the SNP is stuffed. A real legal referendum would still be needed.

It's the same with any wording.

But keep digging your hole.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I disagree. Salmond said what he thought to be true at the time, as did Davidson. No difference.



Let's see your working then ? If it's only your own opinion picked up via media soundbites then just say so..

Salmond's statement of "once in a lifetime/generation" meant that Scotland's independence referendum in 2014 was a once in a lifetime, or generation, opportunity.

Ruth's statement of "vote No to stay in the EU" meant that in the 2014 Scotland independence referendum Scots would have to vote No in the referendum in order to retain their EU membership, because voting Yes meant Scots would definitely lose it.

You've got that right? I don't know how much easier I can make the analysis of the statements.

Had Ruth of said "vote No to stay in the EU for your entire life, or for a generation" she'd have been wrong and I would happily agree with you on that.

Since 2014 there has been a UK wide EU referendum - which you were aware of in the Conservative manifesto prior to 2015, and Ruth of course was aware of it too. That doesn't make the statements above untrue, it doesn't change them in any way. And as you can see from the semantics of the statements, one applies to the present during the referendum in 2014, the other, peoples lifetimes or generations.

I intensely dislike that I have to argue down to the construction of a sentence with you, I know you're not this simple, so please take the indy-coloured specs off for a moment, that garment that forbids you from admitting anything that might hurt your cause and lets just agree on what the rational truth is for once.

.string.

By the way we don't know that the negotiations will be finished in Oct 2018 - that's more of an aspiration, they could be extended by mutual consent. They are only complete when they are signed off by both the UK and the EU.

Clinging to a hypothetical and movable date is amateur politics.

NCC-1701

Show me the 100 times you claim?

zagubov

Welcome to our discussion, NCC-1701. You've joined us after we've been discussing these issues for years. Your charming curiosity seems to have acquired somewhat of a sense of "urgency".
So please use the search function, and try to see what we've been saying. We can't summarise it all for you.

NCC-1701

zagubov wrote: »

Welcome to our discussion, NCC-1701. You've joined us after we've been discussing these issues for years. Your charming curiosity seems to have acquired somewhat of a sense of "urgency".
So please use the search function, and try to see what we've been saying. We can't summarise it all for you.

You really need to get out into the real world some more.