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

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

No not really. It's telling you haven't even read up about the issue. You can bet the SNP know the legalities surrounding referendums for independence in Scots/UK/EU and international law backwards and have done for years, if not decades.

Over the last few years there's a tendency for newspaper spin to become accepted fact. Not always the case though, especially regarding Scotland these days.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

No, they both thought what they were saying was true at the time given the circumstances. Salmond's opinion isn't legally binding either, it was his opinion at the time. As was Ruth's that the Tories were going to get gubbed at the next GE.

They were both wrong.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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.

So ? Holyrood sets the vote for the same time Westminster gets a ( probably pointless by that time ) vote on the deal. That shouldn't be too difficult to manage and no one is voting without seeing the deal first.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No not really. It's telling you haven't even read up about the issue. You can bet the SNP know the legalities surrounding referendums for independence in Scots/UK/EU and international law backwards and have done for years, if not decades.

Over the last few years there's a tendency for newspaper spin to become accepted fact. Not always the case though, especially regarding Scotland these days.

What's telling is that you appear to believe the SNP can do as they please. I don't need to read a journo's opinion to be able to formulate my own. It's quite clear what the law (act) says, and it's quite clear how it would play out in court. The recent Brexit court cases ought to have given you some perspective on that, the act's are supreme, interpretation of them isn't up to anyone but the courts and they apply it as it reads. What other way is there to apply it.

They cannot do as they please, they are subject to law, which is why they're going to try for a section 30. If they are denied that, there will be no vote. But my personal opinion is that it won't be denied, but will be delayed. Gives the indy support time to come up with something remotely convincing, silver linings.

I also want to point out the irony of how I'm consistently wrong according to you, except, I always said you'd be out of the EU and need to re-apply in the event of independence, my track record isn't terrible on calling what will happen. You were so intransigent about that issue that I had to concede to talking to you under an assumption that you were correct or we'd constantly be going around in circles. If you recall I used to have to write re-join/remain constantly during that period. Now it's commonly accepted knowledge, what changed? Do you really only capitulate on the most absurd points when Nicola/the SNP/indy support do? Does that edict for you to change tack come from SNP HQ/WoS HQ directly?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, they both thought what they were saying was true at the time given the circumstances. Salmond's opinion isn't legally binding either, it was his opinion at the time. As was Ruth's that the Tories were going to get gubbed at the next GE.

They were both wrong.

I never said either were legally binding.

The first minister said it was a once in a generation/lifetime opportunity (see vote), according to you the Scottish parliament is all powerful, that comment from the First Minister ought to carry some weight rather than be a throw away opinion comment. Salmonds statement ought to still ring true today.

Ruth's on the other hand, despite there being nothing wrong with it, was a comment by an MSP who wasn't even leader of the opposition at that time. Hardly weapons grade. The indy narrative that you were "lied to" about EU membership is a false narrative, a misleading piece of propaganda to rile up the converted and antagonise the unionists.

elantan

Take a look at @SkyNews's Tweet: https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/842972017783701504?s=09


Oh look they've wheeled old Gordo back out ... maybe he really really really means it this time ... like maybe even a whole pinky swear means it

ash28

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No not really. It's telling you haven't even read up about the issue. You can bet the SNP know the legalities surrounding referendums for independence in Scots/UK/EU and international law backwards and have done for years, if not decades.

Over the last few years there's a tendency for newspaper spin to become accepted fact. Not always the case though, especially regarding Scotland these days.

If the SNP (or their advisors) know the legalities of referenda backwards that's probably the reason why, according to the Telegraph Ms Sturgeon has blinked first.

Nicola Sturgeon will today tell Theresa May she is willing to compromise over her preferred timing for an independence referendum after she came under pressure to rule out unilaterally holding an “illegitimate” vote if no deal is reached.

And

Calling on Mrs May to think again, the First Minister will say: “If her concern is timing then - within reason - I am happy to have that discussion. But she should be in no doubt. The will of our parliament must and will prevail.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/18/nicola-sturgeon-blinks-first-battle-theresa-may-independence/

That's assuming the vote gets through the Scottish Parliament - who knows who might abstain.

If a referendum was not legal in the strictest terms, then it would probably be challenged in the courts which the SNP might not win. But a lot of people in favour of the union may boycott it - which would call into question its legitimacy and the legitimacy of the Scottish government.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So ? Holyrood sets the vote for the same time Westminster gets a ( probably pointless by that time ) vote on the deal. That shouldn't be too difficult to manage and no one is voting without seeing the deal first.

No --. After it's signed off by both parties, by the UK and by the EU Council.

Enterprise_1701C

elantan wrote: »

Take a look at @SkyNews's Tweet: https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/842972017783701504?s=09


Oh look they've wheeled old Gordo back out ... maybe he really really really means it this time ... like maybe even a whole pinky swear means it

Well, if that happens I hope we in the rest of the UK would get a vote on that, and that would have to exclude Scotland as it would be down to the rest of the UK, not them. And if they get such vast powers then they would have to lose at least a large proportion of the funding.

I have to say Gorgon Brown does not talk for me. He did his best to complete the demolition of the UK after Bliar started to wreck that which we are, not interested in what he says to be honest.

beecher2

ash28 wrote: »

That's assuming the vote gets through the Scottish Parliament - who knows Jim Sillars might not be only one abstaining.

Jim sillars is not an MSP.. I don't think there will be any problem getting this through the Scottish Parliament