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

Shaka_Zulu

Ruth Davidson has set out three not unreasonable tests to be met before any second vote. I and I imagine the majority of sane people in Scotland will I hope think they are reasonable

Ruth Davidson MSP, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said it would be “unfair” on Scots to “vote blind” in a referendum by going to the polls before the Brexit negotiations had even been completed. She refused to name an “arbitrary” date for a poll to be held and set out three tests that will push back the poll for years.

Talks would not start on a second referendum before Scots have “seen for themselves” how the Union is functioning following Brexit. The UK is due to leave the EU in March 2019 but there could be a further two-year transitional period while a trade deal is finalised.

Secondly, Ms Davidson said that Scots should know “what the alternative entails” and argued there has not been any clarity from the SNP on even “basic questions” about independence.

She also said there would also have to be political and public consent for another vote, and defined the latter as consistent 60 per cent support in the opinion polls for a referendum.

Even after the tests were met, it could take another 18 months before another referendum is held. A deal would have to be reached between the two governments, legislation passed then a minimum campaign period of six months before polling day.

Perhaps now the SNP can get back to doing the day job for the next few years and give it a rest. I however will not be holding my breath.

Enterprise_1701C

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Ruth Davidson has set out three not unreasonable tests to be met before any second vote. I and I imagine the majority of sane people in Scotland will I hope think they are reasonable

Ruth Davidson MSP, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said it would be “unfair” on Scots to “vote blind” in a referendum by going to the polls before the Brexit negotiations had even been completed. She refused to name an “arbitrary” date for a poll to be held and set out three tests that will push back the poll for years.

Talks would not start on a second referendum before Scots have “seen for themselves” how the Union is functioning following Brexit. The UK is due to leave the EU in March 2019 but there could be a further two-year transitional period while a trade deal is finalised.

Secondly, Ms Davidson said that Scots should know “what the alternative entails” and argued there has not been any clarity from the SNP on even “basic questions” about independence.

She also said there would also have to be political and public consent for another vote, and defined the latter as consistent 60 per cent support in the opinion polls for a referendum.

Even after the tests were met, it could take another 18 months before another referendum is held. A deal would have to be reached between the two governments, legislation passed then a minimum campaign period of six months before polling day.

Perhaps now the SNP can get back to doing the day job for the next few years and give it a rest. I however will not be holding my breath.

That would require for common sense to prevail. I think any common sense will be swept under the rug, along with the above, along with anything sensible anyone has ever said about Scottish independence. I have to say that rug must be practically touching the moon by now :eek:

ash28

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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?

Don't worry it was the same back in 2014, nothing has changed in that respect. Even though Barruso as far back as 2012 said Scotland would be third country and have to apply as new accession state, any mention of being outside of the EU was classed as project fear. Much as now, there was no real debate, rather a reiteration of the SNP line, and if that changed then the narrative changed.

As far as the EU is concerned the position hasn't changed since 2014, Scotland will be out of the EU whether through independence or Brexit. If Scotland wants to join the EU then it has to have its ducks in a row, and although Scotland might comply with a lot of EU aquis it doesn't have a lot the instutions or regulatory authorities necessary to apply the acquis.

For instance, Chapter 17 of the EU aquis, Economic and Monetary Policy: A central bank and stable currency is one. It would also need equivalent of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), Chapter 10: Information Society and Media, the equivalent of OFCOM, plus the equivalent of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), Chapter 18: an independent statistical office, to name but a few. plus parliamentary oversight committees, etc etc. These are some of the requirements, where I can remember the chapter numbers I've used them. There are 35 chapters in the aquis.

These all take time, expertise and money to set up, I think the EU give some sort of assistance to Eastern European states to help them get there, perhaps they will do the same for Scotland, if EU membership is indeed what Scotland wants in the end.

And on the EFTA front, which is another route discussed by the SNP for gaining access to the single market.

Icelandic Foreign Minister Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson said only sovereign states can be considered for membership so Scotland is a hypothetical debate.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/scots-could-join-european-market-via-nordic-model-salmond-says

ash28

beecher2 wrote: »

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

I apologise - my mistake - I've edited my post and put the reason at the botton.

elantan

I do love how we didn't need to know anything at all apart from getting 350m a week extra for the NHS ... and they still know very little ( David Davis interview was a cracker)

But we have to have every I dotted and t crossed before another indy ref ... and we need to know exactly what's happening in Brexit even though the Brexit mob still don't have a clue ... apart from Brexit means Brexit I spose

I do love as well the get on with the day job .. that one is particularly funny ..

beecher2

.string. wrote: »

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

The language used by Ruth Davidson suggested that this wouldn't be an acceptable time either. She said at FMQ (before NS knew what TM was about to say)

a referendum "cannot happen" before people of Scotland see how new relationship with EU is working

I don't think calling for 60% support for something before a referendum is called is a very democratic position, I think we should be relying on parliament for such things rather than inaccurate polls. If the Scottish parliament is able to pass a bill, then that should suffice. I think it would be quite dangerous to give such power to polling companies, particularly when so much can depend on the questions being asked.

edit: I see Ruth Davidson is on Andrew Marr tomorrow so will be interesting to hear the language used

beecher2

ash28 wrote: »

I apologise - my mistake - I've edited my post and put the reason at the botton.

No need to apologise, understandable given the publicity his comments on how he would abstain on a future referendum if we were to be part of Europe received. Jim Sillars, Alex Bell and Gordon Wilson are often the go to guys for a more dissenting voice.

Enterprise_1701C

elantan wrote: »

I do love how we didn't need to know anything at all apart from getting 350m a week extra for the NHS ... and they still know very little ( David Davis interview was a cracker)

But we have to have every I dotted and t crossed before another indy ref ... and we need to know exactly what's happening in Brexit even though the Brexit mob still don't have a clue ... apart from Brexit means Brexit I spose

I do love as well the get on with the day job .. that one is particularly funny ..

What we knew was we would be leaving a bloated bureaucratic federalistic ambitioned group of countries that appears to be led mainly by Germany. The eu cannot last too long in it's current form, but they were not willing to reform to keep the UK in. For me it actually has very little to do with the money, though that will be a bonus. The annoying thing about the money is though, that the amount of waste is ridiculous. When it was set up the French stamped their feet and wanted part of the earnings, so the whole parliament has to uproot and travel between Brussels and Strasbourg. That is a minor part of the waste.

I actually voted to stay in, but after the reaction of the so-called leadership of the eu I would now vote to leave.

As it happens we have everything in place to be independent of the eu.

ash28

elantan wrote: »

I do love how we didn't need to know anything at all apart from getting 350m a week extra for the NHS ... and they still know very little ( David Davis interview was a cracker)

But we have to have every I dotted and t crossed before another indy ref ... and we need to know exactly what's happening in Brexit even though the Brexit mob still don't have a clue ... apart from Brexit means Brexit I spose

I do love as well the get on with the day job .. that one is particularly funny ..

I don't actually know anyone who believed that £350m a week extra would be spent on the NHS to be honest. They were politicians campaigning, they all use the same methods.

Remember Alex Salmond and it's 'our pound too', except it wasn't.

And you're absolutely right, you do need to have i's dotted and t's crossed the next time there is an independence referendum. The SNP politicians need to tell the truth even if that truth isn't necessarily what they think the public want to hear.

The people deserve better from their politicians (not just the Scottish peope but all of us), expecially when it's something as potentially life changing and inherent with risk as independence, whether that's from the UK or the EU.

I think if the SNP had been more honest during the last independence referendum, told people they would be out of Europe, they woulld have new currency, that life would be tough for a few years, they probably would have won.

sss555s

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

What we knew was we would be leaving a bloated bureaucratic federalistic ambitioned group of countries that appears to be led mainly by Germany. The eu cannot last too long in it's current form, but they were not willing to reform to keep the UK in. For me it actually has very little to do with the money, though that will be a bonus. The annoying thing about the money is though, that the amount of waste is ridiculous. When it was set up the French stamped their feet and wanted part of the earnings, so the whole parliament has to uproot and travel between Brussels and Strasbourg. That is a minor part of the waste.

I actually voted to stay in, but after the reaction of the so-called leadership of the eu I would now vote to leave.

As it happens we have everything in place to be independent of the eu.

Most of what you say is how I feel about Scotland's independence of the UK.