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

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I didn't say "he" did - why?
Do you believe that a Scots application to join the EU post-Brexit will be straightforward?

Who OFFICIALLY says that there would be "a route back into the EU relatively quickly should Scots voters want it"?
Link please?
Because just a few short weeks ago from the same person:
"Scotland will be "at the back of the queue" if it wants to become a member of the European Union if it decides to leave the United Kingdom, Spain's foreign minister has said"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15154608.Independent_Scotland_would_be_at_back_of_EU_queue__says_Spain/
As usual you believe one but not the other?



It looks like your "relatively quickly" could in fact be quite a long time away, if at all.

None of the above matters. At the end of the day if you're an individual, business or entity who feels that their economic or political priorities are best served within the Single Market and/or the EU.. then staying within the UK is no longer provides them.

The UK is leaving. An independent Scotland offers a viable and credible route to remaining ( Single Market ) or back in ( EU ). This is apart from the already 45% who wish to leave the UK regardless of EU or Single Market status.

Finally re: Howard and Fallon - is anyone really so gullible as to be deceived by media interpretations of what most of us realise as being initial posturing regarding Brexit?
I should be surprised but having seen so many pro-SNP lies, I am not.

I have to read through screeds of media 'interpretations' of what Scottish independence might look like. Fallon and Howard were alluding to the Falklands etc and the Telegraph has an article up right now talking about how the UK navy could 'cripple' Spain. Hardly the best tone to be setting four days after article 50 ?

I'm sure it will all calm down once passions have cooled. But I'm getting the distinct feeling and have been for weeks.. that the powers that be in Westminster are thinking about just walking out without any sort of deal whatsoever. There were recent rumours all over the internet about sources 'close to no 10' saying May was planning to walk out after the German elections. Soubry also referred to them. These media 'interpretations' seem to fit in with that, setting the whole thing up to fail.. We'll see.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@ Shakey

I emphasised "constitutional", Shakey - that was in the context of the Spanish attitude. I don't think the concept of legality exists outside the Law.

As I think we both agree, though in different ways, the outcome of the Brexit negotiations will be crucial. Bad result bad for the UK and "good" for the SNP, which makes the good wishes from Sturgeon regarding the negotiations somewhat hypocritical.

In my view Sturgeon dropped a clanger or two in that letter she sent.

First she would have been better off delaying it; she has the vote from the Scottish Parliament but she does not have the Scottish people clearly behind her at the moment, rather the opposite. I guess she did it early to have time for her legal games but in doing so she has laid the proposed timing open to it being declared illegal. That's a risky approach (remember the last legal challenge).

Secondly she introduced political arguments into the letter which opens the door to May doing the same for her own rationale without becoming seen to be the one who needs to give excuses for her actions. If Sturgeon had the legal action in her sights then she would have done better to save all that argumsntation stuff for the legal battle rather than writing it in the form of a party political statement, demonstrably a parochial SNP party world view.

There are other mistakes in there but I can't be bothered to spell it all out.

May can make a number of responses.

May might give a short brusque reply but I expect her to take advantage of Sturgeon's meanderings.

So what I suspect she might do is to give the essence of her three main arguments;

o on it being too early after the previous referendum,
o on the proposed timing of the referendum being damaging to the Brexit negotiations process, and with that damaging to a probably Scotland future in the UK
o and the need for the Scots to have all information needed to make such a momentous decision
(the timetable which assumes all is wrapped up by Oct next year is laughably unrealistic and clear to all as a timetable to suit the SNP agenda.)

She will probably also point out that she has a mandate, on behalf of the UK to act for the whole of the UK, as confirmed by the last Scottish Referendum, and she will do just that.

My guess would be that she will reject the proposal by Sturgeon but not the principle of a referendum in future and that she would consider such a referendum when the Brexit Deal is fully signed off, if the Scottish Parliament in power at that time then confirms it's wish to continue with it's request.

All IMHO of course but we will see.

There is a difference between the right to hold a referendum at all, and stating that the timing is in question. May so far has only addressed, vaguely, the timing. Not the right.

You should note that in Sturgeon's letter she did not at any point ask for permission. Also a Section 30 is not legally binding either. You should lose any impression you have that it was legally binding. It was simply an agreement ( which is why it was handily called the Edinburgh agreement ) that both sides would recognise the result. Westminster could've in theory still have refused to vote through any legislation to enable independence.

For now Sturgeon has three options in order to hold a vote. 1) Press May to 'name a date' which would be 'the time'. 2) Go around her, via a Scottish Government directive ( 'should the Scottish Govt enter into negotiations re independence ?' ).. but completely and totally within the legal remit of the Scotland Act and the Scottish Parliament she leads either via a referendum or an election. 3) Or go over Westminster's head and via the courts in order to clarify legalities.

The above is the legal stuff in order to hold a legally valid referendum.

Holding the referendum is one thing. No one disputes that it will be up to Westminster to vote through the constitutional legislation which would follow any as yet hypothetical Yes vote.

The above is the constitutional stuff which would result from a legally valid referendum. <----This is where any referendum ever held in the UK becomes legally binding and not before.

Legal and constitutional.

sss555s

kabayiri wrote: »

I bet Nicola Sturgeon is busy scanning the history books to see if there was a time when Scotland was the property of Spain.

I mean, it's like a golden ticket back in the EU isn't it?

Buena idea, gracias!

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There is a difference between the right to hold a referendum at all, and stating that the timing is in question. May so far has only addressed, vaguely, the timing. Not the right.

You should note that in Sturgeon's letter she did not at any point ask for permission. Also a Section 30 is not legally binding either. You should lose any impression you have that it was legally binding. It was simply an agreement ( which is why it was handily called the Edinburgh agreement ) that both sides would recognise the result. Westminster could've in theory still have refused to vote through any legislation to enable independence.

For now Sturgeon has three options in order to hold a vote. 1) Press May to 'name a date' which would be 'the time'. 2) Go around her, via a Scottish Government directive ( 'should the Scottish Govt enter into negotiations re independence ?' ).. but completely and totally within the legal remit of the Scotland Act and the Scottish Parliament she leads either via a referendum or an election. 3) Or go over Westminster's head and via the courts in order to clarify legalities.

The above is the legal stuff in order to hold a legally valid referendum.

Holding the referendum is one thing. No one disputes that it will be up to Westminster to vote through the constitutional legislation which would follow any as yet hypothetical Yes vote.

The above is the constitutional stuff which would result from a legally valid referendum. <----This is where any referendum ever held in the UK becomes legally binding and not before.

Legal and constitutional.

Oh rubbish. I've explained many times why a so-called called referendum having the same effect as one on constitutional matters is not valid as such. You'll just have to watch while the SNP machinations collapse. It seems there's no end to SNP wishful thinking.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm sure it will all calm down once passions have cooled. But I'm getting the distinct feeling and have been for weeks.. that the powers that be in Westminster are thinking about just walking out without any sort of deal whatsoever. There were recent rumours all over the internet about sources 'close to no 10' saying May was planning to walk out after the German elections. Soubry also referred to them. These media 'interpretations' seem to fit in with that, setting the whole thing up to fail.. We'll see.

For once I hope you're right.

Before the referendum, when he was a humble backbencher, David Davis wrote a number of articles arguing free trade with the EU wasn't so important and came with a number of disadvantages. Theresa May would have been fully aware of his thinking and must surely have agreed with his views when making him Brexit Secretary.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Oh rubbish. I've explained many times why a so-called called referendum having the same effect as one on constitutional matters is not valid as such. You'll just have to watch while the SNP machinations collapse. It seems there's no end to SNP wishful thinking.

It's not rubbish string. You just wish that it was. The Scottish Govt might not ask the question of independence directly. They could instead just ask Scots voters if they'd like the Scottish Govt to have a 'chat' with the UK Govt about it instead.

For example the question 'Should Scotland become and independent country?' would require approval from Theresa May's government because it focuses on the constitution.

However, the question "Should the Scottish Government be allowed to negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state?” could be asked without permission.

Asking Scots voters a question about what they think the Scottish Govt should do has no effect whatsoever on constitutional matters. This is where you are getting confused.

IndyRef2 can be held without UK Government permission' says top political analyst

One of the UK's leading political analysts says the Scottish Government could hold an second referendum on Scottish independence without the permission of the Westminster Government.
"The possibility that I would watch is that the Scottish Parliament attempts to hold a referendum under its own authority."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/indyref2-can-held-without-uk-10144229

I don't know if the Scottish Govt will indeed follow this method, Curtice is speculating like everyone else. But it was certainly Salmond's intention back in 2011 to use this route. Never tested in court though since Cameron offered the Section 30 instead in 2012. We'll see soon enough, but the constitution itself can only be changed via votes at Westminster so it's just the legalities we're talking about really.

iammumtoone

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Yes I know this is anecdotaly but ..................

I was giving a talk a few weeks ago, far south of the border.

Many of the attendees were from Eastern EU member states and during a break I was (as is often the case) asked about my accent/name etc. and where I was from.
In return I asked would they consider Scotland to ply their trade?
All knew where Scotland was and surprisingly (to me) quite a few mentioned having visited but - to a man - not one would want to live there.
Most were quite adamant in their refusal to consider a life in Scotland.

Again yes I know to you this is purely anecdotal but TBH the downright conviction with which these men (in a male-dominated meeting btw, not intended to be sexist in any way) were against living in Scotland I found quite surprising.

Of course, they may have had the same response if I asked them the same question regarding for example Newcastle.

thats interesting as I have had the same conversation with my colleagues (my workplace is 90% EU nationals)

None of them would go to Scotland either. If they are forced to leave they all said they would go to Ireland.

Reasons given as weather and they don't know anyone living there, lots of them already have friends/family of friends living in Ireland.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's not rubbish string. You just wish that it was. The Scottish Govt might not ask the question of independence directly. They could instead just ask Scots voters if they'd like the Scottish Govt to have a 'chat' with the UK Govt about it instead. Asking Scots voters a question about what they think the Scottish Govt should do has no effect whatsoever on constitutional matters. This is where you are getting confused. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/indyref2-can-held-without-uk-10144229

I don't know if the Scottish Govt will indeed follow this method, Curtice is speculating like everyone else. But it was certainly Salmond's intention back in 2011 to use this route. Never tested in court though since Cameron offered the Section 30 instead in 2012. We'll see soon enough, but the constitution itself can only be changed via votes at Westminster so it's just the legalities we're talking about really.

You're just convincing yourself with what you want to hear.

If the EU referendum was one to 'have a chat' about leaving the EU, what do you believe the outcome of that 'chat' would be, leaving the EU? Inserting the word 'chat' makes no difference in the legal sense that it still interferes in constitutional affairs. Bypassing the legal framework of the section 30 and interfering in constitutional affairs off the back of that would be two counts of illegality, then there's a misuse of public funds and possibly disenfranchisement of unionist voters who would probably boycott such a move. I'd expect to see the Scottish government in the dock preparing a frantic defence to save the dream but ultimately failing, all in Scottish courts at a guess, at least to begin with.

We go through this every time on this thread, the pie in the sky is inevitable and the rational is deluded. Like having to rejoin the EU. Or GERS being unreliable but used by the SNP growth commission, or the use of assets to pay off all debt, or the oil income being millions per capita, or Westminster stealing hundreds of billions.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You're just convincing yourself with what you want to hear.

If the EU referendum was one to 'have a chat' about leaving the EU, what do you believe the outcome of that 'chat' would be, leaving the EU? Inserting the word 'chat' makes no difference in the legal sense that it still interferes in constitutional affairs. Bypassing the legal framework of the section 30 and interfering in constitutional affairs off the back of that would be two counts of illegality, then there's a misuse of public funds and possibly disenfranchisement of unionist voters who would probably boycott such a move. I'd expect to see the Scottish government in the dock preparing a frantic defence to save the dream but ultimately failing, all in Scottish courts at a guess, at least to begin with.

We go through this every time on this thread, the pie in the sky is inevitable and the rational is deluded. Like having to rejoin the EU. Or GERS being unreliable but used by the SNP growth commission, or the use of assets to pay off all debt, or the oil income being millions per capita, or Westminster stealing hundreds of billions.

That's a Brexiteer right there :rotfl:

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You're just convincing yourself with what you want to hear.

If the EU referendum was one to 'have a chat' about leaving the EU, what do you believe the outcome of that 'chat' would be, leaving the EU? Inserting the word 'chat' makes no difference in the legal sense that it still interferes in constitutional affairs. Bypassing the legal framework of the section 30 and interfering in constitutional affairs off the back of that would be two counts of illegality, then there's a misuse of public funds and possibly disenfranchisement of unionist voters who would probably boycott such a move. I'd expect to see the Scottish government in the dock preparing a frantic defence to save the dream but ultimately failing, all in Scottish courts at a guess, at least to begin with.

We go through this every time on this thread, the pie in the sky is inevitable and the rational is deluded. Like having to rejoin the EU. Or GERS being unreliable but used by the SNP growth commission, or the use of assets to pay off all debt, or the oil income being millions per capita, or Westminster stealing hundreds of billions.

Maybe it's time you confronted the real truth of the matter. Brexit in just four days is going t**s up. You all convinced yourselves over the last nine months talking amongst yourselves ( see Brexit thread ) that you could pick and mix whatever you wanted from the EU. The problem being that you forgot to include the EU in your calculations.

May also was banking on Sturgeon bluffing, Oil propping up the £, Whisky the trade deficit/exports and fishing grounds being used as a huge bargaining chip.. which is why she mentioned Spanish fishermen getting a good deal in one of her speeches. May can no longer rely on any of the above, since she needs Scotland still in the UK to provide the collateral.

Davidson misinformed her badly about Nicola Sturgeon bluffing and she was taken by surprise. Now, she is terrified of even holding a vote, relying on fluctuating, ever changing opinion polls asking vague timing questions as 'evidence'. When the only opinion poll that asked a direct question to Scots doesn't want Westminster in charge of any vote OR the timing.

Hence you and I are arguing here over legalities, when the real problem is she's far too scared of allowing Scots voters to answer the question. She thinks there's a good chance she'll lose.

If the Scottish Govt do get the go ahead for a legally valid referendum within their own Scottish remit then union supporters boycotting a legally valid vote is of no relevance, and they cannot complain about the result if they didn't vote. It's like all Tory voters boycotting a General Election then complaining when Labour get in with a majority. If it is deemed legal, and believe me Sturgeon will not go ahead with anything that isn't.. then they'd better get down to that polling booth sharpish.