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

Shakethedisease

For your perusal explaining further..

The dispute about a section 30 order is about whether the Scottish Parliament can lawfully enact a referendum bill. It is not about whether the *result* of such a referendum would be legally binding. The last referendum was not legally binding.

This one wouldn't be either (just like the EU referendum). The issue is whether the Scottish Parliament *needs* a section 30 order in order to validly enact a referendum bill.

There are different views on whether it has inherent power to do so A referendum bill passed in the absence of a section 30 order would be certain to be challenged in court. It might or might not survive.

If it did survive, it would not be a 'Catalan-style referendum'; it would be legally valid and there is no reason why unionists should boycott it.

The Edinburgh Agreement committed each side to respecting the result, but it was a political agreement only

Draft Bill is available - could be quickly enacted then referred by Scottish Govt itself to Supreme Court . Bills can be referred to the Supreme court pre-enactment by Scottish Government or UK Govt law officers; post-enactment by law officers or by anyone with sufficient interest (likely to be very widely interpreted).

Aileen McHarg Professor of Public Law, Strathclyde University. Interests: Scots & UK public law; energy regulation; climate change regulation. http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/

Again I do not know if this is what the Scottish Govt has planned. But useful info on the difference between legally binding and legally valid, Catalan style referendums etc.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Why don't you remind us of your recent predictions on the recent Scottish indy ref, or the UK General Election (much talk of coallitions and balance of power), or the EU referendum?

You seem to think you're in touch with the general public mood, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Let's just look at some timescales.

We have been in the EU for 16,164 days.

We voted to leave the EU 285 days ago

We have over 700 days to agree A50.

...and you make a judgement just 4 days in.

Why the rush?

Because you're five days in and the Spanish Govt are already having to issue press releases asking the UK Govt to calm down because they've lost their cool. War and task forces have already been mentioned in passing and from the EU draft guidelines it looks like the UK Govt isn't going to get anything it wants, is going to be asked for a hefty divorce payment and in order to get Single Market access will have to effectively stay in the EU for the next 5 years including FOM. Davies seems to have done little to no planning and the issues of NI, Gibraltar, Wales and Scotland have been ignored.

TrickyTree83

Sigh...

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-does-the-law-say-about-second-scottish-independence-referendum

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gsbs/staff/drnickmckerrell/

I looked for this just now, it says exactly what I've been saying with a few added bonus' that the Scottish government have actually set legal precedents that preclude them from holding a referendum on a constitutional affairs back in 2012.

Coupled with the fact that no one has actually said no to a referendum, just that the timing will not be dictated. The UK government have repeatedly stated that a referendum after Brexit has been completed is the most sensible and fair time to hold another independence referendum.

And also something I wasn't previously aware of, the presiding officer in Holyrood can block the discussion of such a referendum taking place if they deem it to deal with a reserved matter.

There is also precedent in a devolved power being overturned by the UK courts.

TL-DR, if it's considered to be outside of the purview of Holyrood it can be challenged at multiple junctures (some procedural and some legal) and previous precedent where these challenges have succeeded will overrule Holyrood whether you like that or not. There is also precedent where powers that are within the purview of Holyrood are overturned, by private citizens in the courts. Everything I've been trying to explain to you, but you won't have it.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Sigh...

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-does-the-law-say-about-second-scottish-independence-referendum

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gsbs/staff/drnickmckerrell/

I looked for this just now, it says exactly what I've been saying with a few added bonus' that the Scottish government have actually set legal precedents that preclude them from holding a referendum on a constitutional affairs back in 2012.

Coupled with the fact that no one has actually said no to a referendum, just that the timing will not be dictated. The UK government have repeatedly stated that a referendum after Brexit has been completed is the most sensible and fair time to hold another independence referendum.

And also something I wasn't previously aware of, the presiding officer in Holyrood can block the discussion of such a referendum taking place if they deem it to deal with a reserved matter.

There is also precedent in a devolved power being overturned by the UK courts.

TL-DR, if it's considered to be outside of the purview of Holyrood it can be challenged at multiple junctures (some procedural and some legal) and previous precedent where these challenges have succeeded will overrule Holyrood whether you like that or not. There is also precedent where powers that are within the purview of Holyrood are overturned, by private citizens in the courts. Everything I've been trying to explain to you, but you won't have it.

It's as simple as this Tricky. Lets say for talking sake in the next few years demand for independence in Scotland soars with opinion poll after opinion poll coming back with 60% plus wanting to leave the UK ( <--- this is not a prediction, I'm using the figure as an example ) and the SNP being returned at landslide levels election after election.

By which democratic and peaceful method would you suggest Scots use to leave the UK, should Westminster continue to block a referendum ?

You're just not seeing the full picture here in your efforts to concentrate on legalities. So if you could answer the above please that would be good. Thanks.

From your links. I've already posted about that.

There are different views on whether it has inherent power to do so A referendum bill passed in the absence of a section 30 order would be certain to be challenged in court. It might or might not survive.

Should the Scottish Govt go down this route, it'll be court first, referendum later to establish legal matters. Not the other way round.

But the real point is how does a Scotland that wishes to dissolve the Union do so without the option of going to the ballot box ? In your own time...

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because you're five days in and the Spanish Govt are already having to issue press releases asking the UK Govt to calm down because they've lost their cool. War and task forces have already been mentioned in passing and from the EU draft guidelines it looks like the UK Govt isn't going to get anything it wants, is going to be asked for a hefty divorce payment and in order to get Single Market access will have to effectively stay in the EU for the next 5 years including FOM. Davies seems to have done little to no planning and the issues of NI, Gibraltar, Wales and Scotland have been ignored.

See, you're second guessing again.

Politicians say things all the time in public, and a completely different tone behind closed doors.

The Gibraltar thing is being used by some to create a siege mentality. The tabloid press will be only too willing to create an us/them narrative.

Surely, you must be familiar with this. Sturgeon and the SNP do this all the time. "Westminster" is referred to in a derogatory sense so often, it's become accepted form.

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because you're five days in and the Spanish Govt are already having to issue press releases asking the UK Govt to calm down because they've lost their cool. War and task forces have already been mentioned in passing and from the EU draft guidelines it looks like the UK Govt isn't going to get anything it wants, is going to be asked for a hefty divorce payment and in order to get Single Market access will have to effectively stay in the EU for the next 5 years including FOM. Davies seems to have done little to no planning and the issues of NI, Gibraltar, Wales and Scotland have been ignored.

So Michael Howard opens his gob and you and the Spanish government go into meltdown. Possibly Theresa May's words carry a bit more weight. Negotiations haven't even begun and you're already predicting what the outcome will be. Why do we need a government when we've got you?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

See, you're second guessing again.

Politicians say things all the time in public, and a completely different tone behind closed doors.

The Gibraltar thing is being used by some to create a siege mentality. The tabloid press will be only too willing to create an us/them narrative.

Surely, you must be familiar with this. Sturgeon and the SNP do this all the time. "Westminster" is referred to in a derogatory sense so often, it's become accepted form.

Eh ? You've spent the last five or six years telling Scots that every low level throwaway comment from any old Spanish official should be taken as absolute gospel as to Scotland's international status would be upon independence.

The shoes on the other foot now. You and I know that Howard, Fallon and the Telegraph are prone to being big blowhards. Folks that live in other countries don't and these sort of headlines in their tabloid press are being reproduced all over the EU. And from reading in some European social media forums and elsewhere ( Reddit etc ) they all think the UK has totally lost the plot.

I know you hope these EU guidelines will be watered down somewhat. But kicking things off by threatening to withdraw security intel and then dropping mentions of War, task forces and how the UK's navy could 'cripple' Spain probably wasn't really the best tone to start productive negotiations off with.

Shakethedisease

cogito wrote: »

So Michael Howard opens his gob and you and the Spanish government go into meltdown. Possibly Theresa May's words carry a bit more weight. Negotiations haven't even begun and you're already predicting what the outcome will be. Why do we need a government when we've got you?

We're on a debate forum in amongst about 40 other topic areas, not changing the world. My views are nothing personal towards you. And in my view, things in Brexit land haven't gotten off to, well, a good start.

Gibraltar's problem is the same as NI. They wish to stay in the UK and the EU. They now cannot do both unless a deal is sorted out, Spain understandably wants to make sure they have a say on the end deal since it's their border too. Then Spain wake up to this sort of thing...

Theresa May ‘would go to war’ to defend Gibraltar

‘I am absolutely certain our current Prime Minister will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar.’
Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, has also pledged to ‘protect’ Gibraltar on the Andrew Marr Show.
‘The people of Gibraltar have made it clear that they don’t want to live under the sovereignty of Spain. Gibraltar is going to be protected all the way,’ he said.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/02/theresa-may-would-go-to-war-to-defend-gibraltar-6548907/


Jeezo :rotfl:

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Eh ? You've spent the last five or six years telling Scots that every low level throwaway comment from any old Spanish official should be taken as absolute gospel as to Scotland's international status would be upon independence.

The shoes on the other foot now. You and I know that Howard, Fallon and the Telegraph are prone to being big blowhards. Folks that live in other countries don't and these sort of headlines in their tabloid press are being reproduced all over the EU. And from reading in some European social media forums and elsewhere ( Reddit etc ) they all think the UK has totally lost the plot.

I know you hope these EU guidelines will be watered down somewhat. But kicking things off by threatening to withdraw security intel and then dropping mentions of War, task forces and how the UK's navy could 'cripple' Spain probably wasn't really the best tone to start productive negotiations off with.

I think we'd all take your comments a bit more seriously if you weren't so eager to portray English Westminster as duplicitous incompetents and SNP Holyrood and every European politician as the epitome of good governance and of impeccable character.
Despite your bluster borne out of near desperation, your dream of Scottish independence becomes weaker by the day.
I think you know that really.

mollycat

Tromking wrote: »

I think we'd all take your comments a bit more seriously if you weren't so eager to portray English Westminster as duplicitous incompetents and SNP Holyrood and every European politician as the epitome of good governance and of impeccable character.
Despite your bluster borne out of near desperation, your dream of Scottish independence becomes weaker by the day.
I think you know that really.

Real lack of insight re credibility some people have. :rotfl:

The more posts, re- tweets, links, etc provided the funnier it all is!

Time for some people to go and hitch their "progressive crusade" to a different bandwagon.

Leave the majority of scottish people in peace.