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

mollycat

beecher2 wrote: »

mollycat, I'm trying to have an unemotional conversation about how we move on as a country, not what you want or I want. You always become so hysterical - I see on the other thread you say that indy supporters are a 'real danger to the society I cherish' which is just crazy stuff.

I don't want a referendum right now, I'm not talking about what I personally want - I'm trying to look at the broader picture and have a slightly more nuanced discussion. I realise this thread is not the place to do so though so I'll bow out again, now I've remembered

Pro indy tactics writ large....

1. Misquote.
2. Discredit the point made out of hand.
3. Accuse someone of being "hysterical" whilst using emotive language such "crazy". (BTW, my current emotional state is one of contentment, not hysteria )
4. Pretending to be reasonable whilst increasing the provocation, (suggesting indyre2 as a solution).

If you think that a major constitutional change resulting in decimated services, increased deprivation, and a more isolated and irrelevant place in the world isn't a "danger to the society I cherish", the maybe you are not as politically "nuanced" as you pride yourself to be. :rotfl:

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mollycat wrote: »

Pro indy tactics writ large....

1. Misquote.
2. Discredit the point made out of hand.
3. Accuse someone of being "hysterical" whilst using emotive language such "crazy". (BTW, my current emotional state is one of contentment, not hysteria )
4. Pretending to be reasonable whilst increasing the provocation, (suggesting indyre2 as a solution).

If you think that a major constitutional change resulting in decimated services, increased deprivation, and a more isolated and irrelevant place in the world isn't a "danger to the society I cherish", the maybe you are not as politically "nuanced" as you pride yourself to be. :rotfl:

That is so well-put that a link should be placed in the "Why does anyone care ...." thread.
:T

.string.

Thanks to those who responded on the role of councils in any illegal referendum.

I was indeed thinking of withdrawing support to the mechanics of it which councils might have to approve or even fund. "Blocking" was maybe an ill-chosen word, maybe "obstructing" or "invalidating".

From the replies it seems indeed that some obstacles could be introduced.

If it arises, go for it!

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Thanks to those who responded on the role of councils in any illegal referendum.

I was indeed thinking of withdrawing support to the mechanics of it which councils might have to approve or even fund. "Blocking" was maybe an ill-chosen word, maybe "obstructing" or "invalidating".

From the replies it seems indeed that some obstacles could be introduced.

If it arises, go for it!

How could there possibly be an illegal referendum. If Sturgeon goes to court and it's ruled legal ?

She won't hold any referendum or vote which isn't ruled legal string. Or she could just dissolve Holyrood in two years time and do it that way. Perfectly legal. The councils will comply just fine with running one.

WengerIn

Shakethedisease wrote: »

How could there possibly be an illegal referendum. If Sturgeon goes to court and it's ruled legal ?

She won't hold any referendum or vote which isn't ruled legal string. Or she could just dissolve Holyrood in two years time and do it that way. Perfectly legal. The councils will comply just fine with running one.

Because it's completely clear that the Scottish Parliament can't call a referendum.

If I steal your car then it might be ruled legal by the courts but it ain't that likely.

fun4everyone

mollycat wrote: »

Pro indy tactics writ large....

1. Misquote.
2. Discredit the point made out of hand.
3. Accuse someone of being "hysterical" whilst using emotive language such "crazy". (BTW, my current emotional state is one of contentment, not hysteria )
4. Pretending to be reasonable whilst increasing the provocation, (suggesting indyre2 as a solution).

If you think that a major constitutional change resulting in decimated services, increased deprivation, and a more isolated and irrelevant place in the world isn't a "danger to the society I cherish", the maybe you are not as politically "nuanced" as you pride yourself to be. :rotfl:

Nailed it :T

molerat

WengerIn wrote: »

I'm not sure about how it works for referenda but in elections its returning officers. A quick Google suggests that these are generally Council workers but they may be working outside their council area as constituencies =/= council areas.

The primary problem the SNP would face in setting up an illegal referendum would be paying for it. The SNP itself has assets totaling a few hundred grand so can't afford it and it seems deeply unlikely that the Tories would vote to pay for an illegal election at Westminster. If the SNP tried to pay with Scottish Government money (I use the term advisedly as so much of the cash actually comes from London taxpayers that it's not fair to call it Scottish taxpayers' money) then they'd find themselves struck down by the courts.

But then once you get into the procedure it looks like you'd need to involve the local councils to appoint regional returning officers (RROs). I suppose the SNP could pass another illegal law so that only SNP-run councils were appointing RROs but even then would the SNP really require every RRO to support an illegal referendum in order to hold the position? If they didn't then they could simply refuse to administer the election.

Like so much to do with independence, an illegal referendum is laughable.

That plan falls down at the first hurdle :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

WengerIn

molerat wrote: »

That plan falls down at the first hurdle :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Well indeed. It was a thought fart, just a way to try to think through how the SNP could call an illegal referendum. I think we've come to the conclusion that the hurdles are insurmountable.

Shakethedisease

WengerIn wrote: »

Well indeed. It was a thought fart, just a way to try to think through how the SNP could call an illegal referendum. I think we've come to the conclusion that the hurdles are insurmountable.

No. It's a legal grey area which you'd have known if you'd followed the thread from a few months ago. There are various legal opinions and viewpoints and it's never been tested in court.

The Scottish Parliament holding a (legal) advisory referendum in itself doesn't change the UK constitution at all, it simply asks for an opinion. And the question can be carefully worded as such.

Another problem is 2014 where the UK Govt set a precedent whereby the Scottish electorate do indeed have the legal right to decide their own constitutional future via means of a referendum voted for at the Scottish Parliament. It's going to be difficult to legally prove why that right no longer exists just three years later. 'Now is not the time' isn't really a convincing legal argument. May will have to come up with better than that if it goes to court.

In short though. Sturgeon won't go for anything that isn't legal. So there really is no need to worry about councils trying to wreck the voting system.

kabayiri

WengerIn wrote: »

Because it's completely clear that the Scottish Parliament can't call a referendum.

If I steal your car then it might be ruled legal by the courts but it ain't that likely.

The SNP analogy is where you steal my car and then fully expect me to keep up the repayments on it, because you heard about an international convention somewhere which droned on about the need to pay for things on tick.