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

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

If you had followed the discussion a few months ago you would know the reasons why all that is just wishful thinking.

In the middle of it you mention again an advisory referendum which would be used as a referendum by the SNP. Do you really think people are that stupid that they would not see through that? You could expect law suits and resistance from the Scots you hope to mislead; it would be declared unrecognised by the UK Government as such (and therefore not a legal referendum with constitutional value) and you would be back where you started.


Talk about flogging a dead horse, is that the best the SNP can do? Wonderful if it is.

elantan

https://youtu.be/0M91g4OlGEY


I like a bit of Jonathan pie ... anyone else ?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Then by definition the outcome of such a question can never be used to seek the outcome of the question, or else it would be in breach of the Scotland Act.

It would be shooting yourselves in the foot. I still concur with those on here that even an advisory referendum on reserved issues could be challenged or blocked successfully by Joe Bloggs of the public let alone government (national or local).

You're not going to get this by the back door.

And you're not going to get the support you need to win the referendum even if you do get it using tactics like this.

Shaka_Zulu

beecher2 wrote: »

If fptp used, would be 100% snp.

As far as I can see by fptp 8 seats went to Labour and 1 to the greens. That doesn't look like 100% to the snp. I even provided you with the link.

A true nat never let the truth get in the way of the onward march to independence!!

Hope someone can quote this too!

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

What utter rubbish.
Come down off that cloud because you must be light headed..

Yet again, as TrickyTree has posted before:


Now if we have to post this every few pages until it sinks in, we can.
You ignoring it doesn't make it suddenly cease to exist.

But what court anywhere is going to argue with that; "Reserved matters include: Constitution."
Or were these not accepted by the Scottish Parliament then?

But is the Act of holding a legal advisory referendum a constitutional matter when the holding of a referendum in itself doesn't legally affect the constitution ? Holding referendums isn't mentioned in the Scotland Act so isn't actually explicitly reserved. I know you won't be told otherwise but again none of this has ever been legally tested.

The Scottish Parliament aren't asking to change the constitution. They're asking to hold an advisory referendum to put a question to the Scottish electorate. If May says no, it'll go to court.

However, cling to your comfort blanket if you must. There's a great deal of research been done on this by experts but of course we all know that you, Tricky and others here are bound to know the Scottish, the UK, the European and International legal systems far better than any so called 'experts'.

Shakethedisease

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

I know you won't see this because you have me blocked but you should do your homework before spreading your fake news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_City_Council_election,_2017

I think Beecher is right. Under FPTP rather than STV this would be Glasgow, but feel free to check the figures out for yourself.

Not only is @theSNP the first party overall in Glasgow Also the first party in each and every ward

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Then by definition the outcome of such a question can never be used to seek the outcome of the question, or else it would be in breach of the Scotland Act.

But it has already been legally asked in 2014. May is going to have to outline what has changed in legal terms ( not political ) since then. Can you tell me what has ? Politics aside ?

It would be shooting yourselves in the foot. I still concur with those on here that even an advisory referendum on reserved issues could be challenged or blocked successfully by Joe Bloggs of the public let alone government (national or local).

You're not going to get this by the back door.

And you're not going to get the support you need to win the referendum even if you do get it using tactics like this.

Sturgeon will go to court before holding a referendum I should imagine not after. There will be no challenges afterwards possible and it won't be done by the back door. It will be done legally and above board using the precedent of 2014 which Sturgeon has followed to the letter and exactly so far.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

If you had followed the discussion a few months ago you would know the reasons why all that is just wishful thinking.

In the middle of it you mention again an advisory referendum which would be used as a referendum by the SNP. Do you really think people are that stupid that they would not see through that? You could expect law suits and resistance from the Scots you hope to mislead; it would be declared unrecognised by the UK Government as such (and therefore not a legal referendum with constitutional value) and you would be back where you started.


Talk about flogging a dead horse, is that the best the SNP can do? Wonderful if it is.

Seems they're doing much better than 2012 anyway.

Peter Murrell‏Verified account @PeterMurrell 2h2 hours ago

UPDATE: Looking more like 105,000 more votes than in 2012. 608,000 first preference @theSNP votes. Official confirmation expected tomorrow

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But it has already been legally asked in 2014. May is going to have to outline what has changed in legal terms ( not political ) since then. Can you tell me what has ? Politics aside ?

Sturgeon will go to court before holding a referendum I should imagine not after. There will be no challenges afterwards possible and it won't be done by the back door. It will be done legally and above board using the precedent of 2014 which Sturgeon has followed to the letter and exactly so far.

The precedent of 2014 requires Holyrood to use a section 30 to request the power to hold a referendum. Westminster can deny that request. Especially if there are grounds to do so such a Brexit negotiations or a clear indication from the Scottish electorate that the majority do not want one.

Shaka_Zulu

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think Beecher is right. Under FPTP rather than STV this would be Glasgow, but feel free to check the figures out for yourself.

Being disingenuous again.

Let me pick one ward as an example (you can look at others yourself)

Ward 17: Springburn/Robroyston (1st preference)

Labour Martin McElroy 31.64%
SNP Graham Campbell 20.13%