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

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

Quite.

Amongst NO voters Independence is hated far in excess of the Tory party.

To suggest that Labour voters will be "holding their noses and voting SNP" is, to anyone who actually lives up here, laughable.

Pro indy posters on here raise taking the P to a whole new level.

Labour No voters were voting No thinking in part thinking they would be getting a 2015 Labour Govt. Now they don't even have an electable party. Of course there are lots of those voters now reconsidering.

There are still many Labour voters not convinced by either independence OR Conservative Govts/Ruth Davidson's one trick campaign. But it's a GE on 8th June, not an indy ref after all.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Westminster can indeed say no. But will have to give a reason for that no if challenged in court. Especially given it didn't say no that last time.

You keep confusing politics with legalities.

What have I confused?

All I was saying was Westminster can say no. They don't have to grant the request just because it was made or because the previous request was granted.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Is two local town pages I follow ( from where I am from originally ).

Like polls. I'd take Facebook with a pinch of salt.

Shaka_Zulu

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There are still many Labour voters not convinced by either independence OR Conservative Govts/Ruth Davidson's one trick campaign. But it's a GE on 8th June, not an indy ref after all.

There is only one trick campaign in town and that is the Nats drive for independence.

Shaka_Zulu

Doesn't look good for the Nats in Aberdeen

Shaka_Zulu

Oops nor Edinburgh

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What have I confused?

All I was saying was Westminster can say no. They don't have to grant the request just because it was made or because the previous request was granted.

You said 'what Westminster says, goes'. Talking politics it might, but not in the courtroom. And for 2014 and precedents.

Precedent is central to legal analysis and rulings in countries that follow common law like the United Kingdom and Canada (except Quebec). In some systems precedent is not binding but is taken into account by the courts.

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule.[1] This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts.

Sturgeon has played this so far exactly as Salmond did. And Salmond was granted a legal Section 30 following a Scottish Parliament request establishing a legal precedent. May's going to have to dispute what Cameron did in 2012 and the Edinburgh agreement as 'illegal' under UK law. Or else issue another one like he did. Now is not the time... not going to suffice there.

Shakethedisease

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Oops nor Edinburgh

I guess those straws aren't going to clutch themselves are they Shaka ? Most voters such as myself will have voted SNP 1 and 2 or even 3. You're only counting my first vote.

Let me make this really simple and blunt for you. Either the Tories score a minor victory on June 8th in taking some seats but their no indy ref campaign then dissolves completely afterwards as the Scottish Parliament press on regardless.

OR, all the hype of 12 to 15 seats falls flat on it's face on June 8th and their no indy ref campaign dissolves completely afterwards as the Scottish Parliament press on regardless.

Those are the two possibilities facing you on June 9th and there's a common theme in there you should probably start preparing for.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You said 'what Westminster says, goes'. Talking politics it might, but not in the courtroom. And for 2014 and precedents.



Sturgeon has played this so far exactly as Salmond did. And Salmond was granted a legal Section 30 following a Scottish Parliament request establishing a legal precedent. May's going to have to dispute what Cameron did in 2012 and the Edinburgh agreement as 'illegal' under UK law. Or else issue another one like he did. Now is not the time... not going to suffice there.

Thanks for clarifying but it appears that I'm not confused.

Precedent in the legal sense would be the interpretation of the law which in this case is the need to use a section 30 to request the power/ability to hold a referendum on constitutional affairs. What I said still stands that the ability does not have to be granted merely because it is asked for.

What your argument appears to suggest is that a section 30 to hold an independence referendum from Holyrood must be accepted because it was in 2012, essentially rendering the Scotland Act defunct as that explicitly states that constitutional affairs are a reserved matter. This power would no longer be reserved if the act of asking for a referendum on independence means that one must be granted handing constitutional powers to Holyrood merely by following a procedure.

I'm sure you can appreciate - that's not how it works. The section 30 request is just that, a request, which can just as easily be denied as it can be granted. The precedent from 2012 is only on the procedure rather than the eventual result of the request. Otherwise you're overriding an existing law by default whilst Westminster is the highest power in the land. The courts only interpret the meaning of Westminster legislation. The Scotland Act cannot be undone by the courts.

WengerIn

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying but it appears that I'm not confused.

Precedent in the legal sense would be the interpretation of the law which in this case is the need to use a section 30 to request the power/ability to hold a referendum on constitutional affairs. What I said still stands that the ability does not have to be granted merely because it is asked for.

What your argument appears to suggest is that a section 30 to hold an independence referendum from Holyrood must be accepted because it was in 2012, essentially rendering the Scotland Act defunct as that explicitly states that constitutional affairs are a reserved matter. This power would no longer be reserved if the act of asking for a referendum on independence means that one must be granted handing constitutional powers to Holyrood merely by following a procedure.

I'm sure you can appreciate - that's not how it works. The section 30 request is just that, a request, which can just as easily be denied as it can be granted. The precedent from 2012 is only on the procedure rather than the eventual result of the request. Otherwise you're overriding an existing law by default whilst Westminster is the highest power in the land. The courts only interpret the meaning of Westminster legislation. The Scotland Act cannot be undone by the courts.

It's rather like my daughter claiming that she can go to bed whenever she wants because I let her stay up to watch the end of her movie on Saturday night :rotfl:

I do wonder if these posters believe this garbage or are just pulling our collective legs.