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

Shaka_Zulu

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

I have no doubt the Nats will press on regardless and I sincerely hope they do.

I know you will never concede that this is not about seats but the popular vote but at the end of the day both sides of the argument will be able to tally the votes which will give a fairly accurate indication of where the country is re indyref2.

The quicker the SNP bus goes over the cliff the better for everyone concerned.

Keep it up Shakey you go for it .............keep the pedal to the metal.

cogito

Looks like shakey needs to stick to her day job sticking envelopes in the local SNP office and leave law to the lawyers.

mollycat

cogito wrote: »

Looks like shakey needs to stick to her day job sticking envelopes in the local SNP office and leave law to the lawyers.

That's better!

.string.

I've heard that the SNP is not very good at sticking to the day job.

.string.

I had not noticed this before, apologies if someone else linked it and I did not notice.

The points the article makes have been mentioned before but it includes them in a succinct form and is worth reading.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/16/theresa-may-tells-nicola-sturgeon-no-new-scottish-independence

The emerging focus on a transition phase to iron out the detail of Brexit reinforces what the article says. Note also that it reminds us that a referendum has not in fact, been refused, rather the timing of it and the timing of the request for one.

Never mind waiting for the results of the GE, Nicola, wait for the results of the next Scottish Election .

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The analogy was fine

No it wasn't
Let me remind you of your quote and what you were responding to

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes and Westminster granted a Section 30. Therefore acknowledging legally the right of the Scots electorate to vote on their own constitutional future via a referendum instigated at Holyrood's request.

The onus will be on Westminster to to prove what has changed legally since 2014 which would be absolute legal grounds for blocking another section 30 or referendum from happening. Nothing has changed apart from the politics. Which are not legal grounds in any courtroom.

<---- Tricky this is politics, not legalities. Please learn the difference.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Oh no no. Now you're just making stuff up.

When you request annual leave from someone who can approve it at work you don't then inherit the right to take leave whenever you ask for it regardless.

Westminster can say no.

So to clarify, Shakey was discussing legal rights, to which you responded with an analogy that the employer can deny a request for annual leave.

I then pointed out that your analogy was flawed because the employer cannot deny indefinitely and that employment law dictates that the employee has a legal right to be granted leave during the term.

Can you see why in the context of the discussing the two posts how the two are linked and how your analogy was deeply flawed.

It's amazing how you cannot accept this.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You assumed it was somehow about employment law.

No one else did.

I didn't assume, I applied given the the context of the two posts.

1. Shakey was talking about legality
2. You responded with the analogy about being denied a request for annual leave
3. I clarified it was a !!!!!! analogy as legally, the right cannot be denied indefinately

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You assumed it was somehow about legality.

No one else did.

Again, I didn't assume anything, I responded to your response to Shakeys post about legality

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You have misunderstood.

No one else has.

I think it is very clear who has misunderstood and who cannot accept when they are wrong.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Stop wasting forum space and posts on this irrelevant crap. The point is legitimate, the analogy is fine and the underlying point still stands. If you want to debate why don't you debate the issues instead of trying (and failing) to pick holes in an analogy?

I don't think I will.
I'll continue to debate and discuss posts as is the whole point of a debate forum.

You cannot drive away people with differing opinions or thoughts or indeed because you dislike them pointing out your errors.

IveSeenTheLight

mollycat wrote: »

To be fair I think he/she was trolling you Tricky.

To be fair, I've responded more than once to your assertion that I am a Troll and pointed out that the contents of your posts are more of a fishing exercise and that one could argue that you are the Troll.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Apparently not.

You seem stuck in a timeline.
We accepted the 2014 result, but the referendum of 2016 has fundamentally and significantly changed the position in Scotland and thus

Time to keep up Thrugs

IveSeenTheLight

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.

Actually, from the council swings it would seem that Labour voters are holding their noses and voting Caonservatives

IveSeenTheLight

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.

I think Tricky Tree wants to ignore the legality points you raise