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

kabayiri

.string. wrote: »

...
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.
...

And there we have it.

It is within the gift of the next elected PM and party of the whole of the UK to determine the priorities for the *whole of the UK*.

Priority should be based on the major challenges we face, and the biggest is Brexit.

So why should less than 10% of the UK population see fit to overturn the priority that the whole UK vote for?

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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



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.



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

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




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



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.

You clearly are a troll.

I can have reasoned debate with everyone on here except yourself. The posting history is evidence of that, you're banging on about an analogy (rather than the issue) which demonstrated the point absolutely fine whilst completely ignoring the point it was making.

You're spitting into the wind and you really should just stop.

IveSeenTheLight

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.

A far better response than your silly annual leave analogy.
I even thanked you for it .

A very fair point, but there is a good reason why TM did not outright say "No" and why I don't think she will ever say "No".

It's why she has said "not right now".

The Scottish parliament has democratically voted for the right to IndyRef2 and if TM was to categorically say "No", she would not show the unity she once talked about (talk is cheap though isn't it?)

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

I've given a response on the legalities.

I've given a response on the procedure and the interpretation of the law.

All you said was that it was a bad analogy - when it wasn't - clearly trying to play the man and not the ball, you're a troll.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

A far better response than your silly annual leave analogy.
I even thanked you for it .

A very fair point, but there is a good reason why TM did not outright say "No" and why I don't think she will ever say "No".

It's why she has said "not right now".

The Scottish parliament has democratically voted for the right to IndyRef2 and if TM was to categorically say "No", she would not show the unity she once talked about (talk is cheap though isn't it?)

She didn't say no.

But she didn't say yes either.

The point is they can say and do whatever they like constitutionally.

Which was the point I made with the analogy... :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You clearly are a troll.

I can have reasoned debate with everyone on here except yourself. The posting history is evidence of that, you're banging on about an analogy (rather than the issue) which demonstrated the point absolutely fine whilst completely ignoring the point it was making.

You're spitting into the wind and you really should just stop.

I'm not a Troll.
You could have moved this point on by accepting it was a poor analogy, instead of dogmatically trying to defend it.

You made a good post above, I thanked it.

Ignore my points if you wish, but I will not stop debating just because you don;t like an opposite view.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I've given a response on the legalities.

I've given a response on the procedure and the interpretation of the law.

All you said was that it was a bad analogy - when it wasn't - clearly trying to play the man and not the ball, you're a troll.

I've accepted I was wrong in here in the past, you cannot and still dogmatically try to defend your errors.

I always play the ball, never the man. I am certainly not a troll.
If you truly believe I am, please put me on ignore.

I would suggest you reflect on your inability to consider opposition viewpoints and accept instances where your views can be persuaded

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

She didn't say no.

But she didn't say yes either.

The point is they can say and do whatever they like constitutionally.

So we are in agreement on these points

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Which was the point I made with the analogy... :rotfl:

But not this one

In your flawed analogy, employment law dictates that the can cannot be kicked indefinitely. Which was my point.

By use of your analogy, your inferring that at some point Westminster must agree to the request, which I do not think was the point of your analogy.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I would suggest you reflect on your inability to consider opposition viewpoints and accept instances where your views can be persuaded

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
That describes pretty much all your posts, ISTL.

Which is how I first proclaimed you similarly to TT83 some posts back now - others now are seeing the evidence too and also reaching that conclusion.
Oh, and still multiple posts will still not see an end to opposition to unfounded prevarication.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72403080&postcount=8848

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So we are in agreement on these points



But not this one

In your flawed analogy, employment law dictates that the can cannot be kicked indefinitely. Which was my point.

By use of your analogy, your inferring that at some point Westminster must agree to the request, which I do not think was the point of your analogy.

lol

like a dog with a bone, not at all.

And btw, employment law doesn't dictate when you're to be given annual leave, if you don't take it with some employers you lose it, some transfer it to the next year, ultimately the manager/boss chooses when you're allowed to take your leave depending on the business and staff availability. But that's all irrelevant to the point I was making which was that just because they said yes last time to your holiday request does not mean they will say yes automatically for future requests, I honestly do not understand why that (which was the point I was making) is so hard to understand...