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

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That's not the reality though is it.

I have accepted that the employer can say "not right now, the time is not right".
there is no debate on that point

I've had to do that once or twice in my time, however what I did do as a great leader was work with the "employee" and try to find a solution that suits the individual and the business.

The point is on annual leave, that as an employer, I must grant your annual leave entitlement within a certain time frame.

So TM has said "not right now", which we accept, which NS accepts and NS has suggested a time which TM agreed the anticipated completion of the Brxit negotiations, which seems good to me so that the Scottish people can make an informed choice between : -

• Staying in the UK with the government elected in June
  and
• Opting to be Independent and remain within the EU

Democratically (as voted for by the Scottish government) and as set by the precedent of 2012, then yes.

The only point for debate is the timing.

No, not democratically, just legally, as you said earlier.

Are Westminster legally obliged to grant a request for another independence referendum?

IveSeenTheLight

mollycat wrote: »

Nothing obviously! Doh!

The thread was started to spread pro-independence propaganda;

Was it?
I saw a lot of separate discussion points

Shakethedisease wrote: »

• For everything Scotland related.
• Economics,
• politics,
• oil prices,
• GERS,
• new powers
• etc etc.
• Scottish General election now only weeks away
• the recent GERS report
• a possible Brexit
• new manifestos from all Scottish parties due detailing how they will use new income tax and welfare powers
• oil prices remaining low
• and the recent announcement from the SNP that they will start to build a new case for independence starting this summer.

There is still plenty to debate for a wee while for anyone interested.

mollycat wrote: »

You of course may not appreciate that given you joined the "debate" in the thread equivalent of 10 minutes ago.

True, I have not went through every historical post, but that should not deter from being able to discuss the points at hand

mollycat wrote: »

I'm not surprised you have failed to understand Tricky's simple analogy given that up until about a week ago you thought the "snap General Election", was scheduled for June 2018! Sheesh.

Yeah, I made a genuine mistake and acknowledged it.
It would be great to see similarly from other posters.

With regard to the analogy, I'm presuming as

you are fine with it, then you must be ok with the position that Scotland must be granted a second independence referendum at a suitable time

It would be appreciate if you would confirm though.

mollycat wrote: »

So maybe not a troll; maybe just not the quickest?

Now, now, keep your eye on the ball.
It's not very becoming of you

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No, not democratically, just legally, as you said earlier.

Are Westminster legally obliged to grant a request for another independence referendum?

No legally they are not.
I've not debated that.
Indeed, its why I said your analogy was poor as in employment law, the employer is legally obliged to grant annual leave

Can you acknowledge that democratically objecting to something that was democratically voted for, would not go down well with a large part of the electorate?

[edit]
Back to the legal part, whilst Westminster are not legally obliged to accept, if they dismissed the request, then there could be the option to legally challenge that decision using the Edinburgh Act of 2012 as precedence.
[/edit]

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No legally they are not.
I've not debated that.
Indeed, its why I said your analogy was poor as in employment law, the employer is legally obliged to grant annual leave

Can you acknowledge that democratically objecting to something that was democratically voted for, would not go down well with a large part of the electorate?

The point I was making with regards to holiday requests was just that.

Had nothing to do with employment law.

Democratically a section 30 has been asked for, that is the fullest extent of Holyrood's involvement in constitutional matters. It can be granted, delayed or denied. All at Westminster's prerogative.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No legally they are not.
I've not debated that.
Indeed, its why I said your analogy was poor as in employment law, the employer is legally obliged to grant annual leave

Can you acknowledge that democratically objecting to something that was democratically voted for, would not go down well with a large part of the electorate?

[edit]
Back to the legal part, whilst Westminster are not legally obliged to accept, if they dismissed the request, then there could be the option to legally challenge that decision using the Edinburgh Act of 2012 as precedence.
[/edit]

RE: Your edit - that's not correct. The Scotland Act itself upholds Westminster's power constitutionally, there can be no successful legal challenge.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No legally they are not.
I've not debated that.
Indeed, its why I said your analogy was poor as in employment law, the employer is legally obliged to grant annual leave

Can you acknowledge that democratically objecting to something that was democratically voted for, would not go down well with a large part of the electorate?

Well I certainly don't like hostile acts against the "democratically voted for" Brexit decision even though I was a one of the more committed Remainers.

Is that what you mean?

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The point I was making with regards to holiday requests was just that.

Had nothing to do with employment law.

:sigh:
I thought we were getting somewhere
In debates, you have to be open and not selective.

• Shakey was talking about legality,
• you offered an annual leave analogy
• in responce and I commented it was a poor choice as a result of the legalities of employment law.

Accept it and move on

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Democratically a section 30 has been asked for, that is the fullest extent of Holyrood's involvement in constitutional matters. It can be granted, delayed or denied. All at Westminster's prerogative.

I understand that.
Can you accept the potential consequences if it is denied?

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

Well I certainly don't like hostile acts against the "democratically voted for" Brexit decision even though I was a one of the more committed Remainers.

Is that what you mean?

I think its a little different to that, but if there is sufficient support that the members of parliament thought it was democratically worth voting on and subsequently accepted, then the position would be that the electorate get an opportunity to re-visit the question.

Indeed there are arguments for that to occur once the outcomes are known.

What hostile acts against Brexit are you referring to?

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

RE: Your edit - that's not correct. The Scotland Act itself upholds Westminster's power constitutionally, there can be no successful legal challenge.

It will be interesting to see how all this affects Sturgeon's credibility as a mighty leader.

She and the SNP are used to telling the most outrageous whoppers about things which cannot be fully proven until after they achieve their goal of taking Scotland into obscurity. As such they can sometimes get away with fakery and this allows them to convince the gullible.

This legal challenge nonsense is, however, something which they will try to bring to a head quickly and thus Surgeon will be shown to be ignominiously wrong, for all to see. Judges are not gullible but deal in legalities, not spin.

For courts in the UK they would naturally resort to the insulting argument of saying that the English Courts do not work for Scotland (ignoring as they will the two Scottish Judges) but she has tied her fortunes to the EU and when she is told that the EU court has no jurisdiction over an sovereign county's internal constitutional affairs, she will be shown for the dreamer she is.

The stuff of nightmares, one could say.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

:sigh:
I thought we were getting somewhere
In debates, you have to be open and not selective.

• Shakey was talking about legality,
• you offered an annual leave analogy
• in responce and I commented it was a poor choice as a result of the legalities of employment law.

Accept it and move on


I understand that.
Can you accept the potential consequences if it is denied?

I don't know how many times you want me to say it.

The analogy had nothing to do with employment law, it was in reference to who makes the ultimate decision when you request holiday, your boss. In the case of a section 30 to request a referendum - Westminster is the boss.

Nothing to do with employment law - you brought that in, I don't know why as it's not relevant.