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

IveSeenTheLight

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.

Debating whether it would be successful or not is something for the courts to decide.
My point was about the option to make a legal challange.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Debating whether it would be successful or not is something for the courts to decide.
My point was about the option to make a legal challange.

I can legally challenge anything. It does't mean I'll succeed especially if the law is against me.

I could legally challenge my right to murder someone, I'll lose in court because the law says that murder is a punishable offence.

Sturgeon can legally challenge a "No" to a section 30 request for a referendum, she'll lose because the law (Scotland Act) states that Westminster is in charge of constitutional affairs.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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

I don't know, how about until you can accept the flow of the discussion and posts which progressed from Westminnster legalities, annual leave and then onto employment law dismissing your analogy.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

I did bring it in, as you discussed annual leave and rights as an analogy to Westminster's decision.

Your argument about me bringing in employment law and the relevance just substantiates that it was a poor analogy.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I can legally challenge anything. It does't mean I'll succeed especially if the law is against me.

I could legally challenge my right to murder someone, I'll lose in court because the law says that murder is a punishable offence.

Sturgeon can legally challenge a "No" to a section 30 request for a referendum, she'll lose because the law (Scotland Act) states that Westminster is in charge of constitutional affairs.

So you accept that there could be a legal challenge.
The result is for the courts to decide.
I'm sure you could cite legal outcomes which defies the expectation and hence, it may not be as cut and dried as you think.

[edit]First things first though, the PM has to stop her procrastination and make a bloody decision.
I truly cannot trust her as a PM[/edit]

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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?

I've explained before, but one more time.

I said hostile and did so deliberately because the nature and timing of what was proposed cuts right across the process of obtaining a successful Brexit negotiation. There was no need for that not only because of the damage it could do to the 90% of the UK who are not in Scotland but also those Scots who much prefer to remain in the UK and, indeed, might well win any referendum that was held and thus suffer should the negotiations have a bad outcome.

Sturgeon uses the fig-leaf apparently of claiming that accession to the EU will only be possible if a referendum decision was done before Brexit but that is clearly not correct and we all know that the details of what that path holds will only become apparent after the Brexit negotiations are absolutely complete. She is actively working against the interests of a large part (it seems the major part) of her own population.

May has the responsibility to make decisions for the benefit of the whole of the UK population. Not only do I think she has no choice but |I think she is politically and morally correct.

Shaka_Zulu

Wherever one stands on the issue of Scottish independence, or whether and when we should have a second referendum, Scotland does have a devolved administration and it is the Scottish Parliament who we need to hold accountable over the devolved areas, in proportion to their devolved powers. In particular, the major areas of health, education, and law and order.

The Scottish government has been led by the SNP since 2007. In that time, the SNP have had the opportunity to show the kind of leadership and good governance for the people of Scotland that they accuse the Westminster Parliament of lacking. And given how much of the SNP rhetoric relies on opposition to Westminster, you would expect that their 10-year record in power in Scotland would be a shining example of good governance of progressive values.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. In all the key areas, the Scottish government’s record is rather poor. We are, in fact, doing worse than England in all these areas. And we are managing to do so despite having about 10% higher per-capita spend than the rest of the UK, thanks to the Barnet formula, which guarantees this major fiscal boost to Scotland.

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

I said hostile and did so deliberately because the nature and timing of what was proposed cuts right across the process of obtaining a successful Brexit negotiation. There was no need for that not only because of the damage it could do to the 90% of the UK who are not in Scotland but also those Scots who much prefer to remain in the UK and,

On the timing, the SNP had discussed this possibility before the referendum vote.
Before a decision was made.

Its a little disingenuous to suggest it was deliberately contrived to damage the negotiations.

I also thought "hostile acts" was disingenuous as well as no force has been used as far as I'm aware

.string. wrote: »

but also those Scots who much prefer to remain in the UK and, indeed, might well win any referendum that was held and thus suffer should the negotiations have a bad outcome.

Hence, why there is an agreement for IndyRef2 to be held once the Brexit negotiations are completed and the details known

.string. wrote: »

Sturgeon uses the fig-leaf apparently of claiming that accession to the EU will only be possible if a referendum decision was done before Brexit but that is clearly not correct and we all know that the details of what that path holds will only become apparent after the Brexit negotiations are absolutely complete. She is actively working against the interests of a large part (it seems the major part) of her own population.

Not as I recall.
TM and NS met and agreed the timing should be post Brexit negotiations which at the time was anticipated to be between Oct 2018 and March 2019

.string. wrote: »

May has the responsibility to make decisions for the benefit of the whole of the UK population.

Agreed

.string. wrote: »

Not only do I think she has no choice but I think she is politically and morally correct.

Politically and morally correct in what stance?

IveSeenTheLight

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is not the case. In all the key areas, the Scottish government’s record is rather poor. We are, in fact, doing worse than England in all these areas.

Are they, thats debateable.

I recall hearing / reading that the NHS Scotland was doing better than NHS England for example.

Indeed the below graph would indicate that not only was Scotland faring better in shis statistic, but the only region improving over the same timeframe




A slightly different timeline, but also showing Scotland dealing better than in England.


Might be worthy of a deeper analysis and discussion

paparossco

.string. wrote: »

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.

Sorry could you clarify this for me? Are you talking about the Supreme Court?
Thanks.

kelpie35

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Wherever one stands on the issue of Scottish independence, or whether and when we should have a second referendum, Scotland does have a devolved administration and it is the Scottish Parliament who we need to hold accountable over the devolved areas, in proportion to their devolved powers. In particular, the major areas of health, education, and law and order.

The Scottish government has been led by the SNP since 2007. In that time, the SNP have had the opportunity to show the kind of leadership and good governance for the people of Scotland that they accuse the Westminster Parliament of lacking. And given how much of the SNP rhetoric relies on opposition to Westminster, you would expect that their 10-year record in power in Scotland would be a shining example of good governance of progressive values.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. In all the key areas, the Scottish government’s record is rather poor. We are, in fact, doing worse than England in all these areas. And we are managing to do so despite having about 10% higher per-capita spend than the rest of the UK, thanks to the Barnet formula, which guarantees this major fiscal boost to Scotland.

SNP are only interested in becoming independent.

For all the years they have been elected they have not done the job of helping me or the rest of the people of Scotland.

They are not interested in doing their job or caring for those that are stupid enough to believe a word that come out of Sturgeon's mouth, she is just hot air.

Come on you clever people of Scotland show Sturgeon that we are not being fooled any longer.

Go Ruth Go