DS Forums

 
 

SNP Watch


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-10-2016, 13:05
CoolSharpHarp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,003
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a Labour presiding officer refused the bill.
It would be more interesting if the Westminster government decided to ban the referendum - can you imagine the comments as police barricade the polling places to stop people voting?
It's not about whether it a Labour presiding office (he'll probably have to take legal advice), it's about whether it's within the remit of the Scottish parliament.
CoolSharpHarp is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 13-10-2016, 13:14
Black Sheep
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13,468
Ah well - here we go with the outrage and anger. The second attempt Really not convinced this is the time but will supply plenty entertainment on here
Personally I welcome the draft Bill, hopefully Parliament can vote on it and enact it as soon as possible.

When should the SNP hold the referendum that the whole of Scotland is clamouring for? I'm thinking March 17.

Then again, it just might all be bluff and bluster grandstanding.
Black Sheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 13:24
Black Sheep
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13,468
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a Labour presiding officer refused the bill.
It would be more interesting if the Westminster government decided to ban the referendum - can you imagine the comments as police barricade the polling places to stop people voting?
The best thing to do would be to go for a real mandate first and hold a new Scottish election fought by the SNP on the understanding that if they got a majority of Scots voting for them they would hold another referendum within 3 months of that election.

I certainly wouldn't complain under those circumstances and it would be democratically fair.

Still, I wonder why they would think that the majority of Scots will vote to leave the UK in the near future because none of the polls show a significant movement towards the consistent 60% mark that Ms Sturgeon says she needs.

Who in their right minds will vote to be outside two unions at once if seemingly being outside the lesser earning one, the EU, is going to be so damaging to Scotland?

What economic case can they possibly bring forward without contradicting what they are saying about leaving the EU?

The only possible way they can maybe pull of another referendum is if the EU were to state outright that Scotland can be an EU member on day one. I'm not certain this will happen.

However, it does gee up the discontented masses of new members to throw them a bone of hope.
Black Sheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 13:28
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,530
So is this going to be another 5 years of obsessing about independence at the expense of running the country?
James2001 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 13:28
welsh_El
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 563
I think Scotland should be independent
& England
& Wales
then work together as trading partners.
welsh_El is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 14:08
Orri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotlandshire
Posts: 9,078
Still, the majority of Scots are in favour of having such an information database and I was asking you how you feel about half of the SNP voter base being in favour of it as well.

Even with a watered down question SNP supporters are divided on the issue and Scotlands voters are for it.?
No you weren't. You were crowing that somehow even SNP voters were split on the issue of going as far as publicly naming firms employing to many foreigners. You know, the main element of the proposal that got more than just the SNP's hackles raised.

As things stand companies already have to provide that kind of information in order to comply with equality legislation and to check their employees can legally work in the UK. Not sure if they need pass that information on but how else can the government make sure they are operating within the law. Using that information for political purposes would need a modification of the law.

Obviously though a more probable course of events is that some of the businesses that back the Conservatives will not take kindly to being publicly listed. So they will be exempted. So firms that don't contribute will balance the threat of being named against funding he Conservatives.

On a lighter note if Farage only employs his wife then his staff is 100% non British EU.
Orri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 14:18
Orri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotlandshire
Posts: 9,078
Can't wait for her to explain why leaving one union (our biggest trading partner) to possibly (or not) join another, protects our interests.

I suppose just because she's publishing it, doesn't actually mean it's going to a vote. I think I've asked before, but is it certain that the presiding officer would allow the bill, as it's not strictly within the Scottish Parliaments remit.
That assumes that the economy of the rUK doesn't go so badly into recession that keeping trade links open to the EU becomes even more vital. It also ignores such anomalies as almost the entire Whisky export being credited as English due to where it exits the UK. It allso assumes that the rUK is our major trading partner rather than the largest. It also assumes that the UK will be able or inclined to impose a trade barrier.

Put it this way Scotland has a surplus of fresh water an power including renewables .. Stop trade and the pipes close and the plug gets pulled.
Orri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 14:53
Pam_Kerr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 113
And now we're heading towards another referendum, hastened by the change in circumstances. Lets be quite clear "ONCE IN A GENERATION" has been rendered meaningless by the change in events. A Tory majority and an exit from the EU both against the express wishes of the Scottish electorate. It's times to look at revisiting the question of how Scotland can be most effectively governed.




BIB It certainly is and we could start by getting rid of Nicola Sturgeon and her bigotry against anything and everything that doesn't suit her own agenda.
Pam_Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 15:16
Irritable Owl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,208
If they called her bluff, she'd wet her knickers.

Scotland is a basket case economy, unable to sustain itself on dwindling oil revenues, poor GDP, subsidised by the rest of the UK.

All she is doing is rattling her cage to show us that she's still there. One day, God knows when, the time might be right for Scotland to go independent, but it's a long way off right now.
Irritable Owl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 16:20
Orri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotlandshire
Posts: 9,078
It's not about whether it a Labour presiding office (he'll probably have to take legal advice), it's about whether it's within the remit of the Scottish parliament.
Holding referenda is within the competence of Holyrood. The tricky part is that unless Holyrood gets the authority to do so it can't unilaterally change the constitution. The previous manifesto pledge was to authorise Holyrood to negotiate independence so as to stay within the limits of its powers.

The avoidance of the potential constitutional crisis that Westminster MPs might cause, or indeed the government of the day, by refusing to negotiate was why the power to legislate was temporarily transferred. It's the same ongoing crisis regarding A50. Although in the later case it's not the actual triggering that's the real problem. It's that May seems determined that she and her cabinet are the government and not her party or parliament itself.

By refusing debate on A50 she is stifling discussion on the form Brexit might take. Given they only have a majority of 12 that's a foolhardy position. I've little doubt that a motion to pass A50 will pass which is why a date has now been given. However I also feel that the direction of travel would be towards a softer form of Brexit involving retaining access to the single market whilst removing obligations to welfare and health care provision without a reciprocal arrangement. I think the majority in Parliament and of the voters they represent would also go for that. Avoiding putting it to a vote as long as possible means the hardliners are committing the UK to a course it may not be able to alter. The markets and exchange rates are reflecting that.
Orri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 16:40
Mou Mou Land
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,592
Holding referenda is within the competence of Holyrood. The tricky part is that unless Holyrood gets the authority to do so it can't unilaterally change the constitution. The previous manifesto pledge was to authorise Holyrood to negotiate independence so as to stay within the limits of its powers.

The avoidance of the potential constitutional crisis that Westminster MPs might cause, or indeed the government of the day, by refusing to negotiate was why the power to legislate was temporarily transferred. It's the same ongoing crisis regarding A50. Although in the later case it's not the actual triggering that's the real problem. It's that May seems determined that she and her cabinet are the government and not her party or parliament itself.

By refusing debate on A50 she is stifling discussion on the form Brexit might take. Given they only have a majority of 12 that's a foolhardy position. I've little doubt that a motion to pass A50 will pass which is why a date has now been given. However I also feel that the direction of travel would be towards a softer form of Brexit involving retaining access to the single market whilst removing obligations to welfare and health care provision without a reciprocal arrangement. I think the majority in Parliament and of the voters they represent would also go for that. Avoiding putting it to a vote as long as possible means the hardliners are committing the UK to a course it may not be able to alter. The markets and exchange rates are reflecting that.
A snap General election is looking more and more likely despite Ms May's naysaying.
Mou Mou Land is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 17:02
CoolSharpHarp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,003
That assumes that the economy of the rUK doesn't go so badly into recession that keeping trade links open to the EU becomes even more vital. It also ignores such anomalies as almost the entire Whisky export being credited as English due to where it exits the UK. It allso assumes that the rUK is our major trading partner rather than the largest. It also assumes that the UK will be able or inclined to impose a trade barrier.

Put it this way Scotland has a surplus of fresh water an power including renewables .. Stop trade and the pipes close and the plug gets pulled.
The whisky export part of your post is a myth...

Regarding a trade barrier between the rUK and Scotland, assuming Scotland is accepted into the EU, then the trade deal will be the one agreed by the EU and rUK.
CoolSharpHarp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 17:03
CoolSharpHarp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,003
Holding referenda is within the competence of Holyrood. The tricky part is that unless Holyrood gets the authority to do so it can't unilaterally change the constitution. The previous manifesto pledge was to authorise Holyrood to negotiate independence so as to stay within the limits of its powers.

The avoidance of the potential constitutional crisis that Westminster MPs might cause, or indeed the government of the day, by refusing to negotiate was why the power to legislate was temporarily transferred. It's the same ongoing crisis regarding A50. Although in the later case it's not the actual triggering that's the real problem. It's that May seems determined that she and her cabinet are the government and not her party or parliament itself.

By refusing debate on A50 she is stifling discussion on the form Brexit might take. Given they only have a majority of 12 that's a foolhardy position. I've little doubt that a motion to pass A50 will pass which is why a date has now been given. However I also feel that the direction of travel would be towards a softer form of Brexit involving retaining access to the single market whilst removing obligations to welfare and health care provision without a reciprocal arrangement. I think the majority in Parliament and of the voters they represent would also go for that. Avoiding putting it to a vote as long as possible means the hardliners are committing the UK to a course it may not be able to alter. The markets and exchange rates are reflecting that.
BIB- you state that as fact, I'm don't think it is, hence the need for the Edinburgh agreement last time.
CoolSharpHarp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 17:17
Jim_McIntosh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
I guess the SNP do think they can win a second referendum then. So much for my political strategy of wait and see! Get ready for the outrage.
Jim_McIntosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 17:20
Jim_McIntosh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
I think Scotland should be independent
& England
& Wales
then work together as trading partners.
Me too. Steady though because such views might see you considered xenophobic, unpatriotic or dangerous.
Jim_McIntosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 18:01
Daewos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6,969
I guess the SNP do think they can win a second referendum then. So much for my political strategy of wait and see! Get ready for the outrage.
I'm with you there. But I assume that there will be a lot of talk before a referendum date is decided on. It would be madness to commit until such time as the outcome of Brexit is clearer and there is a majority support over a number of polls over a reasonable length of time.

Brian Wilson has it right (in my opinion)
Consultation does not mean decision. It does not mean a date for the ballot. It does not mean action. It does not mean a referendum will definitely happen. It means next to nothing.
Daewos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 18:21
CoolSharpHarp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,003
I'm with you there. But I assume that there will be a lot of talk before a referendum date is decided on. It would be madness to commit until such time as the outcome of Brexit is clearer and there is a majority support over a number of polls over a reasonable length of time.

Brian Wilson has it right (in my opinion)
In other words it's just another dog whistle to keep the conference crowd happy, whilst at the same time damaging inward investment in Scotland. Btw Brexit has helped that, but no point in making it worse...
CoolSharpHarp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 18:49
bhoy07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,521
Arguing for independence while at the same time arguing against independence will be a clever trick for the SNP to pull off.
bhoy07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 18:52
*Sparkle*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,947
So is this going to be another 5 years of obsessing about independence at the expense of running the country?
Gives them another few years worth of diversions from the important issues, and whether or not they are any good at applying their existing powers.

The whisky export part of your post is a myth...

Regarding a trade barrier between the rUK and Scotland, assuming Scotland is accepted into the EU, then the trade deal will be the one agreed by the EU and rUK.
Always amusing to see who believes that one.

In other words it's just another dog whistle to keep the conference crowd happy, whilst at the same time damaging inward investment in Scotland. Btw Brexit has helped that, but no point in making it worse...
So long as they can blame it on Brexit and Westminster, it's all good for their number one cause.
*Sparkle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 19:08
Orri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotlandshire
Posts: 9,078
BIB- you state that as fact, I'm don't think it is, hence the need for the Edinburgh agreement last time.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...dence-legality

Various legal opinions. The gist of which is that a carefully worded referendum question would allow Holyrood to negotiate for independence rather than legislate it. Cameron folded last time rather than put it to a legal test. One thing that would be sure to arise if it were to be challenged is the jurisdiction which would clearly be within Scotland. So any arguments based on Westminster being sovereign would fail due to precedent saying that's a peculiarity of English Law an not a concept in Scots. In Scotland the people are sovereign and only by representing us do Westminster and Holyrood have any claim to sovereignty. In England a similar situation is recognised as the basis of the various Parliament Acts.
Orri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 19:14
Jim_McIntosh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
I'm with you there. But I assume that there will be a lot of talk before a referendum date is decided on. It would be madness to commit until such time as the outcome of Brexit is clearer and there is a majority support over a number of polls over a reasonable length of time.

Brian Wilson has it right (in my opinion)
True.

I saw a headline flash on the news and mistakenly assumed she had put a formal proposal forward - usual misleading headlines. On reading further it just seems to be the 'keeping options open' sort of rhetoric you might have prior to that, which could be one year, three years, eight years...etc.

Probably just a political ploy to strengthen her negotiations regarding Brexit conditions.
Jim_McIntosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 21:39
Black Sheep
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13,468
No you weren't. You were crowing that somehow even SNP voters were split on the issue of going as far as publicly naming firms employing to many foreigners. You know, the main element of the proposal that got more than just the SNP's hackles raised.

As things stand companies already have to provide that kind of information in order to comply with equality legislation and to check their employees can legally work in the UK. Not sure if they need pass that information on but how else can the government make sure they are operating within the law. Using that information for political purposes would need a modification of the law.

Obviously though a more probable course of events is that some of the businesses that back the Conservatives will not take kindly to being publicly listed. So they will be exempted. So firms that don't contribute will balance the threat of being named against funding he Conservatives.

On a lighter note if Farage only employs his wife then his staff is 100% non British EU.
I don't think I was crowing, just interpreting facts and the facts of that poll show that most Scots are in favour of companies having these lists.

Much as you try to wriggle away from this fact, the poll still stands, much to my disappointment I have to say as I really thought we didn't think that way.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure I really follow it as the majority of it has nothing to do with the Poll.
Black Sheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 21:44
Black Sheep
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13,468
In other words it's just another dog whistle to keep the conference crowd happy, whilst at the same time damaging inward investment in Scotland. Btw Brexit has helped that, but no point in making it worse...
I think your right there, its meant to keep those new followers on the leash as I'm sure the SNP leadership are concerned about a split in the Party if they don't promise something.
Black Sheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 21:44
Jim_McIntosh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
Consultation, and results released next week. My guess is a proviso - unless we end up with these EU conditions retained (i.e. soft Brexit) then we will seek to put forward an independence referendum thereafter and probably conditional on them being voted in again with that on their manifesto. My guess. Anyone else hazard a guess?
Jim_McIntosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 21:48
CoolSharpHarp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,003
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...dence-legality

Various legal opinions. The gist of which is that a carefully worded referendum question would allow Holyrood to negotiate for independence rather than legislate it. Cameron folded last time rather than put it to a legal test. One thing that would be sure to arise if it were to be challenged is the jurisdiction which would clearly be within Scotland. So any arguments based on Westminster being sovereign would fail due to precedent saying that's a peculiarity of English Law an not a concept in Scots. In Scotland the people are sovereign and only by representing us do Westminster and Holyrood have any claim to sovereignty. In England a similar situation is recognised as the basis of the various Parliament Acts.
So what you meant is holding referenda might be within the competence of Holyrood... I've seen disputing legal opinion.
CoolSharpHarp is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40.