H_B Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 You mean when Westminster ganged up on the SNP, were perceived to be bullying them and in fact no one believed them when they said it anyway. I mean when the SNP's arrogance in telling people what another sovereign nation would do because they were telling them they would do came back to haunt them when the representatives of that sovereign nation made it clear they wouldn't be dictated to by a foreign government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Basically admitting that their only interest is in guaranteeing that the SNP are in power when all the negotiations are happening and that they don't want the pesky Scottish public getting in the way of their controlling how a new Scottish state is set up, even if this means causing problems in the negotiations with the UK government and 28 member-states of the European Union. Exactly. It's grubby politicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 By whom, though? This isn't the policy of the Scottish Government. By Nicola Sturgeon in two STV debates and in the newsnight debate that ended with the dramatic vote on a bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Correct. The SNP could have minimised the force of pretty much every single negative aspect of both the questions about currency and EU membership if they had just said that independence would take place once intergovernmental talks had produced a workable transitional arrangement. They could even have said that they foresee a timetable of 18-24 months for this. Instead, they said, to quote the White Paper: "We will [negotiate] in time for Scotland to become independent on 24th March 2016 and be ready for the first elections to an independent Scottish Parliament in the spring of that year." Basically admitting that their only interest is in guaranteeing that the SNP are in power when all the negotiations are happening and that they don't want the pesky Scottish public getting in the way of their controlling how a new Scottish state is set up, even if this means causing problems in the negotiations with the UK government and 28 member-states of the European Union. Who would you have liked to be in power at this point? Those who fought for years to get there or those who opposed and contested independence all the way? Even you can surely not wish for JoLo to be in charge?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Alex Salmond has said it at least a couple of times. Anyone that thinks it will be solely the SNP at the table is off their head IMO. He has made no commitment to create a multi-party negotiating team to secure the terms of Scottish secession from the UK and secure consent to membership of the European Union. By Nicola Sturgeon in two STV debates and in the newsnight debate that ended with the dramatic vote on a bridge. She didn't say that all of the parties would be part of the negotiating teams in Scottish Government negotiations with either the UK Government or the EU. Who would you have liked to be in power at this point? Those who fought for years to get there or those who opposed and contested independence all the way? Even you can surely not wish for JoLo to be in charge?? I want a multi-party delegation to negotiate on Scotland's behalf after a set of fresh elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 He has made no commitment to create a multi-party negotiating team to secure the terms of Scottish secession from the UK and secure consent to membership of the European Union. She didn't say that all of the parties would be part of the negotiating teams in Scottish Government negotiations with either the UK Government or the EU. I want a multi-party delegation to negotiate on Scotland's behalf after a set of fresh elections. There will be a multi party negotiating team. Salmond has said it. Sturgeon has said it. Do you think it will solely be the SNP on the negotiating team ? Yes or no ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 He has made no commitment to create a multi-party negotiating team to secure the terms of Scottish secession from the UK and secure consent to membership of the European Union. She didn't say that all of the parties would be part of the negotiating teams in Scottish Government negotiations with either the UK Government or the EU. I want a multi-party delegation to negotiate on Scotland's behalf after a set of fresh elections. That will most likely happen, but what your greetin aboot is who will be in power at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 There will be a multi party negotiating team. Salmond has said it. Sturgeon has said it. Do you think it will solely be the SNP on the negotiating team ? Yes or no ? They have not committed to a multi-party Scottish Government negotiating team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 That will most likely happen, but what your greetin aboot is who will be in power at that point. The Scottish Government have made no commitment to a cross-party delegation to negotiate on its behalf. This is all besides the point. I am not "greetin aboot who will be in power at that point". I am pointing out that the only reason the SNP have set such an unnecessarily short transitional period to independence is out of their motivation to control the domestic agenda, including the composition of the negotiating teams, with no regard to the practical consequences such a short time-frame has on the context and nature of those same said negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 They have not committed to a multi-party Scottish Government negotiating team. "The group will “secure expertise from across the political spectrum and beyond, and from Scotland and beyond" What the f**k does across the political spectrum mean then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 "The group will “secure expertise from across the political spectrum and beyond, and from Scotland and beyond" What the f**k does across the political spectrum mean then? It could mean absolutely anybody. It makes no commitment to involve the elected leaders of the other Holyrood Parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 She didn't say that all of the parties would be part of the negotiating teams in Scottish Government negotiations with either the UK Government or the EU. What did she say then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 What did she say then? Not that. And you've failed to provide a quote in which she says that. Because she didn't say it. Committing to include people across the "political spectrum" is not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 What's interesting is this :- Salmond - "I understand that people on the other side of the political debate cannot accept that at the moment, but hope and expect that they will be fully part of the Team Scotland approach once the votes have been cast." "More clearly than anything else, this demonstrates the wish of those of us on the Yes side to move forward in a consensual way once the people have spoken.” Alexander :- " “If Scotland votes to stay with its neighbours, I would urge those who voted Yes to then choose to join us to work together in the task of making devolution work, not proving devolution wrong,” Mr Alexander will say. Based on Salmond's comments it would be astonishing double standards, even by his own dreadfully low threshold, for the SNP not to be part of any post-No devolution framework. Hopefully we avoid a repeat of their toys out of the pram behaviour in the 1990s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Take it Stewart Hosie, Angus Robertson, Peter Wishart etc can claim a seat at the negotiating table on the UK side seeing as they're Westminster MPs? Everyone happy with that arrangement aye? Sounds fair to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Not that. And you've failed to provide a quote in which she says that. Because she didn't say it. Committing to include people across the "political spectrum" is not the same thing. For example, amongst the "Yes" campaign, there are representatives of the Greens, Scottish Socialists etc. You could, if you so wished, have the Yes board negotiate Independence and claim that is covers people across the political spectrum in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Take it Stewart Hosie, Angus Robertson, Peter Wishart etc can claim a seat at the negotiating table on the UK side seeing as they're Westminster MPs? Everyone happy with that arrangement aye? Sounds fair to me. Nope. The HoL Constitutional committee correctly advises against this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Not that. And you've failed to provide a quote in which she says that. Because she didn't say it. Committing to include people across the "political spectrum" is not the same thing. The quickest way to get the No partys on board after a YES vote would be to include them in the negotiations. (it will be a bickerfest). If the SNP where to bring this up now, the NO side would count themselfs out and would then find it very difficult to then take part after the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 They have not committed to a multi-party Scottish Government negotiating team.Yes or no ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Nope. The HoL Constitutional committee correctly advises against this. Why "correctly" in your opinion? They're elected members of the British parliament after all and this has to be cross-party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.