When will indyref2 happen?

[dirty dingus]

1 hour ago, itzdrk said:

Nobody even knows who they are when they do come on spouting their twee uj waving pish

They are the same c***s that get paid for sending loads o letters to the papers. They pop up for a month with thousands of tweets see BritishAlba then appear a week later as TrueScot or some other pish.

 

[SandyCromarty]

That total dollsheed Oliver Mundell on GMS bleating on about how bad the SNP have been over the last 13 years, the tories new attack policy, and how really bad they have been to talk about Independence during a pandemic.

Gary Robertson - 'So it's not right for the SNP to talk about Independence during a pandemic but OK for the UK government to discuss negotiations on Brexit during a pandemic.

Muttonheed Mundell - 'Well we couldn't delay Brexit so we have to enter discussions............................................................................................

A chip off the old daft block.

Of course Brexit should have been delayed so as to concentrate all gov resources on the Pandemic.

Edited November 18, 2020 by SandyCromarty

[Ad Lib]

On 15/11/2020 at 18:42, welshbairn said:

Maybe @Ad Lib could comment on the thoroughness and neutrality of this opinion commissioned before the 2014 referendum?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf

Two of the most pre-eminent public international law experts on the planet. As a matter of law, and of the starting point, their opinion was spot on.

The political inferences people drew from that, including those of the Government that commissioned the opinion, are of course entirely those of those drawing them.

[Ad Lib]

On 16/11/2020 at 06:27, GordonS said:

On 15/11/2020 at 11:19, strichener said:

You hear it from Unionist all the time unless you have your head firmly stuck in the sand.  The Scottish Parliament is not legally competent to hold a constitutional referendum which is why the Edinburgh Agreement exists.  It also wasn't a throw-away comment, it was a position adopted by the SNP to, as you say, get across to people the importance and rarity of the opportunity.  What we can't do now is throw our hands up in the air and say it doesn't matter.  It clearly does as this together with "now is not the time" is the battlecry from Unionists and whilst others on here may be in favour of proceeding without an Agreement with Westminster there is no way that this would be accepted by the International Community.

There's nothing in the Scotland Act that explicitly rules out a purely consultative referendum on a reserved matter.

But the Scotland Act doesn’t say “everything is devolved unless it is explicitly reserved”. Things can be reserved by necessary implication. The rule is that an Act of the Scottish Parliament “is not law” so far as it “relates to” reserved matters. When determining whether something “relates to” reserved matters a court must “have regard to its purpose” and take into account “its effects in all the circumstances”.

Most of the judicial treatment of the meaning of “purpose” has been unfavourable to the argument made back in 2011-12 on this: especially the Imperial Tobacco cases in 2012 and 2013. Even those who say a consultative referendum wouldn’t “relate to” the reserved matter of “the Union of the Kingdoms” (among others) acknowledge the position is not clear cut.

When you add to that that Lords Reed and Hodge, both of whom would sit on any Supreme Court case challenging the legality of a Bill or Act are fairly conservative judges on matters of Scotland Act interpretation, and that Lord Kerr has retired and won’t be on any panel, the safe money would be on the Cherry “Plan B” being unsuccessful and the legislation forma referendum being struck down.

On 16/11/2020 at 06:27, GordonS said:

There is some precedent for this, when Strathclyde Regional Council held a referendum on water privatisation - the Tories challenged their competence to do this and lost.

This is completely irrelevant as a precedent. Strathclyde Regional Council had the legal power, in the early 1990s, to consult service users about service provision, which is what the referendum was about. Its powers came from the legislation underpinning local government.

That bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to the powers of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998.

On 16/11/2020 at 06:27, GordonS said:

It'll be for a court to decide, and no-one can say with any certainty what way that would go. On cases about competence so far, the Supreme Court has lent heavily in favour of devolution.

This isn’t true. The judgments of the Supreme Court, and its predecessor bodies, on devolution present a very mixed picture.

I could point to Salvesen v Riddell and Christian Institute v Lord Advocate where Scottish Acts have been struck down.

I could point to the fact that one part of the Continuity Bill was struck down for reasons unrelated to bad faith timing by the UK Government.

I could point to the narrow readings of “purpose” in both Imperial Tobacco v Scottish Ministers and Martin and Miller v HM Advocate.

The position is far from open and shut on an independence referendum legislated for by Holyrood without a “section 30 of comfort”, but the cards are stacked against it.

This leaves aside whether it’s wise to go down that route in the absence of a UK Government committing to respect and seek to implement the outcome.

[GordonS]

22 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

But the Scotland Act doesn’t say “everything is devolved unless it is explicitly reserved”.

It does. That's what s.29 is for.

Everything that's not reserved is automatically devolved.

[John Lambies Doos]

Oof, this thread is beginning to look like it belongs in a real politics forum

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

2 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Oof, this thread is beginning to look like it belongs in a real politics forum

If the BBC had any credibility it would replace Question Time with a live video feed of this thread.

[Ad Lib]

12 minutes ago, GordonS said:

It does. That's what s.29 is for.

Everything that's not reserved is automatically devolved.

I said “explicitly reserved” not “reserved” for a reason. The inclusion of the word “explicitly” was in your original post.

My point is that there are also things that are reserved by “necessary implication”.

If you don’t understand why the words “explicitly” and “by necessary implication” are important in statutory construction you probably shouldn’t be trying to lecture people about what is and isn’t within devolved competence.

 

[The_Kincardine]

7 minutes ago, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) said:

If the BBC had any credibility it would replace Question Time with a live video feed of this thread.

Nippy's daily HawHaw is enough propaganda.

[Antlion]

9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Nippy's daily HawHaw is enough propaganda.

Yes, you prefer your propaganda to come from far-right neo-Nazis on Twitter. Shame your favourite ones keep getting banned for being dirty b*****ds.

[GordonS]

14 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I said “explicitly reserved” not “reserved” for a reason. The inclusion of the word “explicitly” was in your original post.

My point is that there are also things that are reserved by “necessary implication”.

If you don’t understand why the words “explicitly” and “by necessary implication” are important in statutory construction you probably shouldn’t be trying to lecture people about what is and isn’t within devolved competence.

 

It is explicit. That's the purpose of the section and the basis of devolution, and everyone knows it. It's not subtle or implied, it's the obvious point of that section.

I'm going back to watching the football now but there was other stuff in your post that was... interesting. Listing literally all three of the cases in which primary legislation was overturned since devolution as though it was merely a sample was a smooth move.

And the tobacco thing... SG won those cases.

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Yes, you prefer your propaganda to come from far-right neo-Nazis on Twitter. Shame your favourite ones keep getting banned for being dirty b*****ds.

100-1 you'd pitch up to QT in a Neil Lennon onesie and a balaclava.

[Antlion]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

100-1 you'd pitch up to QT in a Neil Lennon onesie and a balaclava.

When we all know the only balaclavas you like are the ones wrapped around skinheads as they hurl bricks through shop windows because f**k them dirty foreign b*****ds innit.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

If you always do what you’ve always done, then you’ll always get what you’ve always had. 
The UK is not working for Scotland, what we had pre devolution didnt work for Scotland, the Scottish Parliament with limited influence, it isnt working. Its staggering that the only thing we have to show for decades of oil production is food banks, poverty and scraps off a table. How can anyone honestly tell us that things getting progressively worse is good for us? How can you argue the union works for a country that for the last 50 years has voted one way and mostly had governments from the exact opposite side of the spectrum? 
At a time where Scotland wants to be more integrated internationally, why is it better for us to join the far right’s isolationist exceptionalism? 
If i look at the opportunities presented to me as a kid, teenager, student, worker, and then ask, does my wee boy have those same opportunities, well if the answer is no, then why are we better together? 

[The_Kincardine]

9 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

If i look at the opportunities presented to me as a kid, teenager, student, worker, and then ask, does my wee boy have those same opportunities, well if the answer is no, then why are we better together? 

Absolutely on the money here, mate.  

When I went to Uni (in London) in 1981 I had a full grant with London allowance as i'd worked for four years since leaving school.  That was when Scotland was an outward-looking country, mind..

The xenophobic Natter government has no such enlightened policy as it positively hates anything south of the Tweed despite being feather bedded by we SE England  taxpayers. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by The_Kincardine

[Tutankhamen]

12 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Absolutely on the money here, mate.  

When I went to Uni (in London) in 1981 I had a full grant with London allowance as i'd worked for four years since leaving school.  That was when Scotland was an outward-looking country, mind..

The xenophobic Natter government has no such enlightened policy as it positively hates anything south of the Tweed despite being feather bedded by we SE England  taxpayers. 

 

12 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Absolutely on the money here, mate.  

When I went to Uni (in London) in 1981 I had a full grant with London allowance as i'd worked for four years since leaving school.  That was when Scotland was an outward-looking country, mind..

The xenophobic Natter government has no such enlightened policy as it positively hates anything south of the Tweed despite being feather bedded by we SE England  taxpayers. 

I'm alright Jack ex pat boomer tells the natives to suck it up.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

13 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Absolutely on the money here, mate.  

When I went to Uni (in London) in 1981 I had a full grant with London allowance as i'd worked for four years since leaving school.  That was when Scotland was an outward-looking country, mind..

The xenophobic Natter government has no such enlightened policy as it positively hates anything south of the Tweed despite being feather bedded by we SE England  taxpayers. 

you are on really really really really shakey ground trying to attack Scotland/the SNP specifically in relation to student funding

https://theferret.scot/sturgeon-snp-scrapped-tuition-fees/

[The_Kincardine]

29 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

you are on really really really really shakey ground trying to attack Scotland/the SNP specifically in relation to student funding

https://theferret.scot/sturgeon-snp-scrapped-tuition-fees/

Indeed not.  I am very well aware of all of the implications of student funding.

The main point is that Natterism hates people studying outside of Scotland and has put measures in place to reduce this.

This is entirely consistent with Scotland becoming a pathetic monocultural backwater.  Shame on you.

[ICTJohnboy]

8 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Indeed not.  I am very well aware of all of the implications of student funding.

The main point is that Natterism hates people studying outside of Scotland and has put measures in place to reduce this.

This is entirely consistent with Scotland becoming a pathetic monocultural backwater.  Shame on you.

 

Yeah,  that's why we were so pleased that Brexit will now make it more difficult for anyone planning to study elsewhere in Europe. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

13 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Indeed not.  I am very well aware of all of the implications of student funding.

The main point is that Natterism hates people studying outside of Scotland and has put measures in place to reduce this.

This is entirely consistent with Scotland becoming a pathetic monocultural backwater.  Shame on you.

Yes, twas ‘natterism’ that fucked access to erasmus! ?