When will indyref2 happen?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The last few pages of this thread are eye-bleedingly awful.

I genuinely thought he couldn't get any worse - but now . . . he'd give Swampy and Reynard a run for their money.

[The_Kincardine]

17 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The last few pages of this thread are eye-bleedingly awful.

I genuinely thought he couldn't get any worse - but now . . . he'd give Swampy and Reynard a run for their money.

There is, though, a substantive point which is that ScotGov hates young ones studying outside of Scotland and also wants border guards at Gretna.

How does it feel being an island within an island?  This is what you small-minded xenophobes are driving Scotland towards.

Just be grateful that we world-affirming unionists are here to save you from yourselves.

[Tutankhamen]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

There is, though, a substantive point which is that ScotGov hates young ones studying outside of Scotland and also wants border guards at Gretna.

How does it feel being an island within an island?  This is what you small-minded xenophobes are driving Scotland towards.

Just be grateful that we world-affirming unionists are here to save you from yourselves.

Much prefer hard-core K than wishy-washy touchy feely K.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

There is, though, a substantive point which is that ScotGov hates young ones studying outside of Scotland and also wants border guards at Gretna.
How does it feel being an island within an island?  This is what you small-minded xenophobes are driving Scotland towards.
Just be grateful that we world-affirming unionists are here to save you from yourselves.

"you xenophobes"?

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

There is, though, a substantive point which is that ScotGov hates young ones studying outside of Scotland and also wants border guards at Gretna.

How does it feel being an island within an island?  This is what you small-minded xenophobes are driving Scotland towards.

Just be grateful that we world-affirming unionists are here to save you from yourselves.

Has nobody told you what's happening on January 1st? It's you insular little Englanders who brought it about, cast off into the Atlantic with no friends in sight.

[The_Kincardine]

17 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

"you xenophobes"?
 

Natterism is all about hating the Inglush Basturds.  You know this.

14 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Has nobody told you what's happening on January 1st? It's you insular little Englanders who brought it about, cast off into the Atlantic with no friends in sight.

Remainer here, mate.  I have said it so often that it astonishes me you can't remember.

But +2 on the whit aboot tally for you.

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

That was when Scotland was an outward-looking country, mind..

Back when Scotland was pro-European mate?

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Tuition fees isn't the issue here.

ScotGov hampering students studying outside of Scotland is.

Yeah? How is the Scottish Government "hampering" students studying in other countries under different governments?

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Remainer here, mate.  I have said it so often that it astonishes me you can't remember.

I do, I thought you must have forgotten when you're accusing "Jocklanders" of being xenophobic bigots. Maybe ask your neighbours and your "Unionist" old friends back home, if you can remember them, how they voted.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I do, I thought you must have forgotten when you're accusing "Jocklanders" of being xenophobic bigots. Maybe ask your neighbours and your "Unionist" old friends back home, if you can remember them, how they voted.

You also remember me drawing parallels between Brexit lovers and the puerile Natters?  The paiir of you, as I have said innumerable times, are two cheeks of the same sorry arse.

You have a lot of respect from me - you've travelled a huge amount and we almost lived together in Clapton.  That you support the politics of the fuckwit astounds me.

[stumobir]

I’ve lurked this forum for years, perfectly happy to sit back and read other people’s opinions on just about anything. Felt the need tonight, for the first time ever, to comment just to say how much this auld, jakie cünt makes my skin crawl.  So blinkered by his own self-loathing that he can’t see how fúcked up and backwards his own hypocritical and contradictory positions are. I’m pretty sure if I met him I’d hate him but instead I just pity that he has such a sad existence, probably rejected by his English buddies and reduced to being the token Jock, apologising for his accent and laughing at the jokes of him being a tightarse and an alchy (at least one is likely to be true), just happy to be there anyway. I bet he even has different voices for different groups of people. Servile, pathetic excuse for a man. 

[Ad Lib]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

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.

The following two sentences don’t mean the same thing:

”Section 29 explicitly provides that unless something is reserved it is devolved”

”Section 29 provides that unless something is explicitly reserved it is devolved”

Indeed if everything that was a reserved matter was “explicit” there would be no need, as section 29 provides, for courts to “have regard to” the “purpose” of a provision or “take into account” its “effects in all the circumstances”.

The very fact that Schedule 5 is litigated and that the answers aren’t always immediately clear is living proof that not all of the things that are reserved are explicitly reserved. Statutory descriptions imply things all the time, and Schedule 5’s reservations (and indeed exceptions) are no, er, exception.

But thanks for playing.

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

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.

Literally the whole point was that you can’t just assess how pro or anti devolved institutions the courts are just by tallying up how many court cases are won or lost. What matters is how significant the points of law are that are settled, and what they say about the broader approach the courts take to interpreting the meaning of the Act.

The striking down of three statutes is also, let’s be clear, not trivial. The Acts in question were all vetted for competence by the Lord Advocate and the Presiding Officer, and will have been shared with the UK Government’s Law Officers before introduction too.

Notice that in the Salvesen and Christian Institute cases the relevant statutory provisions were struck down as a result of litigation initiated by third parties; not the UK Government. If bills that thoroughly vetted run foul of the limits on devolved competence, that suggests the courts are taking more restrictive approaches to devolved competence than is immediately apparent to the Scottish and UK government’s lawyers.

It’s almost as though they’re settling points of law that don’t deal with “explicit” wording, and that actually a great deal of nuance and implication underpin section 29 and the restrictions on devolved competence.

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

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

Yes of course they did, and the UK Government actually intervened in support of their interpretation of the relevant reservations. I know this  because I literally sat in Court 1 while Richard Keen gave his opening argument and I had to be elbowed by a mate to stop snoring because he was so fucking boring.

I was then in another room at the Court with Lord Hope and several other constitutional law students discussing the case at length after the day’s proceedings finished. We spent time with Jim Wallace, the intervening Advocate General, at Dover House, while he explained the rationale for the UK Government’s intervention. I am not in fact an idiot and I do know what happened in Imperial-fucking-Tobacco.

The reason I cite Imperial Tobacco is not because the tobacco lobby won any points of law (they didn’t, and Richard Keen was hilariously unimpressive). It is because of what Lord Hope’s stated legal reasons were for dismissing the appeal and what Lord Reed’s reasons in the Inner House were for dismissing the case some months before.

Although they upheld the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the meaning of the specific reserved matters under discussion, Lord Reed and the Lord President in the Inner House adopted an “ultimate purpose” test. Were such a test to be used for a referendum Act, even if that referendum wasn’t binding, the Scottish Government would immediately be on the back foot.

Moreover, both Lord Reed (in the IH) and Lord Hope (in the Supreme Court) expressed, let’s say, sceptical views as to whether a “generous and purposive”  approach to interpreting the Act was helpful in disputes to do with the meaning of words contained in section 29 and Schedules 4 and 5.

Which is all a very roundabout way of saying you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Statutory interpretation isn’t about keeping score of which litigants win or lose; it’s about judges’ reasons and what they mean for future potential cases. Cove Rangers win more games than Kilmarnock but Kilmarnock are more important in Scottish football.

The landmark cases on the interpretation of section 29 and the general approach to the related Schedules 4 and 5 do not, as you put it “lean heavily in favour of devolution”. They are at best a mixed bag, and applied to a referendum bill they lean in an unfavourable direction on balance.

The Lord Advocate knows this. His poorly concealed private view is that such a Bill would in all probability be ultra vires. One of the major reasons the Scottish Government has danced about so much with its referendum legislation is to avoid putting James Wolffe in the position of having to resign rather than put his name to a devolved competence statement he doesn’t believe in.

It’s also why one or two notable SNP politicians (though not Sturgeon’s wing and not Joanna Cherry herself, to be fair) don’t like him and have been trying to push him out.

[The_Kincardine]

15 minutes ago, stumobir said:

I’ve lurked this forum for years, perfectly happy to sit back and read other people’s opinions on just about anything. Felt the need tonight, for the first time ever, to comment just to say how much this auld, jakie cünt makes my skin crawl.  So blinkered by his own self-loathing that he can’t see how fúcked up and backwards his own hypocritical and contradictory positions are. I’m pretty sure if I met him I’d hate him but instead I just pity that he has such a sad existence, probably rejected by his English buddies and reduced to being the token Jock, apologising for his accent and laughing at the jokes of him being a tightarse and an alchy (at least one is likely to be true), just happy to be there anyway. I bet he even has different voices for different groups of people. Servile, pathetic excuse for a man. 

Your years of lurking haven't helped you any.

You're as thick as pig shit like most of the Nats on here.

Edited November 19, 2020 by The_Kincardine

[welshbairn]

I for one resent this failed Libdem windbag interrupting our traditional late night drunken exchange of abuse with a tldr incontinent deluge of smuggery.

[Ad Lib]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I for one resent this failed Libdem windbag interrupting our traditional late night drunken exchange of abuse with a tldr incontinent deluge of smuggery.

I resent being called a Libdem.

The rest I resemble.

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

I resent being called a Libdem.

The rest I resemble.

You a Tory now?

[stumobir]

19 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Your years of lurking haven't helped you any.

You're as thick as pig shit like most of the Nats on here.

Ok, m8. You continue to make the argument that it’s the ScotGov’s fault that Scottish students aren’t studying in England. But aye, I’m the one thick as pig shit. 
 

The state of you, btw. 

[Ad Lib]

11 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You a Tory now?

For obvious reasons I won’t disclose which political party or parties I am inclined to support in the current climate.

It is sufficient to say that I spoiled my ballot at the last General Election and that how I would vote in any future election would depend on where I was registered to vote at the time.

I am not a member of any political party.

Edit to add: now f**k off you racist windbag.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Ad Lib

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, stumobir said:

Ok, m8. You continue to make the argument that it’s the ScotGov’s fault that Scottish students aren’t studying in England.

Of course it is.

M8.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

For obvious reasons I won’t disclose which political party or parties I am inclined to support in the current climate.

It is sufficient to say that I spoiled my ballot at the last General Election and that how I would vote in any future election would depend on where I was registered to vote at the time.

I am not a member of any political party.

Were both of your parents kirk ministers or was that a similar pompous wee fanny on here?