Will Scotland Leave the UK?

[jfman]

You can repeat it as you please - it's an opinion not anything of legal standing.

It's your preference for it to not happen, as I'd expect from English nationalists but your opinion has equal legal weight to SNP mouthpieces speaking then. None.

Originally Posted by jfman

You can repeat it as you please - it's an opinion not anything of legal standing.

It's your preference for it to not happen, as I'd expect from English nationalists but your opinion has equal legal weight to SNP mouthpieces speaking then. None.

And you may repeat “nothing of legal standing” as you please - it is a piece of misdirection regardless of how often it is repeated.

The very practice of holding referendums in our constitution can only ever be advisory in nature. Everything about the way they are conducted is built on a shared understanding of what the outcome of the vote will be. The most the Edinburgh Declaration could say was that both sides would recognise the result as definitive. It was clear afterwards, from comments made by both SNP signatories to that agreement, what they considered definitive to be. Without caveat, this was “once in a generation, if not once in a lifetime.” We therefore all voted on the understanding that we had better do so thoughtfully because it was a one-off.

Nationalists are of course free in our democracy to go on arguing that black is white but that doesn’t alter the government’s absolutely reasonable decision to point out that 2014 produced a definitive result which it intends to respect. Sturgeon is of course free to go on publishing pie in the sky plans to do this that and the other, but she has publicly and repeatedly accepted the real constitutional position and knows she can’t pull off a referendum anyone outside the nationalist movement will take seriously without transfer of powers from this country’s only sovereign parliament.

Sturgeon’s primary objective is to appear sufficiently engaged with the indyref proposition so as not to be dismissed from party leadership by her own hardliners. But she knows that the real prize is not to hold a publicity stunt vote, but to win a legally watertight referendum.

Originally Posted by jfman

You can repeat it as you please - it's an opinion not anything of legal standing.

It's your preference for it to not happen, as I'd expect from English nationalists but your opinion has equal legal weight to SNP mouthpieces speaking then. None.

Oh thank you, for giving me the permission to repeat it as I please, so just to confirm, I’ve got permission from you, on my own property to do something. Gee thanks for granting me this right.

But just to correct you. It’s not my preference for it not to happen. But the Scottish people themselves, who voted in 2014, in a once in a generation referendum.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

Oh thank you, for giving me the permission to repeat it as I please, so just to confirm, I’ve got permission from you, on my own property to do something. Gee thanks for granting me this right.

But just to correct you. It’s not my preference for it not to happen. But the Scottish people themselves, who voted in 2014, in a once in a generation referendum.

I was referring to holding a referendum, not independence itself. The will of the Scottish people can only be measured in Scottish Parliamentary elections and from who they send to Westminster as MPs.

I know it’s quite rare on Cable Forum but we could just move past this point noting that we will never agree on it?

If the SNP win a majority and London reject an independence referendum I’ll hold my hands up on that point. It’s here in black and white that it’s my guess.

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

And you may repeat “nothing of legal standing” as you please - it is a piece of misdirection regardless of how often it is repeated.

The very practice of holding referendums in our constitution can only ever be advisory in nature. Everything about the way they are conducted is built on a shared understanding of what the outcome of the vote will be. The most the Edinburgh Declaration could say was that both sides would recognise the result as definitive. It was clear afterwards, from comments made by both SNP signatories to that agreement, what they considered definitive to be. Without caveat, this was “once in a generation, if not once in a lifetime.” We therefore all voted on the understanding that we had better do so thoughtfully because it was a one-off.

Nationalists are of course free in our democracy to go on arguing that black is white but that doesn’t alter the government’s absolutely reasonable decision to point out that 2014 produced a definitive result which it intends to respect. Sturgeon is of course free to go on publishing pie in the sky plans to do this that and the other, but she has publicly and repeatedly accepted the real constitutional position and knows she can’t pull off a referendum anyone outside the nationalist movement will take seriously without transfer of powers from this country’s only sovereign parliament.

Sturgeon’s primary objective is to appear sufficiently engaged with the indyref proposition so as not to be dismissed from party leadership by her own hardliners. But she knows that the real prize is not to hold a publicity stunt vote, but to win a legally watertight referendum.

It’s not misdirection. It’s politically unsustainable to reject a referendum and the UK Government know that. It would simply be saving up problems for when a legally watertight referendum does take place.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

So who are we to believe: James Hamilton, who may have been "got at", or a full committee formed from all political persuasions?

The Greens will cosy up to the Nats to defeat a vote of no confidence but the stench will continue.

The committee doesn't actually contradict the report as far as I can see.

Hamilton said he accepted that Sturgeon did not knowingly mislead Parliament and left the question on if they were misled at all to Parliament itself. Crucially this meant he found she did not break the Ministerial Code because it specifies you need to knowingly mislead Parliament to break it.

The committee found she did mislead Parliament but not knowingly.

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s not misdirection. It’s politically unsustainable to reject a referendum and the UK Government know that. It would simply be saving up problems for when a legally watertight referendum does take place.

This is an assertion that will be tested soon enough.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

This is an assertion that will be tested soon enough.

I admire your optimism that our politicians won’t get a good few years of arguing about it. Legislation, threatening court proceedings, strongly worded letters

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I admire your optimism that our politicians won’t get a good few years of arguing about it. Legislation, threatening court proceedings, strongly worded letters

You forgot resignations, political ship jumping, appeal courts etc

[papa smurf]

The Alba party

Alex Salmond becomes leader of new pro-independence Alba Party
Scotland's former first minister Alex Salmond has re-entered frontline politics to become the new leader of the pro-independence Alba Party.

The party was registered with the Electoral Commission in January by retired TV producer Laurie Flynn, who is making way for Mr Salmond.

Alba Party will have candidates in the Scottish Parliament elections on 6 May.

Mr Salmond said in a statement: "Today I'm announcing the public launch of a new political force, the Alba Party.
https://news.sky.com/story/alex-salm...party-12257381

[Sephiroth]

Break out the popcorn.

[jfman]

A "list-only" party. Could get messy.

[1andrew1]

I genuinely misread it as ""Today I'm announcing the public launch of a new political farce, the Alba Party." and am now chuckling at the aptness of this.

[jfman]

What I will add though, is that if the UK Government decide that pro-independence parties 'gamed' the system to put more pro-independence MSPs into the Scottish Parliament it could be politically sustainable grounds to reject another referendum.

Salmond is talking about 90+ seats. While theoretically possible, getting such an absurd amount on say 49% of the vote would erode any such mandate. The SNP/Greens have always had the potential for such an anomaly but I don't think anyone can accuse either party of meaningfully acting against the spirit of the system. Salmond is.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

The Alba party

Alex Salmond becomes leader of new pro-independence Alba Party
Scotland's former first minister Alex Salmond has re-entered frontline politics to become the new leader of the pro-independence Alba Party.

The party was registered with the Electoral Commission in January by retired TV producer Laurie Flynn, who is making way for Mr Salmond.

Alba Party will have candidates in the Scottish Parliament elections on 6 May.

Mr Salmond said in a statement: "Today I'm announcing the public launch of a new political force, the Alba Party.
https://news.sky.com/story/alex-salm...party-12257381

The BBC Alba channel is going to have to change its name !
Predict some deposits will be lost for some fat blokes ego.

[papa smurf]

i wish someone had posted a picture of sturgeon's face when he announced this.