Scotland's leader tells Johnson: we want an independence referendum

[cleopatra2]

23 minutes ago, aright said:

I am not a lawyer but if memory serves with the exception of human rights issues yes as does the links I have provided. The water is a little muddy but at best I think it runs parallel with the UK Supreme Court...….I don't want that either. I want our laws enacted and voted in by our elected representatives in Westminster and for the UK Supreme Court to be "supreme"

"Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group found that the UK has been defeated in 101 out of 131 legal actions taken to the European Court of Justice over the last 40 years. 

Rulings against the UK Government included prolonging a ban on world-wide export of British beef and scrapping a cut in beer duty. 

The failure rate of 77.1 per cent for Britain in the Luxembourg-based court was last night being seen as fresh evidence of the urgent need for country to quit the EU." 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648899/Britain-loses-most-cases-taken-to-European-Court-EU-referendum-Vote-Leave-Gove

 

National courts refer questions to the ECJ on matters of EU law.

It is then the responsibity of the national court to take the intepratation along with the facts of the case to reach a judgement.

 

Possibly you are being confused with the ECJ role in deciding cases over the EU institutions.

This is not really different to any other international arbitration system

[aright]

40 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Please don’t quote the Express or the Vote Leave campaign when trying to back up your statements. They are hardly neutral. 

I already showed you this in previous post that showed the U.K. did very well in its cases with most of them being thrown out before they got to Europe and when they did go to the ECJ they won more than any other country. They lost mostly in environmental cases. My figures where from government stats NOT partisan sources. 

Thanks but I really don't need your advice on who to quote to substantiate an argument; you can accept or reject I am not interested in how well the UK did against the ECJ in some cases, outside the EU we would do well in all cases because proposed legislation is voted on by our democratically elected representatives. 

Let me ask you a question. 

Why do you find it preferable to have our laws enacted by unelected bureaucrats and decided by a diverse set of MEP foreign cultures in Brussels where we have only 10% of the vote rather than by a democratically elected Westminster with a single culture and 100% of the vote?      

[aright]

39 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

National courts refer questions to the ECJ on matters of EU law.

It is then the responsibity of the national court to take the intepratation along with the facts of the case to reach a judgement.

 

Possibly you are being confused with the ECJ role in deciding cases over the EU institutions.

This is not really different to any other international arbitration system

Thanks for your measured reply.

Can I refer you to the same question I asked johnnybangkok in my last post to him.

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, aright said:

Thanks for your measured reply.

Can I refer you to the same question I asked johnnybangkok in my last post to him.

Your question is valid

In any cross border trading relationship there will be laws passed without peoples consent.

 

 

[billd766]

On 7/26/2019 at 1:59 PM, johnnybangkok said:

There's nothing arrogant with what I have said. It's just fact; England doesn't own the pound nor the armed forces. Only a nation state should be given the chance to vote regarding the state of it's nation and Scotland is well aware of the financials if it leaves the UK.

And we know all about arrogant, hypocritical (correct spelling please note) bigots who want to boss everyone else around. Scotland is attached to England after all.  

quote from your post "England doesn't own the pound nor the armed forces."

 

Why is it then that the Pound is called the GBP or the Pound Sterling and that the Scottish Pound is not accepted as a world currency and is not normally accepted by the rest of the world?

 

Are you aware that every UK servicemen and women get an extra allowance for serving in Scotland?

 

The reason for that is that although they pay normal UK income tax they are also taxed again in Scotland. That of course includes Scottish military personnel too.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44877483

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-47720303

 

Now what was it you were saying about the military belonging to the whole of the UK?

[billd766]

On 7/28/2019 at 2:48 PM, Mansell said:

If Scotland is part of the EU it could use the Euro....simple.

Assuming that it qualifies under the EU financial regulations.

 

A little light bedtime reading for you.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/modern-and-simpler-new-eu-financial-rules-take-effect-today-2018-aou-02_en

 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e9488da5-d66f-11e8-9424-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-86606884

 

http://eurodad.org/uploadedfiles/whats_new/reports/eumapping_financial_regulation_final.pdf

 

https://media2.mofo.com/documents/190300-european-financial-regulatory-developments.pdf

 

https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/2080872/the-banking-regulation-review-european-union-chapter.pdf

[RuamRudy]

quote from your post "England doesn't own the pound nor the armed forces."
 
Why is it then that the Pound is called the GBP or the Pound Sterling and that the Scottish Pound is not accepted as a world currency and is not normally accepted by the rest of the world?
 
Are you aware that every UK servicemen and women get an extra allowance for serving in Scotland?
 
The reason for that is that although they pay normal UK income tax they are also taxed again in Scotland. That of course includes Scottish military personnel too.
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44877483
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-47720303
 
Now what was it you were saying about the military belonging to the whole of the UK?

Aside from the fact that the links you post show that you either never read them or are simply misrepresenting them, what does the SG's tax variance powers have to do with the allocation of military resources once we leave the union?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[johnnybangkok]

15 hours ago, aright said:

Thanks but I really don't need your advice on who to quote to substantiate an argument; you can accept or reject I am not interested in how well the UK did against the ECJ in some cases, outside the EU we would do well in all cases because proposed legislation is voted on by our democratically elected representatives. 

Let me ask you a question. 

Why do you find it preferable to have our laws enacted by unelected bureaucrats and decided by a diverse set of MEP foreign cultures in Brussels where we have only 10% of the vote rather than by a democratically elected Westminster with a single culture and 100% of the vote?      

My apologies if you are offended about who to quote. I was simply stating that more neutral sources fit this argument better. 

As far as you other question the answer is Simple. I don’t see the vested interest you are so desperate to claim and see more vested interest from a Tory government (as I would all parties) that can enact laws according to wealth and business and who cater to their base rather than the good of the common man.

I have a question for you. Tell me exactly what laws the EU have enacted say in the last 15 years that you particularly don’t like? 5 will do. 

 

[johnnybangkok]

Here is a particular good example of what I am talking about that came out today. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pollution-no-river-in-england-is-safe-for-swimming-q8thdx678

Under EU rules, none of this would happen, but when left to its own devices, the current U.K. government let water companies off with punitive fines and slaps on the wrist because big business takes precedent over the good of the general population. 

But back to you. Name 5 EU laws in the last 15 years that you think are particularly egregious. 

[aright]

6 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

My apologies if you are offended about who to quote. I was simply stating that more neutral sources fit this argument better. 

As far as you other question the answer is Simple. I don’t see the vested interest you are so desperate to claim and see more vested interest from a Tory government (as I would all parties) that can enact laws according to wealth and business and who cater to their base rather than the good of the common man.

I have a question for you. Tell me exactly what laws the EU have enacted say in the last 15 years that you particularly don’t like? 5 will do. 

 

 

 

Firstly the Express link I gave was in part a quotation from Dominic Raab not an Express opinion

Tory justice minister Dominic Raab said:

"The EU has a long-track record of shifting the goal-posts. Britain thinks it is signed up for one thing, only to find something very different imposed on us. In 40 years, we've lost three-quarters of cases at the Luxembourg Court, when we've tried to resist these incursions. They affect everything from the price of beer to the cost of home insulation, and undermine basic principle of our democracy - that the British people can hold to account those who write the laws of the land."

 

As for finding neutral opinions on anything political……..good luck with that.  

 

I can’t see your so called simple answer to my question beyond a Tory plug and a desperate attempt to obfuscate. You have made no attempt to explain why living under EU/ECJ rules is preferable to living under Westminster rules from your perspective.. To put it another way what specific benefits do you see from living under EU/ECJ rules that you wouldn’t get from Westminster rules ? This question still needs to be answered.

 

As for your question also name 5 EU laws in the last 15 years that you think are particularly egregious. 

The EU have passed no laws or done anything of any significance in the last 15 years that have affected me personally. However you should be aware that I voted in the referendum based on what was best for my country’s future not the past, the now or next year but long term. For the future I have no desire to be part of a superstate which increasingly forces it's federal agenda on all member states. I have no desire to be a minority part of an outside community which wants flags, anthems and an army...…...I have those at home in an independent, sovereign, country run by an elected government.

 

I have answered your question directly; I hope you will answer mine in the same way. 

 

[Desmondo69]

On 7/26/2019 at 12:02 AM, Slip said:

Guid.  I want my Scots passport.  You English can get tae... 

 

On 7/26/2019 at 12:09 AM, elliss said:

 

Ach ay man , asap.. 555

 

 

 

Me tae, raped pillaged and looted by sassenachs for centuries... enough!, 

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, aright said:

 

 

Firstly the Express link I gave was in part a quotation from Dominic Raab not an Express opinion

Tory justice minister Dominic Raab said:

"The EU has a long-track record of shifting the goal-posts. Britain thinks it is signed up for one thing, only to find something very different imposed on us. In 40 years, we've lost three-quarters of cases at the Luxembourg Court, when we've tried to resist these incursions. They affect everything from the price of beer to the cost of home insulation, and undermine basic principle of our democracy - that the British people can hold to account those who write the laws of the land."

 

As for finding neutral opinions on anything political……..good luck with that.  

 

I can’t see your so called simple answer to my question beyond a Tory plug and a desperate attempt to obfuscate. You have made no attempt to explain why living under EU/ECJ rules is preferable to living under Westminster rules from your perspective.. To put it another way what specific benefits do you see from living under EU/ECJ rules that you wouldn’t get from Westminster rules ? This question still needs to be answered.

 

As for your question also name 5 EU laws in the last 15 years that you think are particularly egregious. 

The EU have passed no laws or done anything of any significance in the last 15 years that have affected me personally. However you should be aware that I voted in the referendum based on what was best for my country’s future not the past, the now or next year but long term. For the future I have no desire to be part of a superstate which increasingly forces it's federal agenda on all member states. I have no desire to be a minority part of an outside community which wants flags, anthems and an army...…...I have those at home in an independent, sovereign, country run by an elected government.

 

I have answered your question directly; I hope you will answer mine in the same way. 

 

The TUPE regulations have played a major part ìn some peoples lives

[aright]

26 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The TUPE regulations have played a major part ìn some peoples lives

I only know TUPE from some info I got from ACAS a few years ago and have always thought of it as part of UK law. Was it a UK or EU initiative? I don't know but as you say makes sense.

[cleopatra2]

7 minutes ago, aright said:

I only know TUPE from some info I got from ACAS a few years ago and have always thought of it as part of UK law. Was it a UK or EU initiative? I don't know but as you say makes sense.

It came about from the Acquired rights directive in 1981 

As been revised a number of times.

 

 

I am unsure what if anything the UK had prior to its inception.

Edited August 3, 2019 by cleopatra2

[soalbundy]

The Scots want their country back, Bojo doesn't understand it.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The Scots want their country back, Bojo doesn't understand it.

It seems you are the one that doesn't understand, most Scots still want to remain within the UK, it is only the SNP that are wanting to leave. The SNP are not so much Scottish Nationalists but it would be nearer the mark to call them Scottish EU Nationalists.

[dimitriv]

4 hours ago, aright said:

The EU have passed no laws or done anything of any significance in the last 15 years that have affected me personally. However you should be aware that I voted in the referendum based on what was best for my country’s future not the past

 

In the last 15 years nothing happened. What makes you think that this will be different in the future ?  These are no more than feelings and assumptions that cannot be substantiated in any way.

 

About the future: In The Netherlands they expect 70.000 people to lose their jobs as a result of the Brexit. The predictions are that 500.000 people in the UK will lose their job. This is without a deal.  If there is a Brexit with a deal these numbers will be about 10%, so 7000 people here will lose their job in NL, and about 50.000 people in the UK.  Do you really think that this is good for your future ?

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by dimitriv

[elliss]

1 hour ago, Victornoir said:

Maybe the Scots are tired of being led by the unelected Westminster technocrats.

 

 Ach ay man ,  gtf , asap.  

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

It seems you are the one that doesn't understand, most Scots still want to remain within the UK, it is only the SNP that are wanting to leave. The SNP are not so much Scottish Nationalists but it would be nearer the mark to call them Scottish EU Nationalists.

don't be so serious, there was an element of humour in my post.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

don't be so serious, there was an element of humour in my post.

Just in case you have another attempt at humour, how can I tell.????????????

[evadgib]

12 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Here is a particular good example of what I am talking about that came out today. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pollution-no-river-in-england-is-safe-for-swimming-q8thdx678

Under EU rules, none of this would happen, but when left to its own devices, the current U.K. government let water companies off with punitive fines and slaps on the wrist because big business takes precedent over the good of the general population. 

But back to you. Name 5 EU laws in the last 15 years that you think are particularly egregious. 

Letter to The Times from Emma Howard Boyd, Chair of Environment Agency

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by evadgib

[aright]

1 hour ago, dimitriv said:

 

In the last 15 years nothing happened. What makes you think that this will be different in the future ?  These are no more than feelings and assumptions that cannot be substantiated in any way.

 

About the future: In The Netherlands they expect 70.000 people to lose their jobs as a result of the Brexit. The predictions are that 500.000 people in the UK will lose their job. This is without a deal.  If there is a Brexit with a deal these numbers will be about 10%, so 7000 people here will lose their job in NL, and about 50.000 people in the UK.  Do you really think that this is good for your future ?

 

 

 

 

I think the figures you quote are potential job losses in the event of a hard brexit . As you said in your first paragraph feelings and assumptions that cannot be substantiated in any way. You also have to realise that many leavers, like myself, voted for other than economic reasons.

 

Why do you want to blame the UK for euro wide job losses. What you don’t mention is if this were to come about, the EU are complicit.

 

Job losses are not in the interests of anyone but minimizing them is easily fixed; the EU just needs to negotiate a deal in good faith which protects jobs and the integrity of both parties which it has failed to do so to date. I will leave you to guess why they haven't.

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

It seems you are the one that doesn't understand, most Scots still want to remain within the UK, it is only the SNP that are wanting to leave. The SNP are not so much Scottish Nationalists but it would be nearer the mark to call them Scottish EU Nationalists.

One step at a time - Brexit will see us all out of the EU; independence will see us free of the UK. At that point, Scots can vote for the direction their country should take. 

[Jip99]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

One step at a time - Brexit will see us all out of the EU; independence will see us free of the UK. At that point, Scots can vote for the direction their country should take. 

 

 

Agree with that.

 

That being so obvious, you would think Scotland would vote for Brexit as a stepping stone to being an independent member of the EU.

 

If I was BJ, that would be my trade off - support Brexit and you can have a referendum........... otherwise just fork off and don’t waste my  time because I will never allow another referendum.

[aright]

16 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

One step at a time - Brexit will see us all out of the EU; independence will see us free of the UK. At that point, Scots can vote for the direction their country should take. 

And that's as it should be.

Once out of the UK can you tell us what additional benefits you will get by joining the EU that you wouldn't have as an independent nation?

[evadgib]

8 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

Agree with that.

 

That being so obvious, you would think Scotland would vote for Brexit as a stepping stone to being an independent member of the EU.

 

If I was BJ, that would be my trade off - support Brexit and you can have a referendum........... otherwise just fork off and don’t waste my  time because I will never allow another referendum.

Once we leave the EU and start to flourish (bucking the trend of project fear) I foresee any threat from SNP diminishing.

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Agree with that.

 

That being so obvious, you would think Scotland would vote for Brexit as a stepping stone to being an independent member of the EU.

 

If I was BJ, that would be my trade off - support Brexit and you can have a referendum........... otherwise just fork off and don’t waste my  time because I will never allow another referendum.

I think the worst possible thing the SNP could possibly do would be to get into bed with the Tories at this point. But would it make sense tactically? The government is now down to a majority of 1 and latest polls show that if, as expected, the PM calls a general election in the next few months, the SNP in Scotland will repeat their 2015 near whitewash (predicted to win 53 of the 65 seats). The continued denial of a mandate becomes a rallying call itself. 

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Once we leave the EU and start to flourish (bucking the trend of project fear) I foresee any threat from SNP diminishing.

I think that, for many Scots, the democratic deficit within the UK is as important as Brexit when considering independence. Remember, 45% wanted to leave the UK before most had ever considered Brexit a credible prospect. The subsequent 3 years of Westminster incompetence won't have done much to endear much of the 55% to the UK either. 

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I think that, for many Scots, the democratic deficit within the UK is as important as Brexit when considering independence. Remember, 45% wanted to leave the UK before most had ever considered Brexit a credible prospect. The subsequent 3 years of Westminster incompetence won't have done much to endear much of the 55% to the UK either. 

3 years of incompetence by Westminster has still not convinced the Scots to abandon their place in the UK, so it would be fair to say, if that doesn't put them off, nothing will.

[soalbundy]

11 hours ago, vogie said:

Just in case you have another attempt at humour, how can I tell.????????????

Nothing is so dreadfully important, especially my posts.