Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland's ex-first minister in custody after being arrested in connection with SNP investigation

[Wobblybob]

43 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Scotland don't have a Prime Minister and never will.

Prime suspect, yes.

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

It means that Scotland has/will remain in the UK!

 

 

 

 

And why is that so important to you?

[Wobblybob]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

And why is that so important to you?

Maybe he believes in democracy, the majority of Scotland wish to remain within the Union and it is not for the Nationalists to dictate to the majority. You do know the meaning of democracy?

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

And why is that so important to you?

So, an independent Scotland would have a PM?. 

 

I would have thought they'd want a President.

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So, an independent Scotland would have a PM?. 

 

I would have thought they'd want a President.

I would expect that it would be decided by the people. Who knows what they would choose...

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Maybe he believes in democracy, the majority of Scotland wish to remain within the Union and it is not for the Nationalists to dictate to the majority. You do know the meaning of democracy?

Your post makes no sense. We have a democratic process which was followed in 2014. That doesn't mean that we are forever unable to change our minds. 

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I would expect that it would be decided by the people. Who knows what they would choose...

But we do know. 55% to 45% to have a prime minister, and monarch as head of state.

[youreavinalaff]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Your post makes no sense. We have a democratic process which was followed in 2014. That doesn't mean that we are forever unable to change our minds. 

"We?"

 

I believe it's up to he next generation. The process in 2014 was a " once in a generation" opportunity.

[RuamRudy]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

But we do know. 55% to 45% to have a prime minister, and monarch as head of state.

I don't recall the status of the royal family being on the referendum paper in 2014.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

"We?"

 

I believe it's up to he next generation. The process in 2014 was a " once in a generation" opportunity.

I presume that you have no idea how old I am. I also presume that you have never read the Edinburgh Agreement...

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I don't recall the status of the royal family being on the referendum paper in 2014.

It didn't have to be. Remaining in the union kept the monarch as head of state of Scotland by default.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It didn't have to be. Remaining in the union kept the monarch as head of state of Scotland by default.

 

 

And choosing independence would have resulted in the same - a topic for another day 

[youreavinalaff]

19 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I presume that you have no idea how old I am. I also presume that you have never read the Edinburgh Agreement...

Presume all you like. That was the deal.

[scottiejohn]

43 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I don't recall the status of the royal family being on the referendum paper in 2014.

 

At the 2014 referendum, the Scottish Government’s White Paper said Scotland would be “a constitutional monarchy” after independence and continue the “Union of the Crowns that dates back to 1603, pre-dating the Union of the Parliaments by over one hundred years.”

Sturgeon told to keep monarchy to win independence | HeraldScotland

[RuamRudy]

23 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Presume all you like. That was the deal.

Simply repeating it doesn't make it any less than nonsense.

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

 

At the 2014 referendum, the Scottish Government’s White Paper said Scotland would be “a constitutional monarchy” after independence and continue the “Union of the Crowns that dates back to 1603, pre-dating the Union of the Parliaments by over one hundred years.”

Sturgeon told to keep monarchy to win independence | HeraldScotland

Ok

[scottiejohn]

47 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I also presume that you have never read the Edinburgh Agreement...

Have you?

it only talks about a singular " the date of the referendum" not more than one!

here it is in full;

 

"Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland.

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.

 

The governments have agreed that the referendum should:

:: have a clear legal base;

:: be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament:

:: be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people; and

:: deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.

 

The governments have agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments to allow a single question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014. The Order will put beyond doubt that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for the referendum.

It will then be for the Scottish Government to promote legislation in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum on independence. The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice. The referendum legislation will set out:

:: the date of the referendum;

:: the franchise;

:: the wording of the question;

:: rules on campaign financing; and

:: other rules for the conduct of the referendum.

The details of the agreement between the governments are set out in the following memorandum and draft Order, which forms part of this agreement.

 

SIGNED"

 

Text of the 'Edinburgh Agreement' | The Independent | The Independent

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Have you?

it only talks about a singular " the date of the referendum" not more than one!

here it is in full;

 

"Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland.

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.

 

The governments have agreed that the referendum should:

:: have a clear legal base;

:: be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament:

:: be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people; and

:: deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.

 

The governments have agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments to allow a single question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014. The Order will put beyond doubt that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for the referendum.

It will then be for the Scottish Government to promote legislation in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum on independence. The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice. The referendum legislation will set out:

:: the date of the referendum;

:: the franchise;

:: the wording of the question;

:: rules on campaign financing; and

:: other rules for the conduct of the referendum.

The details of the agreement between the governments are set out in the following memorandum and draft Order, which forms part of this agreement.

 

SIGNED"

 

Text of the 'Edinburgh Agreement' | The Independent | The Independent

Do you know what else it doesn't mention? Any such guff as "once in a generation".

[scottiejohn]

14 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Do you know what else it doesn't mention? Any such guff as "once in a generation".

As I said above it only talks about the date and conduct of ONE referendum and it's rules.  Not on referendums!

Regarding  "once in a generation".  you should re-read the following;

 

In Alex Salmond's foreword to Scotland's Future, the white paper on independence ahead of the 2014 referendum, the then first minister said the vote would be a "rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way".

The document itself went on to state there was "no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence", 

 

In the Q&A section of the document, The Scottish Government answers the question “If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?”

The Scottish Government’s response was: “The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.

“It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.”

 

https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf (webarchive.org.uk)

 

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by scottiejohn
link added

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

As I said above it only talks about the date and conduct of ONE referendum and it's rules.  Not on referendums!

Regarding  "once in a generation".  you should re-read the following;

 

In Alex Salmond's foreword to Scotland's Future, the white paper on independence ahead of the 2014 referendum, the then first minister said the vote would be a "rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way".

The document itself went on to state there was "no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence", and that "only a majority vote for Yes would give certainty that Scotland will be independent".

 

 

 

A prospective is not a legally binding document. But to be honest, this trope is so tedious and has been played out so many times on this forum that I am going to sit this one out. Fill your boots with your cry of 'once in a lifetime' if it gives you solace. The reality is, however, that as a point of law it's worthless.

[scottiejohn]

20 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Do you know what else it doesn't mention? Any such guff as "once in a generation".

 

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Fill your boots with your cry of 'once in a lifetime' if it gives you solace. The reality is, however, that as a point of law it's worthless.

As you will see from the above quotes you raised the 'once in a lifetime' quote not me!

 

 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

So, an independent Scotland would have a PM?. 

 

I would have thought they'd want a President.

No the SNP want/wanted a dictator if Wee Burney was anything to go by!

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

No the SNP want/wanted a dictator if Wee Burney was anything to go by!

It was the Scottish electorate who put her in Bute House, not the SNP.

[scottiejohn]

16 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

It was the Scottish electorate who put her in Bute House, not the SNP.

I should hope it was the Scottish electorate and not the Russian electorate, if they have any!

What party do you think she was standing for and representing and in what country?

 

I will give you a few  hints;  The SNP (Scottish National Party) which is in Scotland!

Edited June 13, 2023 by scottiejohn

[sharksy]

On 6/12/2023 at 3:48 AM, blazes said:

For "odious" searchers in this thread, I would suggest that a person who cannot define what a woman is is indeed odious, especially if one considers the considerable threat to women prisoners through Sturgeon's lunatic attempt to let men "declare" themselves "women" and then allows male rapists to be parked in women's prisons just because Mr Rapist has declared himself a "woman".

 

Luckily for the Scottish people, Sturgeon did a U-turn on this irrational policy.

 

 

If only the politicians can identify males with a prostate and females as without.

The prostate is too dangerous to remove, so all trans ladies can be identified as men from this fact alone

[chickenslegs]

2 minutes ago, sharksy said:

If only the politicians can identify males with a prostate and females as without.

The prostate is too dangerous to remove, so all trans ladies can be identified as men from this fact alone

Wouldn't that require rubber gloves and lube?

[chalawaan]

I'm not going to take a side in this as I don't know enough about Sturgeon one way or the other. 

 

Tho I'm in disagreement with Littlejohn.

 

We don't need to hate being British, but I think Scotland could be sovereign, including it's fishing and oil fields, and contribute to the defence of the region, remaining a part of the British military services under the NATO pact, the way Poland fought in the Battle of Britain, this is important, as allegiance to the Crown would be out, but an oath to protect all peoples of Britain, fitting. 

 

Anyhoo, sad side note to hear of Eric Cullen passing by way of this debate. I had no idea that was in back in 1996, and just read about his horrific private life. Amazing that he achieved so much beyond just acting with that load to bear. 

 

Gregor Fisher is one of Scotland's great comics, Rab Nesbitt and his pals were so on point, and all the funnier for it.  

Edited June 14, 2023 by chalawaan

[scottiejohn]

2 hours ago, chalawaan said:

I'm not going to take a side in this as I don't know enough about Sturgeon one way or the other. 

 

Tho I'm in disagreement with Littlejohn.

 

We don't need to hate being British, but I think Scotland could be sovereign, including it's fishing and oil fields, and contribute to the defence of the region, remaining a part of the British military services under the NATO pact, the way Poland fought in the Battle of Britain, this is important, as allegiance to the Crown would be out, but an oath to protect all peoples of Britain, fitting.  

Have you actually read what the SNP want a so called "independent Scotland" to be?

It does not seem like you have as they say (at varying times) that they want a Scotland that would not be in NATO, no nuclear weapons or bases, no oil or gas industry, still have HM as king and the Pound but would would ditch it after they rejoined the EU?

 

As to why you brought the disgusting original "Wee Burney" back into this I have no idea!

 

 

[RuamRudy]

26 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Have you actually read what the SNP want a so called "independent Scotland" to be?

It does not seem like you have as they say (at varying times) that they want a Scotland that would not be in NATO, no nuclear weapons or bases, no oil or gas industry, still have HM as king and the Pound but would would ditch it after they rejoined the EU?

 

 

The SNP position on Nato is to apply for membership and join. What they might have thought in the past is irrelevant - all political parties transform and policies change. 

They don't want nuclear weapons - nor do I and the majority of Scots. If they are so important to the rest of the UK, let's stick them in elsewhere in the UK then.

Oil and gas - Scotland has such an abundance of natural resources, including some of the most promising of renewable energy sites in Europe. In this climate emergency, we need sensible leaders to move us away from hydrocarbons. 

And best of all - we would be free of the parasite that has been bleeding us dry for 300+ years. 

[chalawaan]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

The SNP position on Nato is to apply for membership and join. What they might have thought in the past is irrelevant - all political parties transform and policies change. 

They don't want nuclear weapons - nor do I and the majority of Scots. If they are so important to the rest of the UK, let's stick them in elsewhere in the UK then.

Oil and gas - Scotland has such an abundance of natural resources, including some of the most promising of renewable energy sites in Europe. In this climate emergency, we need sensible leaders to move us away from hydrocarbons. 

And best of all - we would be free of the parasite that has been bleeding us dry for 300+ years. 

I agree with your position, but unless we have massive North Sea windfarms, then we either need to choose nuclear or fossil.

 

Most of the world are going to have to deal with Hobson's choice on energy, no matter how noble our (very late) green intentions are because solar and wind just don't cut it at scale in most locations. There's either not enough sun or not enough wind.