Scotland's Sturgeon says: I can win an independence vote

[citybiker]

Genuine question:

Correct me if wrong, Are the RN sub bases on the SNP radar?

IIRC the issue of nuclear subs was a controversial NIMBY. Although I think the Unions were a little upset of the prospect of having to relocate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I would like to ask your political alliance Grouse, if any. You slam the conservatives. You can't be labour or liberal, as they happily want the integration of Muslims in the UK and EU society. and you clearly don't agree with that from your posts. So who are you? Britian First?

 

Before you ask, I have no real affiliation to a party. I would have considered myself labour when John Smith was leader and sadly died, but since then, I would not agree 100% with any one party and would say that I couldn't.

That's a fair question!

 

I guess I'm for social democracy generally but what party?

 

Of course one can't pick and choose policies and that makes it difficult.

 

The current Labour Party has gone back to Michael Foot and Militant and are clearly unelectable. I do fancy re-nationalising railways and utilities though.

 

I used to like one nation Tories like "the wets" including Clarke, Heseltine, Portillo, Major but I don't trust the current Con Party.

 

UKIP are obviously beneath contempt and not worth discussing

 

I do like many but not all Lib Dem policies including pro EU, pro environment and pro decentralisation. But, I'm against multiculturalism generally and anti Muslim specifically.

 

In short, I feel disenfranchised. We need a resurgence of centrist, pro society, pro liberty, pro nuclear, pro environment, pro education, pro engineering, pro science, pro arts politics. I will be dead before that happens ?

[RuamRudy]

Just now, citybiker said:

Genuine question:

Correct me if wrong, Are the RN sub bases on the SNP radar?

IIRC the issue of nuclear subs was a controversial NIMBY. Although I think the Unions were a little upset of the prospect of having to relocate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For as long as I can recall, the SNP has been committed to a nuclear weapons free Scotland, so they have stated that they would demand that trident be removed from Faslane and all Scottish waters.

 

The UK government was upset on a couple of fronts - firstly the cost of relocation to, I think, South of England ran into the billions of pounds; also the population density there is far higher, so if there was an incident, it would affect a greater number of people.

 

The unions made a noise, I think, based on the number of people working at Faslane that they said would lose their jobs. However the numbers never stacked up - while several thousand people work there directly or are tangentially employed in connection to the base, the base itself serves far more functions than simply servicing nuclear submarines. In fact, I think the total number of people who would be affected if trident was to be relocated would be around 240. Of course, that would still be a blow for 240 people, but the cost savings from not having to pay for trident would be enormous, and also it would open up this very unique deep water port to a far wider range of commercial uses.

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, stander said:

Many people around the world appear to think the so-called independence movement in Scotland is part of the same nationalist wave as Brexit/Trump/Le Pen etc. It is in fact, the opposite: globalism and cultural Marxism

Well many people around the world are incorrect

 

I perceive that the Scots are sick to death of being force fed Westminster policies which they don't agree with and would prefer to be responsible for their own destiny.

[citybiker]

For as long as I can recall, the SNP has been committed to a nuclear weapons free Scotland, so they have stated that they would demand that trident be removed from Faslane and all Scottish waters.
 
The UK government was upset on a couple of fronts - firstly the cost of relocation to, I think, South of England ran into the billions of pounds; also the population density there is far higher, so if there was an incident, it would affect a greater number of people.
 
The unions made a noise, I think, based on the number of people working at Faslane that they said would lose their jobs. However the numbers never stacked up - while several thousand people work there directly or are tangentially employed in connection to the base, the base itself serves far more functions than simply servicing nuclear submarines. In fact, I think the total number of people who would be affected if trident was to be relocated would be around 240. Of course, that would still be a blow for 240 people, but the cost savings from not having to pay for trident would be enormous, and also it would open up this very unique deep water port to a far wider range of commercial uses.

Ok thanks, however without thread derailment removing our vital nuclear defence capabilities (without credible alternative) would an open invitation to any political nut job to exploit the UK venerabilities.

And it would grossly irresponsible for any political party or Government to implement such a move, safety of its citizens is paramount.

Now return to topic..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, evadgib said:

All of which are understandable, given he can't actually start until TM fires the starting pistol:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-on-royal-assent-of-eu-notification-of-withdrawal-bill

 

 

So what's he being doing for the last several months? With that work rate he wouldn't last long at GS! Is he the best we've got ?

[RuamRudy]

11 minutes ago, citybiker said:

 

 

Ok thanks, however without thread derailment removing our vital nuclear defence capabilities (without credible alternative) would an open invitation to any political nut job to exploit the UK venerabilities.

And it would grossly irresponsible for any political party or Government to implement such a move, safety of its citizens is paramount.

Now return to topic..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I will briefly join you in your trip along the nuclear cul de sac - only 9 countries out of around 196 posses nuclear weapons. I think that the others still manage to sleep at night.

 

OK, back on topic.

[Grouse]

39 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

For as long as I can recall, the SNP has been committed to a nuclear weapons free Scotland, so they have stated that they would demand that trident be removed from Faslane and all Scottish waters.

 

The UK government was upset on a couple of fronts - firstly the cost of relocation to, I think, South of England ran into the billions of pounds; also the population density there is far higher, so if there was an incident, it would affect a greater number of people.

 

The unions made a noise, I think, based on the number of people working at Faslane that they said would lose their jobs. However the numbers never stacked up - while several thousand people work there directly or are tangentially employed in connection to the base, the base itself serves far more functions than simply servicing nuclear submarines. In fact, I think the total number of people who would be affected if trident was to be relocated would be around 240. Of course, that would still be a blow for 240 people, but the cost savings from not having to pay for trident would be enormous, and also it would open up this very unique deep water port to a far wider range of commercial uses.

For the record, I have no problem with nuclear deterrence or nuclear power. Sensible people recognise nuclear power as the optimal solution for base load over the next century. Dounreay anyone? That was the fast breeder par excellence before our Muslim friends got the idea! ?

Edited March 17, 2017 by Grouse

[evadgib]

29 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So what's he being doing for the last several months? With that work rate he wouldn't last long at GS! Is he the best we've got ?

This link & those in it pretty much explain everything except the 'crystal ball' stuff the SNP seem to think is, or should be, already known:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-exiting-the-european-union

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by evadgib

[7by7]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

The UK did not need to seek the permission of Brussels to hold the Brexit referendum.

The Scottish government needs to seek the permission of an unelected Prime Minister of a UK government that has the support of 1.6% of Scottish MPs for permission to hold an independence referendum.

One of these situations definitely sounds freer than the other.

 The EU is not a sovereign state; the UK is.

 

Any EU member is at liberty to trigger Article 50 at any time. It does not legally need the EU Parliament's nor the EU Council's permission. How the member state reaches the decision to trigger Article 50, whether by a referendum or other means, is a matter for the member state alone.

 

For a Scottish independence referendum to be legally binding an Order in Council under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 needs to be made. Like it or not; that is the law. The Act was made by Blair's Labour government which came to power in the 1997 election. In that election Labour won 56 of the 72 Scottish seats available. How much influence over the Act did those Scottish Labour MPs have, I wonder.

 

May is Prime Minister because she is the leader of the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons. She gained that position when her predecessor, Cameron, resigned.

 

Sturgeon became First Minister of Scotland because she was the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the Scottish Parliament. She gained that position in 2014 when her predecessor, Salmond, resigned.

 

The method of their gaining their positions as Prime Minister and First Minister are exactly the same. Neither were elected into office by anyone except the members of their party. In fact, even that didn't happen as both stood unopposed.

 

I will grant you that Sturgeon has since led her party to victory in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, although they fell two short of an overall majority of seats, and May has yet to do so in a General Election.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I will grant you that Sturgeon has since led her party to victory in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, although they fell two short of an overall majority of seats, and May has yet to do so in a General Election.

 

What we Scots do have, however, is a majority coalition of pro-independence parties. SNP catches all the flak, but with the Greens, the majority of MSPs were elected on a pro-independence platform.

[rockingrobin]

23 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 The EU is not a sovereign state; the UK is.

 

Any EU member is at liberty to trigger Article 50 at any time. It does not legally need the EU Parliament's nor the EU Council's permission. How the member state reaches the decision to trigger Article 50, whether by a referendum or other means, is a matter for the member state alone.

 

For a Scottish independence referendum to be legally binding an Order in Council under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 needs to be made. Like it or not; that is the law. The Act was made by Blair's Labour government which came to power in the 1997 election. In that election Labour won 56 of the 72 Scottish seats available. How much influence over the Act did those Scottish Labour MPs have, I wonder.

 

May is Prime Minister because she is the leader of the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons. She gained that position when her predecessor, Cameron, resigned.

 

Sturgeon became First Minister of Scotland because she was the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the Scottish Parliament. She gained that position in 2014 when her predecessor, Salmond, resigned.

 

The method of their gaining their positions as Prime Minister and First Minister are exactly the same. Neither were elected into office by anyone except the members of their party. In fact, even that didn't happen as both stood unopposed.

 

I will grant you that Sturgeon has since led her party to victory in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, although they fell two short of an overall majority of seats, and May has yet to do so in a General Election.

 

 

Does article 47 TEU confer the EU as an independent legal entity in its own right,thus it can join international conventions and organisations.

 

Since the EU can negotiate and sign agreements on behalf of member states, where is the distinction of state / non state   

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by rockingrobin

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Does article 47 TEU confer the EU as an independent legal entity in its own right,thus it can join international conventions and organisations.

 

 

Legal personality of the Union

Quote

Article  47 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) explicitly recognises the legal personality of the European Union, making it an independent entity in its own right.

The conferral of legal personality on the EU means that it has the ability to:

• conclude and negotiate international agreements in accordance with its external commitments;
• become a member of international organisations;
• join international conventions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights , stipulated in Article  6(2) of the TEU.

 

Not a sovereign state, but an international organisation to which member states have delegated certain powers whilst retaining many others.

 

As EU members are free to leave the EU at any time and thus reclaim the powers they previously delegated to the EU, then it is the member states who are sovereign, not the EU.

 

 

[7by7]

56 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

What we Scots do have, however, is a majority coalition of pro-independence parties. SNP catches all the flak, but with the Greens, the majority of MSPs were elected on a pro-independence platform.

In the 2011 election the SNP received 45.39% of the constituencies vote and 44.04% of the regional votes. This gave them an overall majority in Parliament with 69 (53.49%) of the 129 in the Scottish Parliament. (source)

 

 Yet in the 2014 referendum 55.3% voted No to independence. (source)

 

In the 2016 election, they received 46.5% of the constituency votes, up slightly; but their share of the regional votes fell to 41.7%. Which meant they lost their overall majority in the Parliament with 63 (48.8%) of the 129 seats. (source)

 

Even when the Scottish Greens share of the vote is added on, the pro independence parties received less than 50% of the vote in both elections!

Edited March 17, 2017 by 7by7
Add sources

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 The EU is not a sovereign state; the UK is.

 

Any EU member is at liberty to trigger Article 50 at any time. It does not legally need the EU Parliament's nor the EU Council's permission. How the member state reaches the decision to trigger Article 50, whether by a referendum or other means, is a matter for the member state alone.

 

For a Scottish independence referendum to be legally binding an Order in Council under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 needs to be made. Like it or not; that is the law. The Act was made by Blair's Labour government which came to power in the 1997 election. In that election Labour won 56 of the 72 Scottish seats available. How much influence over the Act did those Scottish Labour MPs have, I wonder.

 

May is Prime Minister because she is the leader of the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons. She gained that position when her predecessor, Cameron, resigned.

 

Sturgeon became First Minister of Scotland because she was the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the Scottish Parliament. She gained that position in 2014 when her predecessor, Salmond, resigned.

 

The method of their gaining their positions as Prime Minister and First Minister are exactly the same. Neither were elected into office by anyone except the members of their party. In fact, even that didn't happen as both stood unopposed.

 

I will grant you that Sturgeon has since led her party to victory in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, although they fell two short of an overall majority of seats, and May has yet to do so in a General Election.

 

 

Are you a computer? 

 

You seem to have great deal of data and information 

 

It's your ability to interpret that information which worries me...

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

In the 2011 election the SNP received 45.39% of the constituencies vote and 44.04% of the regional votes. This gave them an overall majority in Parliament with 69 (53.49%) of the 129 in the Scottish Parliament.

 

 Yet in the 2014 referendum 55.3% voted No to independence.

 

In the 2016 election, they received 46.5% of the constituency votes, up slightly; but their share of the regional votes fell to 41.7%. Which meant they lost their overall majority in the Parliament with 63 (48.8%) of the 129 seats.

I remember at the time, on reddit.com/r/scotland there was a lot of discussion about the most effective use of the AMS, and it was recognised that SNP for both constituency and regional was counterproductive, so many people chose to elect SNP for constituency (which saw a modest rise) and Greens for regional, seeing them take 6 regional seats, a gain of 4.  

 

The combined 69 seats of the SNP / Green coalition gives a majority of independence seeking parties in the chamber.

[citybiker]

Interesting podcast for some:

'Nicola Sturgeon has made a very big mistake - and it's just beginning to dawn on her': Chopper's Brexit podcast episode 3 - The Telegraph
https://apple.news/ACJXRVUCDSAeagCKgGj-0Mg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

Time for a reboot and install the artificial intelligence sub-routines ?. I am a HAL 9000.....

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

The combined 69 seats of the SNP / Green coalition gives a majority of independence seeking parties in the chamber.

 As I said.

 

But you cannot deny the fact that they got there with less than 50% of the vote!

 

You tried to rubbish the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament before; until I pointed out to you that it was designed and agreed upon by Scots!

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Even when the Scottish Greens share of the vote is added on, the pro independence parties received less than 50% of the vote in both elections!

I was too swift for your ninja edit...

I never disputed that - are you suggesting that the Tories had no right to call Brexit because they only received 36.8% of the vote?

 

The good news, however, is that the growth of those seeking independence is comforting, as this chart from yesterday's Telegraph of all places shows:

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

You tried to rubbish the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament before; until I pointed out to you that it was designed and agreed upon by Scots!

Do not make false statements about me. I assure you that I never tried to rubbish it at all - I even clarified for you later that I chose the wrong word.

[evadgib]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

It's your ability to interpret that information which worries me...

As does many of the reverse in these threads :)

[7by7]

13 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I never disputed that - are you suggesting that the Tories had no right to call Brexit because they only received 36.8% of the vote?

 No, and I do not dispute the right of the SNP and their allies to govern Scotland. You accuse me of twisting words; but you are the master at that!

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 No, and I do not dispute the right of the SNP and their allies to govern Scotland. You accuse me of twisting words; but you are the master at that!

I asked you a question, I did not attribute any position to you on that question. That is your domain.

[sinbin]

On 3/13/2017 at 10:16 PM, elliss said:

Fyi , Brexit will never happen ,

 

The same applies to the Ginger Dwarf.

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by sinbin

[RuamRudy]

36 minutes ago, citybiker said:

Interesting podcast for some:

'Nicola Sturgeon has made a very big mistake - and it's just beginning to dawn on her': Chopper's Brexit podcast episode 3 - The Telegraph
https://apple.news/ACJXRVUCDSAeagCKgGj-0Mg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some follow-up reading:

 

May just handed Nicola Sturgeon the greatest gift she could ever ask for

 

"Since the Brexit vote, the prime minister has worked tirelessly to conform to the SNP stereotype of Westminster. They ignored Scottish wishes and decided to pull Britain out the single market. They dismissed SNP efforts to find a way for Scotland to stay in. They failed to give them a meaningful role in the great repeal bill overhaul of British law. They threatened to block the devolution of agriculture and fisheries from Brussels to Edinburgh. Sturgeon may as well have written out the script, sent it to May, and have her follow it word for word."

[7by7]

18 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

25 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

You tried to rubbish the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament before; until I pointed out to you that it was designed and agreed upon by Scots!

Do not make false statements about me. I assure you that I never tried to rubbish it at all - I even clarified for you later that I chose the wrong word.

 In this post

The relevant part of that post being  "At the Holyrood election the following year, in a system deliberately contrived to prevent any one party from coming close to having a majority, they won 48.8% of the seats." It is obvious that you were attempting to show that the SNP were successful despite a system 'deliberately contrived' to hold them back from success.

 

It is also obvious at whose feet you were trying to lay the blame for that contrivance.

 

It was only after I pointed out the facts about who designed the system that you furiously backpedalled

There is a world of difference between "deliberately contrived" and "designed." As well you know.

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 In this post

The relevant part of that post being  "At the Holyrood election the following year, in a system deliberately contrived to prevent any one party from coming close to having a majority, they won 48.8% of the seats." It is obvious that you were attempting to show that the SNP were successful despite a system 'deliberately contrived' to hold them back from success.

 

It is also obvious at whose feet you were trying to lay the blame for that contrivance.

 

It was only after I pointed out the facts about who designed the system that you furiously backpedalled

There is a world of difference between "deliberately contrived" and "designed." As well you know.

So are you suggesting that I was lying with my clarification? Do you find that unwarranted belligerence is a quality that generally endears you to people? Personally, I find it tedious and boring. The majority of contributors to this thread do not agree with my position, but in the main they tend to be reasonably civil and constructive in exploring the issues raised. You are just being boorish for the sake of... well, I must admit I have no idea.

 

No need to respond; my questions were rhetorical.

[anon4546543]

As an Aussie with a Scot born grandmother and a long before English heritage great great grandfather, I find most of the posts to be a bit silly. Instead of insulting each other, should not everyone wait for a few factual details. All the posts are pure speculation and most based on anti Pom or anti Scot sentiment. In the Australian Army, I served with and under former Scots and Poms. All were extremely professional. A broad speaking Scot Sgt in our mess was "Jock McKay"  a former soldier in the Black Watch. The standing joke was why he did not have a silver or "mickey mouse" watch which the rest of us wore. As for discipline in military units who attack each other on "Scot or other Union soldiers", this is up to the Commandant of such units and they can quickly restore order and discipline. Don't know if this post will help, but I hope it does. I have always seen fierce and friendly Scots and witty and loyal poms. Anyway, cheers, about to indulge in another small shot of Chivas. 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

So are you suggesting that I was lying with my clarification?............

I am not saying you lied as such; but you did pull a trick much favoured by politicians of all parties; "I may have said x, but let me clarify that by saying y!"

 

The rest of your post is your usual rubbishing of posters who raise issues you cannot counter by any other means.

 

I found the following on just the first two pages of this topic.

 

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 2:42 PM, RuamRudy said:

 

Well I have worked for one of the largest integrated oil and gas companies in the world for close to 30 years in various roles in various countries so I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I know more than the OP, and if you think that his comments made sense, then you too.

 

 

This in response to facts about the oil industry made by someone who does have far more experience than you.

 

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 3:40 PM, RuamRudy said:

 

I thought it was the Romans who invented haggis? But good to see that, as usual, you don't let things like that that get in your way of doing your best to rubbish Scotland before you declare that we are all anti-English.

 

 

There are many more examples from you scattered throughout this and other threads on this subject.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by 7by7
Attempt to correct formatting errors