When will indyref2 happen?

[lichtgilphead]

36 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

Go on then. Explain clearly how an article released in a newspaper was held by the British government to the people of Scotland? 

When you point out things like "The Scottish Parliament is permanent" is a lie (line 1 of the vow), @CarrbridgeSaintee has argued that "that's only an expression of opinion"

It's a lie, as is his opinion that the vow was kept.

Don't expect any clear explanation of any of his nonsense.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

44 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

Go on then. Explain clearly how an article released in a newspaper was held by the British government to the people of Scotland? 

New power were delivered via the Smith Commission.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

5 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

When you point out things like "The Scottish Parliament is permanent" is a lie (line 1 of the vow), @CarrbridgeSaintee has argued that "that's only an expression of opinion"

It's a lie, as is his opinion that the vow was kept.

Don't expect any clear explanation of any of his nonsense.

None of the signatory parties have tried to get rid of the Scottish Parliament, so how is it a lie?

[Dan Steele]

Government by tabloid newspaper, ffs. A pathetic last minute case of UK government politicians shitting themselves. Any crumbs that fell are no substitute for being a normal independent country.

[Jedi2]

5 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

I have a 100% record of paying up on bets. Why else would I have sent a cheque to East Fife, which was acknowledged on here?

The only person I know  on P'nB that refused to pay up ona bet was @TheKincardine, a Yoon like you.

Let's get specific about your charity donation though. If the SNP win 29 seats in Scotland, you will make a donation to a charity of my choice, you say? How much of a donation are you willing to risk?

£20 goes to a Charity of your choice if the SNP win 29 plus seats.

 

[GTee]

That Herald article. . Allegedly supports independence a bit because Westminster is essentially a disaster (incompetent) for Scotland and probably the UK, but expects a devolved SNP government to be very competent and for there to be 60% support for Independence.

I would have thought that Independence would mean Scottish voters deciding which party is likely to be the most competent to govern Scotland. And if that isn't the SNP, who might not exist anyway, then fine. My guess is that Labour would be that party.

Happy enough with Westminster incompetence apparently, but not the devolved Scottish government of the day.

Nae doot. Probably falls somewhere into the bracket of too wee, too poor, too stupid. 

[lichtgilphead]

2 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

£20 goes to a Charity of your choice if the SNP win 29 plus seats.

Kudos. It's nice to see a Labour supporter stand by a pledge. 

TBH, I don't think that you will have to pay out, but I'll hope to hold you to these tems if I win.

4 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

None of the signatory parties have tried to get rid of the Scottish Parliament, so how is it a lie?

Because the Scottish Parliament is not permanent. Westminster can abolish it at a stroke of a pen. The UK Supreme Court have confirmed that the UK doctrine of Supremcy of the UK Parliament will apply. No vows or promises of any UK Parliament can bind a future UK parliament.

Accordingly, the Vow is a lie, as any signatory party can bring forward a bill to abolish the Scottish parliament. Under these conditions, it cannot be discribed as "permanent"

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

8 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Kudos. It's nice to see a Labour supporter stand by a pledge. 

TBH, I don't think that you will have to pay out, but I'll hope to hold you to these tems if I win.

Because the Scottish Parliament is not permanent. Westminster can abolish it at a stroke of a pen. The UK Supreme Court have confirmed that the UK doctrine of Supremcy of the UK Parliament will apply. No vows or promises of any UK Parliament can bind a future UK parliament.

Accordingly, the Vow is a lie, as any signatory party can bring forward a bill to abolish the Scottish parliament. Under these conditions, it cannot be discribed as "permanent"

It being able to be abolished doesn’t make it temporary, or non-permanent.

They all agreed it’s permanent, as stated in The Vow.  That’s all that matters.

[Jedi2]

8 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Kudos. It's nice to see a Labour supporter stand by a pledge. 

TBH, I don't think that you will have to pay out, but I'll hope to hold you to these tems if I win.

In fairness, the Polls are wild at the moment.. 

SNP are ranging from 35, to 26/27, then 17, and in some, 7 or 8.

Will clearly be a lot of very tight contests which could go either way SNP-Lab by just a few % points but will make a big impact in overall seats for both.

No idea tbh which one of the two ways it will fall just now

Edited June 6 by Jedi2

[lichtgilphead]

50 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

It being able to be abolished doesn’t make it temporary, or non-permanent.

They all agreed it’s permanent, as stated in The Vow.  That’s all that matters.

That's great. I'll tell all my staff that are currently on temporary contracts that their posts are now to be considered permanent because I currently have no plans to make them redundant.

Idiot.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

18 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

That's great. I'll tell all my staff that are currently on temporary contracts that their posts are now to be considered permanent because I currently have no plans to make them redundant.

Idiot.

Why would you do that?

Lying to your employees isn’t a good look.

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Lying to your employees isn’t a good look.

Neither is telling lies about the Vow being fulfilled. 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

5 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Neither is telling lies about the Vow being fulfilled. 

Agreed.

That’s why I don’t do it.

The temporary contract analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

A situation with the same principles would actually be a permanent contract, which CAN be ended under certain circumstances.

The fact it can be ended doesn’t make it temporary.

 

Edited June 6 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[lichtgilphead]

32 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

A situation with the same principles would actually be a permanent contract, which CAN be ended under certain circumstances.

So, in your opinion, the Scottish Parliament is permanent, but CAN be ended under certain circumstances. 

That's an interesting concept, but doesn't really accord with any normal definition of permanent.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

37 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

So, in your opinion, the Scottish Parliament is permanent, but CAN be ended under certain circumstances. 

That's an interesting concept, but doesn't really accord with any normal definition of permanent.

 

Really?  Try this definition from the Miriam Webster dictionary:

 

permanent. 1 of 2 adjective. per·ma·nent ˈpərm(-ə)-nənt. : lasting or intended to last for a very long time : not temporary or changing.

 

That, my friend, is the status of the Scottish Parliament in a nutshell, and is what was agreed in The Vow.

It doesn’t mean that it can never be changed.

Edited June 6 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[lichtgilphead]

22 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

 

Really?  Try this definition from the Miriam Webster dictionary:

So, you believe that UK law is subject to definitions in a American dictionary. I'm sure that American English will be the authorized (sic) & favored (sic) place to look for UK definitions.

Personally, I prefer to look at the UK parliamentary record. In particular, I would refer you to the draft Scotland clauses in the UK Government's 2015 publication "Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement"

This was an attempt to enact the lies about permanence in the Vow.

Clause 1 stated

PART 1

CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government

1 The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government

(1) In section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 (the Scottish Parliament) after subsection (1) insert— 

“(1A) A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.” (my emphasis)

If you look at the Scotland Act 1998 today, you will not find these words.

This is because this attempt to enact legislation to ensure the permanence of the Scottish Government conflicted with the Diceyan principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Accordingly, the proposals were dropped and never made it into law.

How do you square the fact that it is unconstitutional under UK law to define the Scottish Parliament as "permanent" with your insistence that the Smith Commission implemented the vow?

 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

40 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

So, you believe that UK law is subject to definitions in a American dictionary. I'm sure that American English will be the authorized (sic) & favored (sic) place to look for UK definitions.

Personally, I prefer to look at the UK parliamentary record. In particular, I would refer you to the draft Scotland clauses in the UK Government's 2015 publication "Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement"

This was an attempt to enact the lies about permanence in the Vow.

Clause 1 stated

PART 1

CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government

1 The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government

(1) In section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 (the Scottish Parliament) after subsection (1) insert— 

“(1A) A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.” (my emphasis)

If you look at the Scotland Act 1998 today, you will not find these words.

This is because this attempt to enact legislation to ensure the permanence of the Scottish Government conflicted with the Diceyan principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Accordingly, the proposals were dropped and never made it into law.

How do you square the fact that it is unconstitutional under UK law to define the Scottish Parliament as "permanent" with your insistence that the Smith Commission implemented the vow?

 

OK then 

As per Oxford English Dictionary:

lasting for a long time or for all time in the future; existing all the time.

 

It still describes the Scottish Parliament.

We do not require legislation to prove something being permanent.  The Vow was kept simply by them saying so, and not taking steps to abolish it.

[lichtgilphead]

I note that you didn't even attempt to answer the point about it being unconstitutional to describe the Scottish Parliament as "permanent". 

However, you appear to have forgotten about the effects of Section 63A(3) of the Scotland Act 1998, brought into law on 23/03/2016 as a result of the Smith Commission's "implementation" of the vow. This section specifically states the manner by which the Scottish Parliament can be abolished

63A(3)... ...the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.

So, effectively, you are arguing that the vow was kept because they said so, and the new section 63A(3) was in no way a step toward abolition, even though it specifically stated what needed to happen before the "permanent" Scottish Parliament could be abolished.

That's the Yoon definition of permanency in a nutshell. 

Obviously, Section 63A(3) could also be removed at the stroke of a Westminster pen, so we aren't even guaranteed a referendum should the UK Government decide to abolish the Scottish Government tomorrow. But hey, permamency! What ho!

Edited June 6 by lichtgilphead
Correcting typo in Scotland Act date

[Binos]

23 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

The vow was kept.

[Binos]

The message was we would get extensive new powers

And all we got really was the ability to tax our income more, as they hoped would be a vote loser 

No power that would allow us to grow our economy, certainly nothing extensive 

It was a lie

Edited June 6 by Binos