IndyRef2

[Gordon EF]

It's a question of numbers though. 45% odd voted Yes, 50% odd voted SNP. Even allowing for a bit of switching, that put's the %age of the SNP vote who voted No at 10%. A decent number but they'd still cruise to a majority in any election without it.

And you can bet they're way towards the softer end of the No vote as well. Mildly pissing off No voters is simply not going to seriously hurt the SNP at elections for the foreseeable future. Plus, polls have hinted at a slight movement towards Yes over the last year. Some of that 10% are more than likely No to Yes switchers.

Plus, next WM GE is 2020. There'll be fewer No voters hanging on by then.

[strichener]

It's a question of numbers though. 45% odd voted Yes, 50% odd voted SNP. Even allowing for a bit of switching, that put's the %age of the SNP vote who voted No at 10%. A decent number but they'd still cruise to a majority in any election without it.

And you can bet they're way towards the softer end of the No vote as well. Mildly pissing off No voters is simply not going to seriously hurt the SNP at elections for the foreseeable future. Plus, polls have hinted at a slight movement towards Yes over the last year. Some of that 10% are more than likely No to Yes switchers.

Plus, next WM GE is 2020. There'll be fewer No voters hanging on by then.

You are ignoring turnout here. The SNP had 1,454,436 votes in the general election and Yes had 1,617,989 votes in the referendum.

So in absolute terms, more people voted Yes than voted for the SNP.

[Gordon EF]

You are ignoring turnout here. The SNP had 1,454,436 votes in the general election and Yes had 1,617,989 votes in the referendum.

So in absolute terms, more people voted Yes than voted for the SNP.

Which is pretty much the very fist thing I mentioned in my post above.

[Uncle Psychosis]

Anyone who doesn't want independence or who doesn't want another indyref who votes SNP needs their head examining. It's the overwhelming issue in the SNP policy book and if there's another SNP government they'll do everything they can to make it happen. Privately even a lot of the other yes-supporting greens and socialists will tell you to "vote SNP until we get independence, even if you need to hold your nose whilst doing so".

[strichener]

Which is pretty much the very fist thing I mentioned in my post above.

I must have read it wrong then. I thought you were stating that some of the SNP voters must have been no based on percentage of vote. I was pointing out that every voter that voted SNP could (although unlikely) have been a Yes voter.

[~~~]

[git-intae-thum]

Look forward to it being discussed on call Kaye.

[williemillersmoustache]

Nicola Sturgeon rules out Westminster deal to scrap Human Rights Act

Fastest route to Indy2. This will block any Westminster plans to scrap it UK wide and any plans to subvert devolved issues and abolish it in Scotland without Holyrood on board. Well it would be a once in a generation type trigger one would have thought.

Also has the added bonus of driving the far right in sffolk, essex and kent absolutely bonkers

[Bishop Briggs]

Nicola Sturgeon rules out Westminster deal to scrap Human Rights Act

Fastest route to Indy2. This will block any Westminster plans to scrap it UK wide and any plans to subvert devolved issues and abolish it in Scotland without Holyrood on board. Well it would be a once in a generation type trigger one would have thought.

Also has the added bonus of driving the far right in sffolk, essex and kent absolutely bonkers

Neither Sturgeon nor the SNP MPs cannot be block the legislation. The Human Rights Act is not a currently devolved matter. Only a Conservative backbench rebellion can stop it. The Government can use the Parliament Act to over-rule any Lords opposition. The Government could allow Scotland to keep the Human Rights Act but Holyrood can't block its replacement in the rest of the UK.

[John Lambies Doos]

Neither Sturgeon nor the SNP MPs cannot be block the legislation. The Human Rights Act is not a currently devolved matter. Only a Conservative backbench rebellion can stop it. The Government can use the Parliament Act to over-rule any Lords opposition. The Government could allow Scotland to keep the Human Rights Act but Holyrood can't block its replacement in the rest of the UK.

You seem quite proud of this

[Kyle]

From that article;

Under devolution legislation, acts of the Scottish parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. To further complicate matters, although the act is reserved, human rights issues are devolved.

ooft, this could turn into a bit of a mess, particularly as this seems to have cross party support across the Holyrood chamber.

I'm getting a bit fed up of everything becoming an issue to go on for a second referendum. Sturgeon has set out her stall, it seems she has support at Holyrood from not just her party. If that support is to remain, she can't just threaten a second referendum off the bat.

[Bishop Briggs]

You seem quite proud of this

Nope, just pointing out that the SNP can't block legislation if the Government has full backbench support.

[Bishop Briggs]

From that article;

Under devolution legislation, acts of the Scottish parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. To further complicate matters, although the act is reserved, human rights issues are devolved.

ooft, this could turn into a bit of a mess, particularly as this seems to have cross party support across the Holyrood chamber.

I'm getting a bit fed up of everything becoming an issue to go on for a second referendum. Sturgeon has set out her stall, it seems she has support at Holyrood from not just her party. If that support is to remain, she can't just threaten a second referendum off the bat.

The Westminster Government, as the EU Member State, must ensure compliance with the European Convention. Human Rights are devolved to ensure that Holyrood complies too. Under EU law, the proposed Bill of Rights would have to be compliant too.

ETA - From the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34331682

"The Human Rights Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. It also requires the UK to take account of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg. But critics accuse the court of over-reaching itself by, for instance, ruling against the UK's blanket ban on allowing prisoners to vote. The Conservatives have said they want to give the "final say" on human rights to the UK Supreme Court."

The "Judges" in Strasbourg are very political and their decisions are often bizarre. Taking out that part of the HRA is fine by me. Britain would still be bound by the Convention.

[williemillersmoustache]

From that article;

Under devolution legislation, acts of the Scottish parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. To further complicate matters, although the act is reserved, human rights issues are devolved.

ooft, this could turn into a bit of a mess, particularly as this seems to have cross party support across the Holyrood chamber.

I'm getting a bit fed up of everything becoming an issue to go on for a second referendum. Sturgeon has set out her stall, it seems she has support at Holyrood from not just her party. If that support is to remain, she can't just threaten a second referendum off the bat.

Oh I'm not saying she is threatening. I'm just saying if human rights issues are devolved, westminster needs Scottish consent. They don't have it, unlucks. Any move to impose a British Bill of Rights so far entirely unseen and one assumes if written by a Tory gov fucking abysmal unless one hunts/has a horse/went to Hogwarts, would be a mistake for those wishing to keep the union. IMO.

[Bishop Briggs]

Oh I'm not saying she is threatening. I'm just saying if human rights issues are devolved, westminster needs Scottish consent. They don't have it, unlucks. Any move to impose a British Bill of Rights so far entirely unseen and one assumes if written by a Tory gov fucking abysmal unless one hunts/has a horse/went to Hogwarts, would be a mistake for those wishing to keep the union. IMO.

Does Westminster need Scottish consent or just compliance with the Convention? It could be a grey area.

The alternative is for the Human Rights Act to apply in Scotland only and for the Bill of Rights to apply to the rest of the UK.

There could just be enough pro-EU Tory MPs to defeat the Bill.

[williemillersmoustache]

1.Does Westminster need Scottish consent or just compliance with the Convention? It could be a grey area.

2. The alternative is for the Human Rights Act to apply in Scotland only and for the Bill of Rights to apply to the rest of the UK.

There could just be enough pro-EU Tory MPs to defeat the Bill.

1. If it wants to keep the UK together I would say yes it does.
2. Some of this is devolved, some reserved, it would be cart-wheeling shambles and take years to legislate for. Pretty sure the idea of either or / and/or both wouldn't make it past most backbenchers.

[Bishop Briggs]

The European Court of Human Rights has too many judges were academics or bureaucrats before their appointments. They are not accountable to the Westminster or Scottish Parliaments but can force them and the Governments to change our laws. That is totally undemocratic.

I'm very surprised that Nicola Sturgeon opposes the people of Scotland having democratic control over their laws. Let's have a Scottish Supreme Court, with appointments ratified in Holyrood, rather than have laws imposed on us by bureaucrats in Strasbourg.

[Baxter Parp]

The European Court of Human Rights has too many judges were academics or bureaucrats before their appointments. They are not accountable to the Westminster or Scottish Parliaments but can force them and the Governments to change our laws. That is totally undemocratic.

I'm very surprised that Nicola Sturgeon opposes the people of Scotland having democratic control over their laws. Let's have a Scottish Supreme Court, with appointments ratified in Holyrood, rather than have laws imposed on us by bureaucrats in Strasbourg.

There's already a UK Supreme Court even though Scottish Law is separate from English and Welsh law, I take it you're happy that was imposed on us undemocratically?

[williemillersmoustache]

The European Court of Human Rights has too many judges were academics or bureaucrats before their appointments. They are not accountable to the Westminster or Scottish Parliaments but can force them and the Governments to change our laws. That is totally undemocratic.

I'm very surprised that Nicola Sturgeon opposes the people of Scotland having democratic control over their laws. Let's have a Scottish Supreme Court, with appointments ratified in Holyrood, rather than have laws imposed on us by bureaucrats in Strasbourg.

^^ ah so you're just opposed to the HRA, that's fine. But just say so then ffs, rather than saying you cannae do this or that, weakens your argument.

[Bishop Briggs]

There's already a UK Supreme Court even though Scottish Law is separate from English and Welsh law, I take it you're happy that was imposed on us undemocratically?

Not at all. I am well aware of the differences between Scottish laws and English (Common) law.

I support an Scottish Senate (elected by PR) and a Scottish Supreme Court (judges subject to Senate hearings before an approval vote). There would a Scottish Bill of Rights that would be incorporated into a new written constitution. That system works well in the USA.

ETA - the Supreme Court judges would be proposed by an elected President who would be advised by an appointments panel of QCs or their successor title.

^^ ah so you're just opposed to the HRA, that's fine. But just say so then ffs, rather than saying you cannae do this or that, weakens your argument.

It's more than just opposition to the HRA. I oppose the imposition of laws by the European Parliament and European Commission too.

Sturgeon is saying that the people of an independent Scotland need the bureaucrats in the European Court in Strasbourg to protect their devolved human rights. That is, in effect, an admission that the Scottish government can't be trusted to respect our rights.

As I said above, Scots' rights should be protected by a written constitution and a Bill of Rights that are enforced by a Supreme Court of qualified judges. Politicians can be trusted to have total control and absolute power over our rights and civil liberties.

ETA - Such provisions should included in a revised White Paper before a second referendum. The 2013 White Paper was a mixture of fiction, fantasy and lies.