Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

How's the hangover? 

I think you're confusing me with Kincy.

Anyhow, now that you are engaging with me, do you agree with Kincy's "unique" interpretation that the Acts of Union cannot be repealed, because they contain the words "in perpetuity"?

[Albus Bulbasaur]

25 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I think you're confusing me with Kincy.

Anyhow, now that you are engaging with me, do you agree with Kincy's "unique" interpretation that the Acts of Union cannot be repealed, because they contain the words "in perpetuity"?

And I think you're obviously confusing me with someone else...

I'd leave Kincy to speak for himself. I'm definitely not someone that's really fussed over the type of debates you are having. I honestly don't know the details of the Acts of the Union and I'm not going to pretend I'm prepared for some highly technical historical argument but my general take on where I believe the discussion is going is that no I don't think whatever act was signed should remain in perpetuity even if that was what was written at one time back in the day. 

I believe that democracy is fluid and was okay with a referendum when it happened and do think Westminster should allow one by 2024 at the earliest. I think that Scotland would decide to remain in the Union and I'm not scared to have the option. Some Unionists are waiting to see if it will go to court and I don't really blame them. I certainly don't think there should be a referendum every time the SNP get elected to govern Holyrood. 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[Duries Air Freshener]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

I'm dragging you ito it as you greenied quite a few of Kincy's posts last night. I was interested in just how far your support for his views extends.

I do not need to put words in his mouth. He has repeatedly claimed that the treaty of union between Scotland & England "created in perpetuity in 1707, ticks all of the boxes of International Law and can't be set aside with impunity."

He has also specifically criticised "Dim David Cameron" for believing that the Acts of Union can be repealed without consulting with the rest of the UK electorate.

On the other hand, I agree (with practically everyone else )that Scottish Independence is a matter for the Scottish electorate.

I just wondered what you and your alter ego's views were. Are you willing to support Kincy's views, no matter how extreme and controversial a point he is putting across? From your reply above, I would suggest that you are!

Alter ego?  Sorry, you’ve lost me.

[101]

10 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I certainly don't think there should be a referendum every time the SNP get elected to govern Holyrood. 

I'm interested in this, what else in a manifesto of the winning party shouldn't be allowed to be progressed? 

I think it's a slippery slope to get down. The winner of the election should be allowed to carry anything that was in the manifesto.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

1 hour ago, 101 said:

I'm interested in this, what else in a manifesto of the winning party shouldn't be allowed to be progressed? 

I think it's a slippery slope to get down. The winner of the election should be allowed to carry anything that was in the manifesto.

Things that they don't have the power to do in the first place. This is of course contested and we may have to go to court to find out but I don't believe Holyrood has the power to call a referendum on it's own back as that would directly impact the other nations in the union. 

The SNP have previously campaigned on the premise of stopping Brexit which is something they never had the power to do but they got elected off the back of that campaign, I don't think that suddenly meant the SNP should have been able to halt the Westminster Brexit process as they never had the power to do what they were offering the people in the first place. Generally speaking manifestos don't mean much, just paper with false promises from every party. 

I think winners of elections should of course be able to carry out everything they promise within their power but that doesn't even happen as it is so it's fanciful to imagine them carrying out things outwith their power.  

This is the fault of the SNP being sleekit and campaigning on something they know they can't deliver which then leads to conversations like this and some people being aggrieved as they think it's unfair and undemocratic whereas the SNP know this before they start campaigning. I believe that's what strengthened the breakaway factions and Alba types as they're frustrated as they know Sturgeon is leading them up the garden path every year. They know she isn't able to deliver it like she says she can year after year but at the same time they don't really have any alternative to backing the SNP and hoping Westminster changes it's mind. 

It is also possible to think that Westminster could do with reform and that Holyrood should have the power to hold referendums unilaterally but that's where I would disagree. It also must be acknowledged if you believe this that Sturgeon and the SNP themselves already know and believe this so are at least in some way being misleading about what they offer Scottish voters. 

 

[Zern]

1 hour ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Things that they don't have the power to do in the first place. This is of course contested and we may have to go to court to find out but I don't believe Holyrood has the power to call a referendum on it's own back as that would directly impact the other nations in the union. 

The SNP have previously campaigned on the premise of stopping Brexit which is something they never had the power to do but they got elected off the back of that campaign, I don't think that suddenly meant the SNP should have been able to halt the Westminster Brexit process as they never had the power to do what they were offering the people in the first place. Generally speaking manifestos don't mean much, just paper with false promises from every party. 

I think winners of elections should of course be able to carry out everything they promise within their power but that doesn't even happen as it is so it's fanciful to imagine them carrying out things outwith their power.  

This is the fault of the SNP being sleekit and campaigning on something they know they can't deliver which then leads to conversations like this and some people being aggrieved as they think it's unfair and undemocratic whereas the SNP know this before they start campaigning. I believe that's what strengthened the breakaway factions and Alba types as they're frustrated as they know Sturgeon is leading them up the garden path every year. They know she isn't able to deliver it like she says she can year after year but at the same time they don't really have any alternative to backing the SNP and hoping Westminster changes it's mind. 

It is also possible to think that Westminster could do with reform and that Holyrood should have the power to hold referendums unilaterally but that's where I would disagree. It also must be acknowledged if you believe this that Sturgeon and the SNP themselves already know and believe this so are at least in some way being misleading about what they offer Scottish voters. 

 

I'm trying to be charitable here. If your objection to the SNP is that they promise something "outwith their power" it seems that you have very few options when it comes to political parties in Scotland. Almost by definition the local chairmen of the branches of Con/Lab/Lib Dem have no power to deliver on anything they promise, only the power to lobby within theior own party on behalf of Scotland. The SNP and Greens at least have control over their ambitions.

They certainly are, at present, unable to deliver another Edinburgh Agreement. That arrangement requires co-operation from the UK government.

However. It is far from clear that Scotland lacks the power to hold a referendum. The case for is pretty good, relying on existing UK legislation. Referendums are not a reserved matter. Voting is something wholly devolved to Holyrood. With the referendum act in 2020 they have already established that this is their preferred route. Holding an advisory referendum to poll opinion on independence.

The legislation will be clear that there is no legal obligation incurred by such a border poll. The intent is to clarify support or lack thereof.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

9 minutes ago, Zern said:

I'm trying to be charitable here. If your objection to the SNP is that they promise something "outwith their power" it seems that you have very few options when it comes to political parties in Scotland. Almost by definition the local chairmen of the branches of Con/Lab/Lib Dem have no power to deliver on anything they promise, only the power to lobby within theior own party on behalf of Scotland. The SNP and Greens at least have control over their ambitions.

They certainly are, at present, unable to deliver another Edinburgh Agreement. That arrangement requires co-operation from the UK government.

However. It is far from clear that Scotland lacks the power to hold a referendum. The case for is pretty good, relying on existing UK legislation. Referendums are not a reserved matter. Voting is something wholly devolved to Holyrood. With the referendum act in 2020 they have already established that this is their preferred route. Holding an advisory referendum to poll opinion on independence.

The legislation will be clear that there is no legal obligation incurred by such a border poll. The intent is to clarify support or lack thereof.

I'm not arguing against people choosing to vote for the SNP. If you followed the conversation I was responding to why i dont think we should have referendums to take us out of the UK after every Scottish election.

I don't care if the SNP want to have advisory referendums to poll opinions every year. Can't imagine it being of much use to anyone and I'd imagine the turnout would be very low. 

What were you being charitable about? 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[williemillersmoustache]

Totally unsurprising to see the diminution of the manifesto as a concept from the right/wankers who don't believe in accountability/base their voting preferences on primary colours and the noise from a dogs squeaky chew toy. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Totally unsurprising to see a shitpost with zero content or worth from the wankers who don't believe in accountability/base their voting preferences on primary colours and the noise from a dogs squeaky chew toy.

(In all seriousness it's hilarious how aggresive and deranged some of the Internet losers in this place get when people try and have civil discussions)

Edited April 26, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[williemillersmoustache]

Manifestos have a crucial role, a good example is the Salisbury convention. Its not just a prospectus they have constitutional weight. 

You don't have the first fucking clue about how the place you live is governed and yet we are never short of your very special opinions on things, you plainly know very little about. 

Can we just cut to the point where you say "i'll leave it there" after yet again being found to be slavering? 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Manifestos have a crucial role, a good example is the Salisbury convention. Its not just a prospectus they have constitutional weight. 

You don't have the first fucking clue about how the place you live is governed and yet we are never short of your very special opinions on things, you plainly know very little about. 

Can we just cut to the point where you say "i'll leave it there" after yet again being found to be slavering? 

Of course they do. That's why it helps when politicians only put things they're capable of doing in them...

Your second part is just a hilarious emotional breakdown unprovoked. Go for a walk or something man you're furious and your slavering is adding zero to the thread. 

[williemillersmoustache]

2 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Generally speaking manifestos don't mean much, just paper with false promises from every party. 

Weird because here's you saying something completely different a minute ago. 

 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Weird because here's you saying something completely different a minute ago. 

 

I think we'll just put that down to your red mist leaving you unable to think critically. 

Strange that you want to derail a thread on a pedantic slaver of an argument though, save us all the bother and have your afternoon nap. 

[Zern]

37 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I'm not arguing against people choosing to vote for the SNP. If you followed the conversation I was responding to why i dont think we should have referendums to take us out of the UK after every Scottish election.

I don't care if the SNP want to have advisory referendums to poll opinions every year. Can't imagine it being of much use to anyone and I'd imagine the turnout would be very low. 

What were you being charitable about? 

I'm trying to be charitable towards your position. It appears incoherent. If advisory referendums are of so little concern to you, why do you object to a border poll by the SNP/Greens? That is what is being proposed. You can advocate for the UK whilst supporting a vote. Especially since SNP/Greens have represent the majority of electorate. To that end what they promise appears achievable. Or to put it another way; within their power.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

1 minute ago, Zern said:

I'm trying to be charitable towards your position. It appears incoherent. If advisory referendums are of so little concern to you, why do you object to a border poll by the SNP/Greens? That is what is being proposed. You can advocate for the UK whilst supporting a vote. Especially since SNP/Greens have represent the majority of electorate. To that end what they promise appears achievable. Or to put it another way; within their power.

No you're not. 

It's very obvious what my position is no matter how much you or others do this weird misframing tactic. 

I'm happy to have a referendum that's legally binding on the issue of Independence. 

[Zern]

2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

No you're not. 

It's very obvious what my position is no matter how much you or others do this weird misframing tactic. 

I'm happy to have a referendum that's legally binding on the issue of Independence. 

Referendums, under UK law are advisory. ie not legally binding.

[Duries Air Freshener]

2 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Things that they don't have the power to do in the first place. This is of course contested and we may have to go to court to find out but I don't believe Holyrood has the power to call a referendum on it's own back as that would directly impact the other nations in the union. 

The SNP have previously campaigned on the premise of stopping Brexit which is something they never had the power to do but they got elected off the back of that campaign, I don't think that suddenly meant the SNP should have been able to halt the Westminster Brexit process as they never had the power to do what they were offering the people in the first place. Generally speaking manifestos don't mean much, just paper with false promises from every party. 

I think winners of elections should of course be able to carry out everything they promise within their power but that doesn't even happen as it is so it's fanciful to imagine them carrying out things outwith their power.  

This is the fault of the SNP being sleekit and campaigning on something they know they can't deliver which then leads to conversations like this and some people being aggrieved as they think it's unfair and undemocratic whereas the SNP know this before they start campaigning. I believe that's what strengthened the breakaway factions and Alba types as they're frustrated as they know Sturgeon is leading them up the garden path every year. They know she isn't able to deliver it like she says she can year after year but at the same time they don't really have any alternative to backing the SNP and hoping Westminster changes it's mind. 

It is also possible to think that Westminster could do with reform and that Holyrood should have the power to hold referendums unilaterally but that's where I would disagree. It also must be acknowledged if you believe this that Sturgeon and the SNP themselves already know and believe this so are at least in some way being misleading about what they offer Scottish voters. 

 

Great post.

Referendum powers lie with Parliament.. NOT Holyrood.

The SNP can keep claiming they have a mandate for another referendum all they like, but they don’t.

‘Why won’t Nicola tell us when wurr huvvun wurr reffarenndum?’

Answer - Because she doesn’t have the power to decide.

’But it wiz in ra manifestoe! We huv a mandate!’

Answer - Sorry to break the unfortunate news, but your manifesto means zero compared to reality.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Seen as you're clearly struggling with my position and you're unhappy with my casual wording I'll be charitable and use your own words.

1 hour ago, Zern said:

They certainly are, at present, unable to deliver another Edinburgh Agreement. That arrangement requires co-operation from the UK government.

 

This is why I think it's disingenuous when they tell their supporters they will deliver independence if elected. 

[Zern]

17 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Seen as you're clearly struggling with my position and you're unhappy with my casual wording I'll be charitable and use your own words.

This is why I think it's disingenuous when they tell their supporters they will deliver independence if elected. 

And that would be a misunderstanding, on your part, of what they've promised.

Or how their supporters view them and their government.

They are promising legislation for a referendum in 2023.

They have been equally clear that they are bound by Westminster in more ways than one.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

6 minutes ago, Zern said:

They have been equally clear that they are bound by Westminster in more ways than one.

Now that's a charitable statement.