Scottish Independence

[Jack]

He makes a valid point about Derek Mackay getting paid 100k for doing nothing:

Douglas Ross promises 'Mackay's Law' to oust absent MSPs - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58780992)

That won't make him popular at Westminster and the Lords will go ape at the very thought!

[ronaldo7]

I am almost falling off my chair with all this agreement !

I am not as convinced as you are that the changes are short term and in some cases there could be quite difficult situations to be overcome. I agree that people may come round to these if they are acknowledged and we know how they will be tackled.

As I see it though we are stuck right now and we need a change on one or other side to tip the balance, Thats not coming from the UK any time soon and there is a chance for SNP to change tack.

I'm interested in where you think the SNP should change tack to?

We're mitigating the worst of policies coming from Westminster, and have introduced other social security payments to help those in need (seven of them not introduced elsewhere in the UK).

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1444977158636584964?s=21

Apparently the House of Lords is democratic?[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

I'm interested in where you think the SNP should change tack to?

We're mitigating the worst of policies coming from Westminster, and have introduced other social security payments to help those in need (seven of them not introduced elsewhere in the UK).

For me, two things:

1) Drop the grievances - that has got you so far but isnt really helpful any more

2) Focus on the case for independence, acknowledge the risks and how they will be mitigated.

It would also be helpful if some of the issues in the current administration were acknowledged, but that can follow after the above two. In fact its really the 2nd item that is key if the SNP are serious about Independence and winning over enough support. Just continuing as is will keep us hovering around the 50/50 mark

[ronaldo7]

For me, two things:

1) Drop the grievances - that has got you so far but isnt really helpful any more

2) Focus on the case for independence, acknowledge the risks and how they will be mitigated.

It would also be helpful if some of the issues in the current administration were acknowledged, but that can follow after the above two. In fact its really the 2nd item that is key if the SNP are serious about Independence and winning over enough support. Just continuing as is will keep us hovering around the 50/50 mark

Interesting use of language. Your grievance is someone else's holding people to account. What grievances are you speaking of?

Totally agree on point 2. It will be nice to see the argument put at Indyref 2 against the Union record over the last 7 years. I wonder who will make that argument.

[Since90+2]

I am almost falling off my chair with all this agreement !

I am not as convinced as you are that the changes are short term and in some cases there could be quite difficult situations to be overcome. I agree that people may come round to these if they are acknowledged and we know how they will be tackled.

As I see it though we are stuck right now and we need a change on one or other side to tip the balance, Thats not coming from the UK any time soon and there is a chance for SNP to change tack.

I agree that rebalancing of trade and developing a currency are not short term or easy solutions. They are huge, complex issues, and could, and if I'm being totally honest probably will, result in some hardship for a good few years after independence. On the balance of everything else I still think it's worth it for the opportunity for Scotland to be a forward thinking and inclusive society for when our kids reach adulthood.

Let's not kid ourselves though, it could potentially be quite difficult and challenging and nobody really truly knows how everything would turn out.

Whether or not the SNP wish to be as forthcoming with that sort of honesty is another matter.

[Skol]

Interesting use of language. Your grievance is someone else's holding people to account. What grievances are you speaking of?

Totally agree on point 2. It will be nice to see the argument put at Indyref 2 against the Union record over the last 7 years. I wonder who will make that argument.

I am surprised about that question about grievances. I did a google search to see what I found and this was the 2nd item on the list:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19529738.snps-grudge-grievance-tactics-fuel-anti-englishness-says-jim-sillars/

I agree we need to know what we are getting with both options. For the union we know what that is and all its flaws. For independence we dont yet know.

[ronaldo7]

I am surprised about that question about grievances. I did a google search to see what I found and this was the 2nd item on the list:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19529738.snps-grudge-grievance-tactics-fuel-anti-englishness-says-jim-sillars/

I agree we need to know what we are getting with both options. For the union we know what that is and all its flaws. For independence we dont yet know.

😂
I thought you were being serious re the grievances, then you quote the guy who's got more grievances against the SNP than Boris has told lies.

Your point about knowing what the union have in store for us. I don't agree. I remember Blair McDougal laughing about Boris becoming PM, and Alistair Carmichael doing the same when challenged about leaving the EU.

We have no idea what the unionist have in store for Scotland.

Given their latest ruse about bypassing parliament, we might not have one in their future.

[Skol]

😂
I thought you were being serious re the grievances, then you quote the guy who's got more grievances against the SNP than Boris has told lies.

Your point about knowing what the union have in store for us. I don't agree. I remember Blair McDougal laughing about Boris becoming PM, and Alistair Carmichael doing the same when challenged about leaving the EU.

We have no idea what the unionist have in store for Scotland.

Given their latest ruse about bypassing parliament, we might not have one in their future.

lol - I had thought one of your own might persuade you.

A good example is the Blackford's reaction to the NI recent increase. Note that I absolutely agree with the sentiment about the NI increase being wrong, but the reasons Blackford was giving were just wrong.

On what the union have in store. By your measure we cannot know what Independence has in store either as things change and the future is unpredictable.

[ronaldo7]

lol - I had thought one of your own might persuade you.

A good example is the Blackford's reaction to the NI recent increase. Note that I absolutely agree with the sentiment about the NI increase being wrong, but the reasons Blackford was giving were just wrong.

On what the union have in store. By your measure we cannot know what Independence has in store either as things change and the future is unpredictable.

You've already said you don't know what independence will look like.

My point is, you don't know what the union are offering. It's not just the status quo. Look at the amount of change(not for the better 😁) I'd argue. Power grabs, tax rises, removal of FOM, and export markets to name but a few. You can't tell what they're going to do from one day to the next.

All the while, were having to mitigate bad policies from London.

I look forward to both parties, YES, and no, putting their positive cases forward.

[Moulin Yarns]

lol - I had thought one of your own might persuade you.

A good example is the Blackford's reaction to the NI recent increase. Note that I absolutely agree with the sentiment about the NI increase being wrong, but the reasons Blackford was giving were just wrong.

On what the union have in store. By your measure we cannot know what Independence has in store either as things change and the future is unpredictable.

The NI increase is going to cost employers, as well as employees. I think that I read the NHS in Scotland will have to find around £61m to pay the increased contribution.

[Skol]

Allister Jack really is a buffoon and giving the independence supporters plenty of material for free.

[Callum_62]

Allister Jack really is a buffoon and giving the independence supporters plenty of material for free.I'm sure the 'requirements' to hold a referendum keep changing as they are met or get closer to being met

Now he thinks every quarter of a century is needed to pass, THEN 60 percent support for a referdum sustained for 12 months AND 60 percent support for YES sustained for 12 months

Gotta love the tories definition of democracy right

Surley unionist can't even defend that?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Skol]

I'm sure the 'requirements' to hold a referendum keep changing as they are met or get closer to being met

Now he thinks every quarter of a century is needed to pass, THEN 60 percent support for a referdum sustained for 12 months AND 60 percent support for YES sustained for 12 months

Gotta love the tories definition of democracy right

Surley unionist can't even defend that?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

I didn’t defend it. Complete nonsense.

[Ozyhibby]

The great thing about the next indyref campaign (there will be one) is that the Tories will be leading it.
Replacing Alistair Darling, Jim Murphy, Gordon Brown, Blair McDougall etc with Douglas Ross, Alistair Jack, Ruth Davidson and Pamela Nash is a massive boost for the Yes campaign before it even starts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

This little 40 page booklet on Scottish Independence just got stuck through the door this morning. Published by the Scottish Independence Foundation.
Wonder if this is getting sent to everyone?
2517425175

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211006/13c326179116bda26648b8c1a74d9757.jpg

Big win for UK govt in preventing Scottish Parliament from protecting children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just_Jimmy]

It really feels like a rubbish position to be in. Totally disenfranchised with the UK government but also totally against Independence.

If the SNP want to push the dial they need to ponder on how they change their approach to appeal to the likes on me. Right now it is just a big no mans landI'm a Scot living in England with a very limited choice in who to vote for. The only consolidation is that my seat is a labour seat so I can at least justify voting Labour to keep a Tory out for now.

However, it's ***** all round.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211006/13c326179116bda26648b8c1a74d9757.jpg

Big win for UK govt in preventing Scottish Parliament from protecting children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Being part of the union has prevented our democratically elected Scottish Parliament from incorporating the rights of the child into Scots law.

Just let that sink in for all those Scottish progressives.

[He's here!]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211006/13c326179116bda26648b8c1a74d9757.jpg

Big win for UK govt in preventing Scottish Parliament from protecting children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's simply not the case, much as independence supporters will (loudly) try to frame it that way. It has nothing to do with children's rights or devolution. As Andy Wightman points out it's a straightforward procedural matter regarding the law making process.

[Ozyhibby]

That's simply not the case, much as independence supporters will (loudly) try to frame it that way. It has nothing to do with children's rights or devolution. As Andy Wightman points out it's a straightforward procedural matter regarding the law making process.

How could you frame it any other way? It would be law right now if not for the intervention of the UK govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

That's simply not the case, much as independence supporters will (loudly) try to frame it that way. It has nothing to do with children's rights or devolution. As Andy Wightman points out it's a straightforward procedural matter regarding the law making process.

Andrew Tickell

In summary: Westminster will be able to pass legislation which violates children's rights in devolved areas without these being challengeable in the courts, on the basis that the UK parliament must have "unqualified legislative power" to make laws, even in clearly devolved areas.

Next we'll be told its all grievance politics. This time however the whole Scottish Parliament voted it through.

[James310]

Roddy Dunlop QC the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates offers a different viewpoint about today.

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1445767130935296008?t=-byvgnXyqTyXHLX2KOve4g&s=19

Agreed. Lots of cries of “what about the children?!” Not the point of this case. I am aware of no deficit re child rights in Scots law& if there is then Holyrood is free to legislate as a devolved matter. What can’t be done is to pass legislation that qualifies reserved powers.

[Skol]

I must be a yoon :-(

Douglas Ross wrote to me today and asked me to consider standing as a councillor. Quite how I found my way on to his mailing list I have no idea.

[Ozyhibby]

Roddy Dunlop QC the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates offers a different viewpoint about today.

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1445767130935296008?t=-byvgnXyqTyXHLX2KOve4g&s=19

Agreed. Lots of cries of “what about the children?!” Not the point of this case. I am aware of no deficit re child rights in Scots law& if there is then Holyrood is free to legislate as a devolved matter. What can’t be done is to pass legislation that qualifies reserved powers.

All he is saying is he is happy with the way things are? This was new legislation that was backed by all parties in The Scottish Parliament. It put new responsibilities on public bodies operating in Scotland and it has been blocked by the UK govt. Interestingly when the Welsh govt passed the exact same legislation the UK govt let it go without challenge? Why would they treat Scotland differently?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

I must be a yoon :-(

Douglas Ross wrote to me today and asked me to consider standing as a councillor. Quite how I found my way on to his mailing list I have no idea.
Councillor Skol has a certain ring to it mate :greengrin

[greenlex]

Councillor Skol (Conservative)has a certain ring to it mate :greengrin

Fixed that. 😬😬

[Ryan91]

All he is saying is he is happy with the way things are? This was new legislation that was backed by all parties in The Scottish Parliament. It put new responsibilities on public bodies operating in Scotland and it has been blocked by the UK govt. Interestingly when the Welsh govt passed the exact same legislation the UK govt let it go without challenge? Why would they treat Scotland differently?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume no fuss with Welsh Gov as it's already part of English (and Welsh) law.

Or because it's an opportunity for UK Gov to flex their muscles and show that SNP bad. :dunno:

It's beyond me in all fairness, but I'm pretty sure I read that it's due to wording, and that these laws can be passed again with some changes to the way things are written and not be challenged.

[Skol]

Councillor Skol has a certain ring to it mate :greengrin


Fixed that. 😬😬

lol:thumbsup:

I can only think its because my better half objected to a building application and enlisted the support of all local MPs, MSPs and Councillors (*) in an effort to get the application blocked. To be fair they were all very supportive and helped to get the original application blocked and replaced by an alternative which wasnt as bad as the original would have been.

(*) I think they were all either Lib Dem or Conservative at the time.

[Moulin Yarns]

I must be a yoon :-(

Douglas Ross wrote to me today and asked me to consider standing as a councillor. Quite how I found my way on to his mailing list I have no idea.

I regularly get letters from him talking about farming. My address is.... Farmhouse 😁

Not been a working farm for over 30 years!!

[Moulin Yarns]

lol:thumbsup:

I can only think its because my better half objected to a building application and enlisted the support of all local mps, msps and councillors (*) in an effort to get the application blocked. To be fair they were all very supportive and helped to get the original application blocked and replaced by an alternative which wasnt as bad as the original would have been.

(*) i think they were all either lib dem or conservative at the time.

nimby 😉

[He's here!]

How could you frame it any other way? It would be law right now if not for the intervention of the UK govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It appears that the legislation can quite easily be brought into line with the court ruling. There's no serious controversy about its content, with both treaties having long been ratified by the UK. It simply fell outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish government, something they were made well aware of prior to its publication (IIRC the Scottish secretary flagged up the potential problems well in advance but was ignored). Sturgeon & Co can't surely be surprised by the legal defeat as the law is abundantly clear (underlined by the Supreme Court's decision a few years back on the Withdrawal from the EU (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill...yep, I had to look up the wording for that). It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the legislation was drafted in such a way that it was intended to fail, but then our 'chief Mammy' would never resort to such underhand tactics would she?

[Crunchie]

It appears that the legislation can quite easily be brought into line with the court ruling. There's no serious controversy about its content, with both treaties having long been ratified by the UK. It simply fell outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish government, something they were made well aware of prior to its publication (IIRC the Scottish secretary flagged up the potential problems well in advance but was ignored). Sturgeon & Co can't surely be surprised by the legal defeat as the law is abundantly clear (underlined by the Supreme Court's decision a few years back on the Withdrawal from the EU (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill...yep, I had to look up the wording for that). It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the legislation was drafted in such a way that it was intended to fail, but then our 'chief Mammy' would never resort to such underhand tactics would she?
Our chief mammy believes she is a law unto herself.

[degenerated]

Our chief mammy believes she is a law unto herself.Its a very odd mindset where folk can get a chubby over a bill to protect children's rights in their own country being overturned by a court in another country.

Regardless of what the Tories in the Scottish regional branch say now they, along with the other unionist parties, supported this bill in Holyrood.

[Peevemor]

Its a very odd mindset where folk can get a chubby over a bill to protect children's rights in their own country being overturned by a court in another country.

Regardless of what the Tories in the Scottish regional branch say now they, along with the other unionist parties, supported this bill in Holyrood.

Yep, immature nonsense.

[degenerated]

Yep, immature nonsense.Quite depressing really.

[Ozyhibby]

Its a very odd mindset where folk can get a chubby over a bill to protect children's rights in their own country being overturned by a court in another country.

Regardless of what the Tories in the Scottish regional branch say now they, along with the other unionist parties, supported this bill in Holyrood.

What was weird yesterday was that although all parties supported this bill in the Scottish Parliament, when it was debated yesterday, all the parties chose to attack the SNP following the UK govt stopping the bill. Not a bad word from Labour for the UK govt. it’s almost like there is no principle they won’t set aside for their precious union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

What was weird yesterday was that although all parties supported this bill in the Scottish Parliament, when it was debated yesterday, all the parties chose to attack the SNP following the UK govt stopping the bill. Not a bad word from Labour for the UK govt. it’s almost like there is no principle they won’t set aside for their precious union.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYep, they were all mighty proud of themselves when they votes in favour of the bill. Now they are all tugging themselves off on social media about the fact that they've been told these sort of things are above their pay grade.

The lack of self-respect is staggering.

[Kato]

Our chief mammy believes she is a law unto herself.You believed there weren't any empty shelves in the supermarkets.

I wonder who's judgement to trust.[emoji848]

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I wonder how many other people noticed the irony of Boris yesterday telling Scotland that the English government were going to improve the A75 and A1 in Scotland (devolved powers) on the same day that the supreme courts were giving the decision that the Scottish government had overstepped their powers?!

[Skol]

nimby 😉

haha, wasnt quite in my back yard but was going to be a property with a roof terrace that pretty much hung over my back yard.


We managed to get that stopped and they had to get a different design and different location on the plot of land. We now have ugly but less intrusive garage, granny flat and a box that I think contains either a sauna or a hot tub which we can live with

[One Day Soon]

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

[Since90+2]

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

Agreed.

Nobody comes out of this looking particularly good.

[Santa Cruz]

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

The P.O. was asked about the point you made in relation to her role.

Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con) (https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/miles-briggs)
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Today might not be a good day for ministers but it is certainly not a good day for our Parliament and how we make legislation. The UK Supreme Court ruling calls into question the legal advice that members of the Scottish Parliament have received and, perhaps more so, the legal advice that Scottish National Party ministers have been given and have said that they hold when members are making legislation. In the light of that and the ruling that we have received today, what review or consideration will you and the Parliament undertake of what needs to change?
The Presiding Officer (https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/alison-johnstone)
I thank Mr Briggs for his point of order. The role of the Presiding Officer is to indicate a view—an opinion—on legislative competence at the point when a bill is introduced, and the intention of that statement is to inform the Parliament in any consideration of the bill. The Presiding Officer has no further role in relation to legislative competence during the passage of any bill, and their view on the matter does not prevent any bill from being submitted for royal assent. In all instances, the United Kingdom Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in determining legislative competence. Its ruling on these matters clarifies the legal position and will inform future consideration of legislative competence.

[Ozyhibby]

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

I would say those opposing the protection of children through the courts look worse than others.
This legislation only concerns incorporating the UN children’s human rights act into Scots law. The only affect it would have had on the UK govt is that it would have to make sure that their own laws also complied with it where they applied in Scotland. Why would the UK govt be against that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The most common response from unionists on this appears to be that everyone looks bad in this?

Surely that’s as clear a sign as any that they know the UK govt comes off a lot worse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

I would say those opposing the protection of children through the courts look worse than others.
This legislation only concerns incorporating the UN children’s human rights act into Scots law. The only affect it would have had on the UK govt is that it would have to make sure that their own laws also complied with it where they applied in Scotland. Why would the UK govt be against that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont believe anyone is opposing the protection of children though?

[One Day Soon]

The P.O. was asked about the point you made in relation to her role.

Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con) (https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/miles-briggs)
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Today might not be a good day for ministers but it is certainly not a good day for our Parliament and how we make legislation. The UK Supreme Court ruling calls into question the legal advice that members of the Scottish Parliament have received and, perhaps more so, the legal advice that Scottish National Party ministers have been given and have said that they hold when members are making legislation. In the light of that and the ruling that we have received today, what review or consideration will you and the Parliament undertake of what needs to change?
The Presiding Officer (https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/alison-johnstone)
I thank Mr Briggs for his point of order. The role of the Presiding Officer is to indicate a view—an opinion—on legislative competence at the point when a bill is introduced, and the intention of that statement is to inform the Parliament in any consideration of the bill. The Presiding Officer has no further role in relation to legislative competence during the passage of any bill, and their view on the matter does not prevent any bill from being submitted for royal assent. In all instances, the United Kingdom Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in determining legislative competence. Its ruling on these matters clarifies the legal position and will inform future consideration of legislative competence.


Point scoring from Briggs and truly pathetic deflection from the PO.

The Presiding Officer receives legal advice on things like this and attempting to downplay having made an ar5e of it with the language of 'indicate a view - an opinion' just makes her office look weaker. It's not like it's a question of 'would you prefer the veal or the pasta Madge?'. These are points of law.

[degenerated]

The most common response from unionists on this appears to be that everyone looks bad in this?

Surely that’s as clear a sign as any that they know the UK govt comes off a lot worse?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe optics for this are absolutely dreadful for the UK.

[grunt]

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.
There are already a number of senior legal figures questioning the CA judgement, and the fact that it went there in the first place indicates how legally complicated the issue is. Anyone who thinks this is a "basic error" is either wilfully or blissfully ignorant of the complexities of the law.

[One Day Soon]

I would say those opposing the protection of children through the courts look worse than others.
This legislation only concerns incorporating the UN children’s human rights act into Scots law. The only affect it would have had on the UK govt is that it would have to make sure that their own laws also complied with it where they applied in Scotland. Why would the UK govt be against that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think anyone is opposing that are they? Passing a law that literally does not stand up in court is not a very smart way of protecting rights.

There's a reason why authorities should not be able to act ultra vires. If that no longer applies we're in all sorts of bother.

[JeMeSouviens]

Point scoring from Briggs and truly pathetic deflection from the PO.

The Presiding Officer receives legal advice on things like this and attempting to downplay having made an ar5e of it with the language of 'indicate a view - an opinion' just makes her office look weaker. It's not like it's a question of 'would you prefer the veal or the pasta Madge?'. These are points of law.

I've not really been following this but ... was this not voted on when the previous (Labour Unionist) PO was still in post? And all the Lab/Lib/Tory Unionist members voted for it? :confused:

[One Day Soon]

There are already a number of senior legal figures questioning the CA judgement, and the fact that it went there in the first place indicates how legally complicated the issue is. Anyone who thinks this is a "basic error" is either wilfully or blissfully ignorant of the complexities of the law.


It absolutely is a basic error. The PO's office flagged no questions on this. At the very least they should have noted the possible constitutional conflict.

I'm not sure who your senior legal figures are and I haven't seen anyone contradict the actual findings of the Supreme Court. I've seen people assess the findings in terms of their implications but has anyone actually said the Supreme Court is wrong? The Supreme Court is there to rule on exactly this kind of thing.

[One Day Soon]

The most common response from unionists on this appears to be that everyone looks bad in this?

Surely that’s as clear a sign as any that they know the UK govt comes off a lot worse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There's more to life than independence Barry.

[Skol]

My view here and I accept others will not agree is that the SG saw this as a good opportunity to manufacture a grievance with Westminster.

Try to pass a law they knew they couldnt, but it was a law that everyone agreed upon as a good thing. That way they can accuse Westminster of being nasty and interfering in devolution when thats not what has happened.

[Santa Cruz]

I've not really been following this but ... was this not voted on when the previous (Labour Unionist) PO was still in post? And all the Lab/Lib/Tory Unionist members voted for it? :confused:

PO's are politically neutral.

[One Day Soon]

I've not really been following this but ... was this not voted on when the previous (Labour Unionist) PO was still in post? And all the Lab/Lib/Tory Unionist members voted for it? :confused:


Absolutely. This is not a party political issue, it's a ****ed-up legal advice issue. Unless the parties involved deliberately went against legal advice for political purposes which seems unlikely in the case of Ken Macintosh.

So I'd say there is **** on a range of hands here: the 'SNP independence' Government, the 'Labour Unionist' PO (doesn't the PO become politically neutral on assuming office?) and the 'presumably non-aligned' Bill management team responsible for the passage of the legislation.

[Hibrandenburg]

My view here and I accept others will not agree is that the SG saw this as a good opportunity to manufacture a grievance with Westminster.

Try to pass a law they knew they couldnt, but it was a law that everyone agreed upon as a good thing. That way they can accuse Westminster of being nasty and interfering in devolution when thats not what has happened.

Except the pro union parties in the Scottish Parliament were in on the mischief.

[degenerated]

I've not really been following this but ... was this not voted on when the previous (Labour Unionist) PO was still in post? And all the Lab/Lib/Tory Unionist members voted for it? :confused:Both the Scottish parties and all the regional branches of the unionist ones all supported this act being passed for royal assent. It was deemed within the competence of the parliament by Ken McIntosh the labour presiding officer at the time.

Now you can't move for tumescent unionist msp's on twitter and the like celebrating a victory for the union against the upstart Scottish Government.

[degenerated]

PO's are politically neutral.aye, much like football referees are neutral too :hilarious

[Skol]

Except the pro union parties in the Scottish Parliament were in on the mischief.

Yes, that bit does puzzle me. Did they not know or if they did why did they not call the issue out.

Goes back to an earlier point that all parties here dont come out of this particularly well.

[One Day Soon]

My view here and I accept others will not agree is that the SG saw this as a good opportunity to manufacture a grievance with Westminster.

Try to pass a law they knew they couldnt, but it was a law that everyone agreed upon as a good thing. That way they can accuse Westminster of being nasty and interfering in devolution when thats not what has happened.


Their own law officers would or should have advised them that it would be legally incompetent to do so. That evidence will exist but Scot Govt would almost certainly refuse to release it. FWIW I don't believe grievance manufacture was the driver on this occasion. I think it was a complex point of law that both sets of lawyers - Govt and Parliament - missed. Not the first time it's happened and won't be the last. But they should have known that the very strong potential for legal conflict was there.

It is of course subsequently being turned into a grievance/incompetence issue by politicians on both sides very enthusiastically. Weirdos.

[Santa Cruz]

aye, much like football referees are neutral too :hilarious

meaning Alison Johnstone is politically biased. Disappointing.

[Skol]

Their own law officers would or should have advised them that it would be legally incompetent to do so. That evidence will exist but Scot Govt would almost certainly refuse to release it. FWIW I don't believe grievance manufacture was the driver on this occasion. I think it was a complex point of law that both sets of lawyers - Govt and Parliament - missed. Not the first time it's happened and won't be the last. But they should have known that the very strong potential for legal conflict was there.

It is of course subsequently being turned into a grievance/incompetence issue by politicians on both sides very enthusiastically. Weirdos.

I am sure I read that Westminster (possibly Allister Jack which I know is not always the best person) had warned that this was outwith Holyrood's competence and so it was known this would be problematic.

[degenerated]

meaning Alison Johnstone is politically biased. Disappointing.I'm sure we'll find out, but the last one was certainly far from it.

[weecounty hibby]

Yes, that bit does puzzle me. Did they not know or if they did why did they not call the issue out.

Goes back to an earlier point that all parties here dont come out of this particularly well.

The Tories actually tabled a number of amendments to the Bill but for whatever reason withdrew them and then voted unanimously to pass the bill as it stood. They now seem to be using it as a political points scoring exercise. See Mikes Briggs above

[One Day Soon]

Except the pro union parties in the Scottish Parliament were in on the mischief.


I think we may be able to agree here that the Scottish Deep State has both enough nous and is also occasionally incompetent enough that this wasn't a deliberate conspiracy and was in fact a cock-up. Either that or something called the European Charter of Local Self-Government is one of the least likely constitutional battering rams that anyone could have foreseen and John Swinney is in fact Scotland's fiendish Moriarty to the UK's Holmes.

[weecounty hibby]

I am sure I read that Westminster (possibly Allister Jack which I know is not always the best person) had warned that this was outwith Holyrood's competence and so it was known this would be problematic.
Alistair union Jack of the Tories? You would have thought that he might have advised his own party MSPs against voting for the Bill then? Lots if things about this don't add up. Mostly from Tories and Labour who now seem to want to distance themselves from the Bill although they unanimously voted for it

[lapsedhibee]

The Tories actually tabled a number of amendments to the Bill but for whatever reason withdrew them and then voted unanimously to pass the bill as it stood. They now seem to be using it as a political points scoring exercise. See Mikes Briggs above

Did they set up the Parliament to look bad, or just the SNP? Hard to tell what London would prefer if they had to choose just one of no SNP or no Scottish Parliament.

[One Day Soon]

Alistair union Jack of the Tories? You would have thought that he might have advised his own party MSPs against voting for the Bill then? Lots if things about this don't add up. Mostly from Tories and Labour who now seem to want to distance themselves from the Bill although they unanimously voted for it


Occasionally just owning up to a mistake/mess would result in a lot more credibility all round. Scot Govt got it wrong, PO failed in the gatekeeping and all parties voted for something that wasn't competent. Any or all of these three groups having the confidence and honesty to hold their hands up would look better for them all singly or severally. Instead we're seeing the latest issue played out as constitutional politics by all sides in the same way that all other issues are.

[Santa Cruz]

Alistair union Jack of the Tories? You would have thought that he might have advised his own party MSPs against voting for the Bill then? Lots if things about this don't add up. Mostly from Tories and Labour who now seem to want to distance themselves from the Bill although they unanimously voted for it

Where's the quote from Labour saying they want to distance themselves? I'll spare you the rest of the question just to avoid looking like I'm making this a political point scoring opp. Just pointing out you are factually incorrect.

Michael Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab) (https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/michael-marra)
I thank the Government for advance sight of the statement. Scottish Labour stands ready to get the bill back into Parliament quickly, and to make sure that we can pass a competent act that protects young people’s rights.

[One Day Soon]

Did they set up the Parliament to look bad, or just the SNP? Hard to tell what London would prefer if they had to choose just one of no SNP or no Scottish Parliament.


Wait, the Tories (and all the other parties) conspired to make themselves look like idiots by knowingly voting for a Bill that was incompetent in order to discredit the SNP Govt and/or Parliament? Were Labour and the Lib/Dems in on this conspiracy?

[lapsedhibee]

Wait, the Tories (and all the other parties) conspired to make themselves look like idiots by knowingly voting for a Bill that was incompetent in order to discredit the SNP Govt and/or Parliament? Were Labour and the Lib/Dems in on this conspiracy?

Tories don't have to conspire to make themselves look like idiots. An unlikely event, I agree, it was just the rather odd point about abandoning amendments.

[JeMeSouviens]

PO's are politically neutral.

Yeah, I know. I wondered if the inference was that a Raving Nat PO and a bunch of "gone native" Raving Nat civil servants had cooked up a bit of Raving Nat GrievStokery ...


Absolutely. This is not a party political issue, it's a ****ed-up legal advice issue. Unless the parties involved deliberately went against legal advice for political purposes which seems unlikely in the case of Ken Macintosh.

So I'd say there is **** on a range of hands here: the 'SNP independence' Government, the 'Labour Unionist' PO (doesn't the PO become politically neutral on assuming office?) and the 'presumably non-aligned' Bill management team responsible for the passage of the legislation.

... but it seems not.

As you were. :wink:

[weecounty hibby]

Where's the quote from Labour saying they want to distance themselves? I'll spare you the rest of the question just to avoid looking like I'm making this a political point scoring opp. Just pointing out you are factually incorrect.

Michael Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab) (https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/michael-marra)
I thank the Government for advance sight of the statement. Scottish Labour stands ready to get the bill back into Parliament quickly, and to make sure that we can pass a competent act that protects young people’s rights.
Wrong choice of words, distancing themselves from the decisions made and the way the Bill was passed.

[Santa Cruz]

Wrong choice of words, distancing themselves from the decisions made and the way the Bill was passed.

They're not distancing themselves, they haven't questioned a judicial decision. Has the Bill been passed?

[weecounty hibby]

They're not distancing themselves, they haven't questioned a judicial decision. Has the Bill been passed?

It was at Holyrood

[Santa Cruz]

It was at Holyrood

Thanks.

[grunt]

It absolutely is a basic error. The PO's office flagged no questions on this. At the very least they should have noted the possible constitutional conflict.

I'm not sure who your senior legal figures are and I haven't seen anyone contradict the actual findings of the Supreme Court. I've seen people assess the findings in terms of their implications but has anyone actually said the Supreme Court is wrong? The Supreme Court is there to rule on exactly this kind of thing.
Prof. Mark Elliott Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, for one.

https://twitter.com/ProfMarkElliott/status/1445756561758904324?s=20


Overall, this judgment seems highly problematic to me. It reads the devolution settlement improbably narrowly; it employs unconvincing reasoning to get to that outcome; and it characterises the HRA’s constitutional effects in indefensibly broad terms.Whether he is correct or not is beyond my ability to determine. But the fact that he should question the decision indicates to me that this is far from being a "basic error."

[Ozyhibby]

Prof. Mark Elliott Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, for one.

https://twitter.com/ProfMarkElliott/status/1445756561758904324?s=20




You can always find lawyers to disagree with other lawyers. That’s how they make their money. Court cases are frequently won and lost by the govt. it’s no big deal either way.
The SP tried to pass a law that everyone agrees was a good law but the UK govt stepped in and stopped it. That’s all that is important here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

You can always find lawyers to disagree with other lawyers. That’s how they make their money. Court cases are frequently won and lost by the govt. it’s no big deal either way.
The SP tried to pass a law that everyone agrees was a good law but the UK govt stepped in and stopped it. That’s all that is important here.

Agreed. This will be my last post on the subject. The fact that "lawyers disagree with other lawyers" tells me that this interpretation of complex constitutional law should not be described as a "basic error" by non-lawyer fans on a football forum.

[He's here!]

I don't think anyone is opposing that are they? Passing a law that literally does not stand up in court is not a very smart way of protecting rights.

There's a reason why authorities should not be able to act ultra vires. If that no longer applies we're in all sorts of bother.

:agree: Spot on.

[He's here!]

Our chief mammy believes she is a law unto herself.

That self-annointed title becomes no less toe curling whenever you hear it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeoNCP98ASI

[StevieC]

I don't think anyone is opposing that are they? Passing a law that literally does not stand up in court is not a very smart way of protecting rights.

And therein lies the problem.
A Scottish Law, unanimously passed in the Scottish Parliament by Scottish MPs that should now be in place .. but it was challenged by a UK government in a UK court and it is deemed unlawful.

This isn’t about the law or the wording, it’s about the UK government overriding the Scottish Parliament. If the UK government hadn’t taken the Scottish government to court it would be written into Scottish law regardless of the wording.

[lapsedhibee]

And therein lies the problem.
A Scottish Law, unanimously passed in the Scottish Parliament by Scottish MPs that should now be in place .. but it was challenged by a UK government in a UK court and it is deemed unlawful.

This isn’t about the law or the wording, it’s about the UK government overriding the Scottish Parliament. If the UK government hadn’t taken the Scottish government to court it would be written into Scottish law regardless of the wording.

Exactly.

[He's here!]

And therein lies the problem.
A Scottish Law, unanimously passed in the Scottish Parliament by Scottish MPs that should now be in place .. but it was challenged by a UK government in a UK court and it is deemed unlawful.

This isn’t about the law or the wording, it’s about the UK government overriding the Scottish Parliament. If the UK government hadn’t taken the Scottish government to court it would be written into Scottish law regardless of the wording.

Yes it is. The bills could not stand up in court because they fell outwith the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence.

The UK government did not override the Scottish Parliament. A panel of Supreme Court judges (comprising, FWIW, two Scots, a Welshman/woman, a Northern Irishman/woman and an Englishman/woman) unanimously did so.

[weecounty hibby]

Yes it is. The bills could not stand up in court because they fell outwith the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence.

The UK government did not override the Scottish Parliament. A panel of Supreme Court judges (comprising, FWIW, two Scots, a Welshman/woman, a Northern Irishman/woman and an Englishman/woman) unanimously did so.
You have just made a great argument for independence. So the Scottish Parliament, not just the snp, but the entire Parliament voted to accept this bill into law in Scotland. We then have to ask for permission from the UK for that to happen

[One Day Soon]

You have just made a great argument for independence. So the Scottish Parliament, not just the snp, but the entire Parliament voted to accept this bill into law in Scotland. We then have to ask for permission from the UK for that to happen

No we don’t, we just have to legislate for it competently in the Scottish Parliament in the first place. Which I think is what John Swinney has now said they will do.

[weecounty hibby]

No we don’t, we just have to legislate for it competently in the Scottish Parliament in the first place. Which I think is what John Swinney has now said they will do.
We still need to ask permission. This bull**** about competence just means that the UK government/court has the ultimate say in Scottish affairs. By competence you mean agreed by the uk

[One Day Soon]

And therein lies the problem.
A Scottish Law, unanimously passed in the Scottish Parliament by Scottish MPs that should now be in place .. but it was challenged by a UK government in a UK court and it is deemed unlawful.

This isn’t about the law or the wording, it’s about the UK government overriding the Scottish Parliament. If the UK government hadn’t taken the Scottish government to court it would be written into Scottish law regardless of the wording.

It would have established the precedent that the Scottish Parliament could legislate beyond its own legal powers, it would have left in place a law that was challengeable in court, it would have set a precedent in Scotland that any public agency could act beyond its remit and legal powers and it would have endorsed poor parliamentary practice in making law. None of this is sensible or good regardless of your constitutional bent.

[One Day Soon]

We still need to ask permission. This bull**** about competence just means that the UK government/court has the ultimate say in Scottish affairs. By competence you mean agreed by the uk

Do you also think Scottish local authorities or Police Scotland should be allowed to act beyond their powers without reference to the Scottish Government?

[weecounty hibby]

Do you also think Scottish local authorities or Police Scotland should be allowed to act beyond their powers without reference to the Scottish Government?
So you now are comparing the elected government of Scotland and every single MSP to the police? Again you seem to be taking this competence word and using it to demonstrate that you don't think Holyrood were capable. What it means to me is that they passed a bill that Westminster weren't happy about so decided to challenge it. I ask you again if you think that is OK on a matter regarding protecting children. Personally I think it is bull****. I have no issue with defence etc being a reserved issue but child protection FFS! Also why doesn't Westminster just pass the same bill if all they are worried about is that it was passed in Scotland nd in their view outwith our "competence". Surely they want to enshrine the rights of children into law?

[ronaldo7]

We still need to ask permission. This bull**** about competence just means that the UK government/court has the ultimate say in Scottish affairs. By competence you mean agreed by the uk

Muscular unionism at its worst.

[One Day Soon]

So you now are comparing the elected government of Scotland and every single MSP to the police? Again you seem to be taking this competence word and using it to demonstrate that you don't think Holyrood were capable. What it means to me is that they passed a bill that Westminster weren't happy about so decided to challenge it. I ask you again if you think that is OK on a matter regarding protecting children. Personally I think it is bull****. I have no issue with defence etc being a reserved issue but child protection FFS! Also why doesn't Westminster just pass the same bill if all they are worried about is that it was passed in Scotland nd in their view outwith our "competence". Surely they want to enshrine the rights of children into law?


Competence is a word which in this context is not a value judgement as to whether or not an institution or individuals are up to the task, it is a reference to what they do or don't have legal powers to do.

What you or I do or don't have an issue with in terms of powers being reserved is completely irrelevant. They either have the legal power to act or they don't. If they have gone beyond their powers then the legislation has no authority.

The comparison with Councils or Police Scotland or another public body are completely valid. Subsidiary bodies have to act within their powers and not beyond. That principle is what protects you and I from, among other things, the state acting beyond its powers. It was true for the UK government in relation to the EU in areas not within their competence and would be so again were Scotland to ever join the EU.

[weecounty hibby]

Competence is a word which in this context is not a value judgement as to whether or not an institution or individuals are up to the task, it is a reference to what they do or don't have legal powers to do.

What you or I do or don't have an issue with in terms of powers being reserved is completely irrelevant. They either have the legal power to act or they don't. If they have gone beyond their powers then the legislation has no authority.

The comparison with Councils or Police Scotland or another public body are completely valid. Subsidiary bodies have to act within their powers and not beyond. That principle is what protects you and I from, among other things, the state acting beyond its powers. It was true for the UK government in relation to the EU in areas not within their competence and would be so again were Scotland to ever join the EU.

So for competence read whatever Westminster allows Scotland to do?

Also, not trying to be arsey but why do you think the the UK government doesnt just put it into UK law if really all they have an issue with is allowing Scotland to decide

[One Day Soon]

So for competence read whatever Westminster allows you to do?

Also, not trying to be arsey but why do you think the the UK government doesnt just put it into UK law if really all they have an issue with is allowing Scotland to decide


We have a constitutional settlement which set up the Scottish Parliament and which governs the powers of that parliament. It's not made up as we go along on a daily, weekly or monthly basis by the whims of the Westminster parliament, it is set out in law. So for competence read what is written in the Scotland Act plus subsequent amendments.

Given that "Ultimately, the two bills could likely be brought into line with the judgement with a few strokes of a pen - Mr Wightman says it should be "straightforward". (BBC website) it seems pretty clear to me that the Scottish Parliament has the powers it needs to pass law on these two subjects but that it needs to do so ways that are legal, unlike the first attempt.

[JeMeSouviens]

So for competence read whatever Westminster allows Scotland to do?

Also, not trying to be arsey but why do you think the the UK government doesnt just put it into UK law if really all they have an issue with is allowing Scotland to decide

Aiui, the issue is that the SP's bill says that no Scots law can breach UN child protection. The Supreme Court's issue is that Westminster can also pass legislation into Scots law (for both devolved and reserved areas) and they are saying that the SP should not be allowed to constrain the operation of the UK parliament, which has unconstrained sovereignty throughout the UK.

The Scottish Parliament has no authority of its own, it acts on behalf of Westminster over a limited range of delegated things.

[One Day Soon]

And therein lies the problem.
A Scottish Law, unanimously passed in the Scottish Parliament by Scottish MPs that should now be in place .. but it was challenged by a UK government in a UK court and it is deemed unlawful.

This isn’t about the law or the wording, it’s about the UK government overriding the Scottish Parliament. If the UK government hadn’t taken the Scottish government to court it would be written into Scottish law regardless of the wording.

No it really isn't. If the Scottish Parliament had passed a law that was legally competent then Westminster would not have been taking the matter to the Supreme Court. It's not as if we are seeing court cases like these particularly often.

[One Day Soon]

Aiui, the issue is that the SP's bill says that no Scots law can breach UN child protection. The Supreme Court's issue is that Westminster can also pass legislation into Scots law (for both devolved and reserved areas) and they are saying that the SP should not be allowed to constrain the operation of the UK parliament, which has unconstrained sovereignty throughout the UK.

The Scottish Parliament has no authority of its own, it acts on behalf of Westminster over a limited range of delegated things.

I think that is broadly right. And the Supreme Court is basically just a judge as to what is consistent and sustainable in law. Did they not in fact uphold the Scottish Government's policy on minimum alcohol pricing when it was challenged by whoever?

[Crunchie]

So you now are comparing the elected government of Scotland and every single MSP to the police? Again you seem to be taking this competence word and using it to demonstrate that you don't think Holyrood were capable. What it means to me is that they passed a bill that Westminster weren't happy about so decided to challenge it. I ask you again if you think that is OK on a matter regarding protecting children. Personally I think it is bull****. I have no issue with defence etc being a reserved issue but child protection FFS! Also why doesn't Westminster just pass the same bill if all they are worried about is that it was passed in Scotland nd in their view outwith our "competence". Surely they want to enshrine the rights of children into law?
If the Scottish govt are serious about children why do they allow them to marry at 16, I've never understood why that's never up for discussion.

[JeMeSouviens]

If the Scottish govt are serious about children why do they allow them to marry at 16, I've never understood why that's never up for discussion.

Now *that* is a tangent! Well played, indeed. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

I think that is broadly right. And the Supreme Court is basically just a judge as to what is consistent and sustainable in law. Did they not in fact uphold the Scottish Government's policy on minimum alcohol pricing when it was challenged by whoever?

Yes, they did. The Supreme Court is the ultimate court of appeal for all 3 jurisdictions of UK law.

[weecounty hibby]

If the Scottish govt are serious about children why do they allow them to marry at 16, I've never understood why that's never up for discussion.
It's a good point, perhaps it should be debated. I think the UN convention talks about child marriage as being a marriage where one or both of the parties is under 18.

[greenlex]

I always though Scots law was a different entity in itself. Some laws are different on each side of the border. Drink driving limits etc for example. Not sure why a law passed about children’s rights should be any different to be honest.

[Moulin Yarns]

We still need to ask permission. This bull**** about competence just means that the UK government/court has the ultimate say in Scottish affairs. By competence you mean agreed by the uk

As I said yesterday, the UK (sic!) government that has no legislative power over transport in anywhere other than in England, has decided UNILATERALLY that they want to upgrade the A75 and A1, north of Hadrian's Wall. How is that any different to what the Supreme Court just did. The road building in Scotland is beyond the competency of the UK (should read English) Government but not a word is said about it!!!

[JeMeSouviens]

I always though Scots law was a different entity in itself. Some laws are different on each side of the border. Drink driving limits etc for example. Not sure why a law passed about children’s rights should be any different to be honest.

Scots law is a different entity in itself but it is the Westminster parliament that has the ultimate say in making it.

[Moulin Yarns]

if the uk govt are serious about children why do they allow them to go to war and get killed at 16, i've never understood why that's never up for discussion.

ftfy

[JeMeSouviens]

As I said yesterday, the UK (sic!) government that has no legislative power over transport in anywhere other than in England, has decided UNILATERALLY that they want to upgrade the A75 and A1, north of Hadrian's Wall. How is that any different to what the Supreme Court just did. The road building in Scotland is beyond the competency of the UK (should read English) Government but not a word is said about it!!!

The UK parliament has legislative power over everything in the UK. They can literally do what they like. It is "convention" that the UK parliament doesn't legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the devolved legislatures, but there is no legal force behind that convention.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19632181.nicola-sturgeon-accused-distasteful-allusion-no-voters-dying/

Unionists getting all mock offended again.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19632181.nicola-sturgeon-accused-distasteful-allusion-no-voters-dying/

Unionists getting all mock offended again.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkSnowflakes

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Snowflakes

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

They just melt away. 😉

[ronaldo7]

They just melt away. 😉

But when it freezes, they're rock hard, and staunch as ****.

[StevieC]

No we don’t, we just have to legislate for it competently in the Scottish Parliament in the first place.

Some might say that it was legislated for competently in the Scottish Parliament, and it was only down to the UK government deciding that we couldn’t implement it without their say so that prevented it from entering law. It now has to be reworded in a way that says that the UK effectively has overriding control.

It’s not a case of incompetence with the wording, it’s a case of knowing your place.

[Just Alf]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19632181.nicola-sturgeon-accused-distasteful-allusion-no-voters-dying/

Unionists getting all mock offended again.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIf they really thought that then they'd be encouraging the referendum to happen ASAP, let's be honest, there's no Brexit or anything similar on the horizon to invalidate any promises made, so this next one will be the last for many, many years... mind you... Boris.

[He's here!]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19632181.nicola-sturgeon-accused-distasteful-allusion-no-voters-dying/

Unionists getting all mock offended again.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't think it's unreasonable to find such comments disrespectful to older voters. Basically endorses what that slimeball Robertson said about waiting for those pesky pensioners to die off (what could old people possibly bring to the table after all?). Poor comments from chief mammy (doubtless prefaced by that daft wee mock laugh she learned from Salmond to indicate there's something humorous on the way, even if it's not funny 😉).

[lapsedhibee]

Don't think it's unreasonable to find such comments disrespectful to older voters. Basically endorses what that slimeball Robertson said about waiting for those pesky pensioners to die off (what could old people possibly bring to the table after all?). Poor comments from chief mammy (doubtless prefaced by that daft wee mock laugh she learned from Salmond to indicate there's something humorous on the way, even if it's not funny 😉).

Think it's more disrespectful to pensioners to portray them, like this, as snowflakes. Newsflash: old people know they're going to die at some point.

[One Day Soon]

Some might say that it was legislated for competently in the Scottish Parliament, and it was only down to the UK government deciding that we couldn’t implement it without their say so that prevented it from entering law. It now has to be reworded in a way that says that the UK effectively has overriding control.

It’s not a case of incompetence with the wording, it’s a case of knowing your place.


If that was the case the Supreme Court would have found in favour of the Scottish Government, but they didn't. Not everything is about independence.

[degenerated]

Think it's more disrespectful to pensioners to portray them, like this, as snowflakes. Newsflash: old people know they're going to die at some point.Unionism seems to fairly unfathomable to me.

The Tories instigating a legal overturning of a bill protecting childrens rights is to be celebrated like a goal at a football match, and defended to the hilt.

Whereas, an inarguable fact about the demographics of unionism is to be treated as the most offensive thing ever.

[One Day Soon]

If they really thought that then they'd be encouraging the referendum to happen ASAP, let's be honest, there's no Brexit or anything similar on the horizon to invalidate any promises made, so this next one will be the last for many, many years... mind you... Boris.

Not following the logic here. People who don't want a referendum to take place should be in favour of having a referendum take place sooner because older people who are more likely to oppose independence are more likely to be dead if a referendum takes place some time in the future?

[Santa Cruz]

Unionism seems to fairly unfathomable to me.

The Tories instigating a legal overturning of a bill protecting childrens rights is to be celebrated like a goal at a football match, and defended to the hilt.

Whereas, an inarguable fact about the demographics of unionism is to be treated as the most offensive thing ever.


Is there a worry about existing legislation not being robust enough to protect the rights of children until this Bill is amended?

[Moulin Yarns]

Not following the logic here. People who don't want a referendum to take place should be in favour of having a referendum take place sooner because older people who are more likely to oppose independence are more likely to be dead if a referendum takes place some time in the future?

In a nutshell!! :agree:

[Ozyhibby]

Not following the logic here. People who don't want a referendum to take place should be in favour of having a referendum take place sooner because older people who are more likely to oppose independence are more likely to be dead if a referendum takes place some time in the future?

Be good if the people who want to prevent a referendum could concentrate on trying to win democratic elections to try prevent one rather than denying the people of Scotland their democratic right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Not following the logic here. People who don't want a referendum to take place should be in favour of having a referendum take place sooner because older people who are more likely to oppose independence are more likely to be dead if a referendum takes place some time in the future?
In a nutshell!! :agree:Yeah, not well worded to be fair, I'm having difficulty re-reading it! :greengrin


I'm trying to say, in general terms, if folks want to keep the UK together then probably best to strike now while the irons hot so to speak to maximise the chances for a no vote which once done will be the last vote for a long long time.

Of course that doesn't really take into account Yes voters moving to No as they get older, the one yes to no vote person I know fits that demographic, not very scientific lol.


I suppose a look over to Northern Ireland shows how the picture is changing over the years.

[Since90+2]

If there was to be a vote tomorrow I think the result would be very close. Very very fine margin IMO.

Which is why neither side is particularly wanting one at this moment in time. The impacts of covid and it's lasting legacy mean that it's difficult to get a clear picture. Both sides known there is too much to lose.

If I had to guess a referendum will take place after the next General Election. Probably around 2025.

[ronaldo7]

As I said yesterday, the UK (sic!) government that has no legislative power over transport in anywhere other than in England, has decided UNILATERALLY that they want to upgrade the A75 and A1, north of Hadrian's Wall. How is that any different to what the Supreme Court just did. The road building in Scotland is beyond the competency of the UK (should read English) Government but not a word is said about it!!!

https://www.businessforscotland.com/new-westminster-plan-to-grab-power-over-roads-and-undermine-holyrood/?fbclid=IwAR0u4QYAF6J5iy1R15fuS9eRUxe68cNxpCuTxc4N 7wCLttH3qrIsSdadGns

Do "Scottish" Labour or their supporters have a view on this, or are they happy for the Tories to ride roughshod over the devolution settlement?

New Westminster plan to grab power over roads and undermine Holyrood

Reports this morning suggest that the UK government plans to grab more spending powers from the Scottish parliament in a bid to undermine Holyrood.

Michel Gove will reportedly use money once distributed by the EU to upgrade the A75, which links Stranraer and the Northern Ireland ferry port at Cairnryan to the A74 at Gretna close to the English Border and the M6.

It’s another example of the UK government’s determination to bypass the Scottish government when allocating money that used to be distributed through Europe

The power to spend that money should have gone to the Scottish parliament and roads are a devolved issue which should come under the control of Holyrood.

It’s another example of the UK government’s determination to bypass the Scottish government when allocating money that used to be distributed through Europe.

It’s part of Westminster’s strategy to underline the UK government’s sovereignty over Holyrood in a bid to dampen support for independence.

Brexit has provided Boris Johnson and his Cabinet ministers with the opportunity to undermine devolution by ignoring priorities decided by MSPs.


Michael Gove, expected to make an announcement soon

The upgrading of the A75 was referred to in the Prime Minister’s speech at the Tory party conference this week. He said: “We will restore those sinews of the Union that have been allowed to atrophy, the A1 north of Berwick and on into Scotland, the A75 in Scotland that is so vital.”

Michael Gove will make the announcement as he has been handed control over the UK government’s much-criticised ‘’levelling-up’’ fund, which will provide the cash for the upgrade.

The announcement will follow the publication of the long-delayed Union Connectivity Review – which is supposed to include a feasibility study of the ”Celtic link” between Scotland and Ireland.

That’s the study which was linked to Boris Johnson’s plans for a bridge connecting Scotland with Northern Ireland which were later changed to a tunnel. A feasibility study on the scheme was commissioned by Peter Hendy, who is leading the Union Connectivity Review. The bridge/tunnel plan is now understood to have been dropped.

It emerged last month that neither the proposed bridge nor plans for a tunnel had been discussed with the Scottish government.

In his speech at a conference fringe meeting Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said he didn’t care about taking such decisions away from Holyrood

David Duguid – a recently fired Tory minister at the Scotland Office – had previously said the A75 and the A1 offered potential for by-passing Holyrood in funding decisions.

There will certainly be no support for the Scottish parliament’s power in devolved areas from Tory MSPs. In his speech at a conference fringe meeting – there was no room for it on the main conference agenda – Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said he didn’t care about taking such decisions away from Holyrood.

And Tory MSP Finlay Carson said the move to bypass Holyrood would ‘’no doubt anger the Scottish government given that roads are a devolved issue’’ but he supported it anyway.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “The A75 and A1 are part of Scotland’s strategic road network, which Scottish government ministers have ultimate responsibility for.

“We will always seek to engage constructively with the UK Government – for example, on cross-border rail and our shared desire for HS2 to serve Scotland – but UK government ministers have no role in deciding investment in Scotland’s trunk roads.

“We are already considering infrastructure enhancements which include cross border routes such as the A75 and the A1.”

[ronaldo7]

Unionism seems to fairly unfathomable to me.

The Tories instigating a legal overturning of a bill protecting childrens rights is to be celebrated like a goal at a football match, and defended to the hilt.

Whereas, an inarguable fact about the demographics of unionism is to be treated as the most offensive thing ever.

According to Leasky in the Herald this morning, it's just a form of Nationalism which the Unionists won't recognise.

[JeMeSouviens]

If there was to be a vote tomorrow I think the result would be very close. Very very fine margin IMO.

Which is why neither side is particularly wanting one at this moment in time. The impacts of covid and it's lasting legacy mean that it's difficult to get a clear picture. Both sides known there is too much to lose.

If I had to guess a referendum will take place after the next General Election. Probably around 2025.

Decent summary. :agree: We're probably in for a protracted period of shadow boxing. :rolleyes:

I think if you were aiming for an optimal peak in Yes support then the morning after the UK has confirmed another term of Johnson's clown show would be hard to beat.

[Ozyhibby]

Decent summary. :agree: We're probably in for a protracted period of shadow boxing. :rolleyes:

I think if you were aiming for an optimal peak in Yes support then the morning after the UK has confirmed another term of Johnson's clown show would be hard to beat.

I’m more pessimistic about the next 6 months for the UK than I’ve ever been. I really feel we are heading for an economic collapse of some sort.
If that does happen then it’s very hard to predict the future either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

I’m more pessimistic about the next 6 months for the UK than I’ve ever been. I really feel we are heading for an economic collapse of some sort.

:agree:

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-support-could-crumble-if-sturgeon-quits-as-leader?top&amp&__twitter_impression=true

Back to their only hope, NS’s demise.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-support-could-crumble-if-sturgeon-quits-as-leader?top&amp&__twitter_impression=true

Back to their only hope, NS’s demise.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incredible article would be better looking at his own failed party. Maybe he could estimate what his party's percentage of the poll would be without tactical voting.

[JeMeSouviens]

I’m more pessimistic about the next 6 months for the UK than I’ve ever been. I really feel we are heading for an economic collapse of some sort.
If that does happen then it’s very hard to predict the future either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I heard a guy being interviewed about gas supply/prices on the radio the other day who reckons if the coming winter is cold (I think he said in the 25% of coldest winters) then he expects serious supply problems. Maybe time to get onto Amazon and get a couple of back up convectors.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-support-could-crumble-if-sturgeon-quits-as-leader?top&amp&__twitter_impression=true

Back to their only hope, NS’s demise.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/viz/images/b/b9/Roger_Irrelevant.jpeg

[Santa Cruz]

Incredible article would be better looking at his own failed party. Maybe he could estimate what his party's percentage of the poll would be without tactical voting.

Perhaps the Green's with a seat in Gov could do the same. He got more votes than the Slater and Harvie combined tactical vote yielded.

[JeMeSouviens]

Perhaps the Green's with a seat in Gov could do the same. He got more votes than the Slater and Harvie combined tactical vote yielded.


:confused:

Greens 220,324
Libs 137,151

[Moulin Yarns]

I heard a guy being interviewed about gas supply/prices on the radio the other day who reckons if the coming winter is cold (I think he said in the 25% of coldest winters) then he expects serious supply problems. Maybe time to get onto Amazon and get a couple of back up convectors.

How do they work with no electricity coming out of the wall?

Wood burning stove with a hot plate for one pot cooking is the way to go 😉

[Moulin Yarns]

:confused:

Greens 220,324
Libs 137,151

Incredible the short memories folks have. 😁

[Callyballybe]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-support-could-crumble-if-sturgeon-quits-as-leader?top&amp&__twitter_impression=true

Back to their only hope, NS’s demise.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What an odious person.

Has anyone commented how 'knackered' Boris Johnson looks from having to take on the pandemic during his reign?

Betting that people won't be in jobs by the next election? And that she could take a "nice academic job in America or something." Unbelievably condescending.

[He's here!]

What an odious person.

Has anyone commented how 'knackered' Boris Johnson looks from having to take on the pandemic during his reign?

Betting that people won't be in jobs by the next election? And that she could take a "nice academic job in America or something." Unbelievably condescending.

He certainly looked bl**dy awful when he ended up in intensive care with Covid.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-support-could-crumble-if-sturgeon-quits-as-leader?top&amp&__twitter_impression=true

Back to their only hope, NS’s demise.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose we should show a bit of sympathy for him, this is his way of saying he has macular degenerative disease. 😉

[Jack]

Incredible the short memories folks have. 😁

Indeed. I tried to find previous numbers online without success but get the feeling the Greens are on the way up while the Libdems are in continuous free fall albeit with the odd triumph.

[degenerated]

According to Leasky in the Herald this morning, it's just a form of Nationalism which the Unionists won't recognise.He's bang on the money there. It's British Nationalism.

[He's here!]

If that was the case the Supreme Court would have found in favour of the Scottish Government, but they didn't. Not everything is about independence.

Indeed. Yet the simple fact that the Scottish Parliament has not been permitted by the Supreme Court to legislate beyond its legal powers seems unacceptable to some (despite the fact that the bills in question can seemingly be quite easily made legally acceptable).

[Callyballybe]

He certainly looked bl**dy awful when he ended up in intensive care with Covid.

I've no doubt he did. Which if anything, would further the cause for someone to say "Hang on, you're looking knackered. You can't have much longer to go in this job." (Which in any case, would still be condescending.)

[Ozyhibby]

I've no doubt he did. Which if anything, would further the cause for someone to say "Hang on, you're looking knackered. You can't have much longer to go in this job." (Which in any case, would still be condescending.)

Just another creepy male who thinks it’s ok to comment on the appearance of a woman publicly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-support-could-crumble-if-sturgeon-quits-as-leader?top&amp&__twitter_impression=true

Back to their only hope, NS’s demise.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWhat an idiot. As public a display of straw clutching as you're ever likely to see.

[Santa Cruz]

:confused:

Greens 220,324
Libs 137,151

I was talking about the number of votes Cole-Hamilton received in comparison to the 2 Green MSP's.

[ronaldo7]

Just another creepy male who thinks it’s ok to comment on the appearance of a woman publicly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Next he'll be telling her to **** off. That's his style.

[Ozyhibby]

Next he'll be telling her to **** off. That's his style.

He def seems to have a problem with women. One for the watching.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Incredible article would be better looking at his own failed party. Maybe he could estimate what his party's percentage of the poll would be without tactical voting.


Perhaps the Green's with a seat in Gov could do the same. He got more votes than the Slater and Harvie combined tactical vote yielded.

Not quite sure what the argument is here. Harvie got about 10 times the votes that his Lib Dem opponent got and Slater got about 3 times what her Lib Dem opponent got.

[Santa Cruz]

Not quite sure what the argument is here. Harvie got about 10 times the votes that his Lib Dem opponent got and Slater got about 3 times what her Lib Dem opponent got.

It's not an argument. Calling out tactical voting as if it only happens with Unionist parties. Harvie has stood for a constituency seat on 4 occasions (I think) and never won one. Going on the number of votes A.C.H got in comparison to him tells me he is far more popular with the electorate.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's not an argument. Calling out tactical voting as if it only happens with Unionist parties. Harvie has stood for a constituency seat on 4 occasions (I think) and never won one. Going on the number of votes A.C.H got in comparison to him tells me he is far more popular with the electorate.

Sorry SC, but that's rubbish. ACH is the recipient of tactical voting in his constituency. Harvie is one of its (many) victims in his.

[Moulin Yarns]

It's not an argument. Calling out tactical voting as if it only happens with Unionist parties. Harvie has stood for a constituency seat on 4 occasions (I think) and never won one. Going on the number of votes A.C.H got in comparison to him tells me he is far more popular with the electorate.

OK, so how many votes did the lib dems get in the same constituencies that Patrick and Lorna stand in??? That's the only way to make a true comparison of their popularity.


Patrick Harvie - Scottish Green Party - 9,077 votes
David McKenzie - Scottish Liberal Democrats - 977 votes


Rebecca Bell - Scottish Liberal Democrats - 2,035 votes

Lorna Slater - Scottish Green Party - 6,116 votes

[degenerated]

Sorry SC, but that's rubbish. ACH is the recipient of tactical voting in his constituency. Harvie is one of its (many) victims in his.Its blatantly obvious that Cole Hamilton benefits from tactical voting. Edinburgh Western is a two horse race where labour and tories barely register and hardly bother to campaign.

He also benefits from going largely unchallenged by the media over his smear campaigns, lying and misogynistic behaviour. 25182

[Glory Lurker]

https://www.businessforscotland.com/new-westminster-plan-to-grab-power-over-roads-and-undermine-holyrood/?fbclid=IwAR0u4QYAF6J5iy1R15fuS9eRUxe68cNxpCuTxc4N 7wCLttH3qrIsSdadGns

Do "Scottish" Labour or their supporters have a view on this, or are they happy for the Tories to ride roughshod over the devolution settlement?

New Westminster plan to grab power over roads and undermine Holyrood

Reports this morning suggest that the UK government plans to grab more spending powers from the Scottish parliament in a bid to undermine Holyrood.

Michel Gove will reportedly use money once distributed by the EU to upgrade the A75, which links Stranraer and the Northern Ireland ferry port at Cairnryan to the A74 at Gretna close to the English Border and the M6.

It’s another example of the UK government’s determination to bypass the Scottish government when allocating money that used to be distributed through Europe

The power to spend that money should have gone to the Scottish parliament and roads are a devolved issue which should come under the control of Holyrood.

It’s another example of the UK government’s determination to bypass the Scottish government when allocating money that used to be distributed through Europe.

It’s part of Westminster’s strategy to underline the UK government’s sovereignty over Holyrood in a bid to dampen support for independence.

Brexit has provided Boris Johnson and his Cabinet ministers with the opportunity to undermine devolution by ignoring priorities decided by MSPs.


Michael Gove, expected to make an announcement soon

The upgrading of the A75 was referred to in the Prime Minister’s speech at the Tory party conference this week. He said: “We will restore those sinews of the Union that have been allowed to atrophy, the A1 north of Berwick and on into Scotland, the A75 in Scotland that is so vital.”

Michael Gove will make the announcement as he has been handed control over the UK government’s much-criticised ‘’levelling-up’’ fund, which will provide the cash for the upgrade.

The announcement will follow the publication of the long-delayed Union Connectivity Review – which is supposed to include a feasibility study of the ”Celtic link” between Scotland and Ireland.

That’s the study which was linked to Boris Johnson’s plans for a bridge connecting Scotland with Northern Ireland which were later changed to a tunnel. A feasibility study on the scheme was commissioned by Peter Hendy, who is leading the Union Connectivity Review. The bridge/tunnel plan is now understood to have been dropped.

It emerged last month that neither the proposed bridge nor plans for a tunnel had been discussed with the Scottish government.

In his speech at a conference fringe meeting Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said he didn’t care about taking such decisions away from Holyrood

David Duguid – a recently fired Tory minister at the Scotland Office – had previously said the A75 and the A1 offered potential for by-passing Holyrood in funding decisions.

There will certainly be no support for the Scottish parliament’s power in devolved areas from Tory MSPs. In his speech at a conference fringe meeting – there was no room for it on the main conference agenda – Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said he didn’t care about taking such decisions away from Holyrood.

And Tory MSP Finlay Carson said the move to bypass Holyrood would ‘’no doubt anger the Scottish government given that roads are a devolved issue’’ but he supported it anyway.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “The A75 and A1 are part of Scotland’s strategic road network, which Scottish government ministers have ultimate responsibility for.

“We will always seek to engage constructively with the UK Government – for example, on cross-border rail and our shared desire for HS2 to serve Scotland – but UK government ministers have no role in deciding investment in Scotland’s trunk roads.

“We are already considering infrastructure enhancements which include cross border routes such as the A75 and the A1.”

Where are Labour? "The party of devolution". Surely they aren't disavowing John Smith's view that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people?

[Since90+2]

ACH is probably the biggest recipient of tactical voting at Holyrood.

[Ozyhibby]

ACH is probably the biggest recipient of tactical voting at Holyrood.

Absolutely. I live in his constituency and it used to be a three way marginal with Labour, Tories and Lib Dem’s. SNP barely featured.
The rise of the SNP saw the three unionist parties all get behind the Lib Dem’s. And it’s not just the voters who are doing it. Labour and the Tories have cut all resources to their local parties for campaigning here. They don’t even bother to put up posters. They have merged the parties in all but name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Absolutely. I live in his constituency and it used to be a three way marginal with Labour, Tories and Lib Dem’s. SNP barely featured.
The rise of the SNP saw the three unionist parties all get behind the Lib Dem’s. And it’s not just the voters who are doing it. Labour and the Tories have cut all resources to their local parties for campaigning here. They don’t even bother to put up posters. They have merged the parties in all but name.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThey would form a grand unionist coalition if the numbers worked for them. The single most important thing to all three of them is the union.

[Santa Cruz]

So tactical voting is just a thing to be acknowledged for Unionist parties and the Greens didn't win a record number of List seats due to scooping more 2nd votes based on their Indy stance which is in no way tactical?

[degenerated]

So tactical voting is just a thing to be acknowledged for Unionist parties and the Greens didn't win a record number of List seats due to scooping more 2nd votes based on their Indy stance which is in no way tactical?Not at all, although I think you'd find that the politics of most SNP and Green voters are fairly similar.

[lapsedhibee]

So tactical voting is just a thing to be acknowledged for Unionist parties and the Greens didn't win a record number of List seats due to scooping more 2nd votes based on their Indy stance which is in no way tactical?

If the Greens believe in independence and people who also believe in independence vote for them, it's not really tactical in the way that people voted for Cole Hamilton simply because he isn't SNP.

[Since90+2]

So tactical voting is just a thing to be acknowledged for Unionist parties and the Greens didn't win a record number of List seats due to scooping more 2nd votes based on their Indy stance which is in no way tactical?

The list vote is there for that very reason, to allow representation of parties who otherwise would not be elected in a solely constituent basis.

It's not like the unionist parties effectively merging in areas like Edinburgh West to keep the SNP out.

It would only be comparable if the SNP encouraged independence voters to vote Green or Alba on the list vote. They done the opposite and campaigned under both votes SNP.

[Since90+2]

most SNP and Green voters are fairly similar.

I'm not sure about that TBH (beyond their support of independence).

There will be some SNP voters who are close to the greens on matters out with independence but I wouldn't necessarily say it's definitely the majority.

[Santa Cruz]

The list vote is there for that very reason, to allow representation of parties who otherwise would not be elected in a solely constituent basis.

It's not like the unionist parties effectively merging in areas like Edinburgh West to keep the SNP out.

It would only be comparable if the SNP encouraged independence voters to vote Green or Alba on the list vote. They done the opposite and campaigned under both votes SNP.

Indy voters sussed both votes SNP wasn't a great tactical strategy because of PR voting (it was discussed on here) and gave their 2nd vote to the Greens because of Independence not because of the Green's other policies. That's no different to unionist voters voting tactically imo.

[Since90+2]

Indy voters sussed both votes SNP wasn't a great tactical strategy because of PR voting (it was discussed on here) and gave their 2nd vote to the Greens because of Independence not because of the Green's other policies. That's no different to unionist voters voting tactically imo.

The whole point of the list vote is to provide a proportional representation.

It's not tactical voting to vote for another party that is different to your constituent vote, it's the basis of the voting system to allow more parties voices to be heard.

[degenerated]

The whole point of the list vote is to provide proportional representation.

It's not tactical voting to vote for another party that is different to your constituent vote, it's the basis of the voting system to allow more parties voices to be heard.It was the constituency votes where unionist tactical voting was most noticeable. There's nothing wrong with that but they should at least spare us the pretence that the constitution isn't the single most important thing to them.

[Santa Cruz]

It was the constituency votes where unionist tactical voting was most noticeable. There's nothing wrong with that but they should at least spare us the pretence that the constitution isn't the single most important thing to them.

I obvs can't speak for other voters, but it's the SNP that are the Party who's existence is based on this single issue. Without them there would be ne reason for the other parties to oppose it, it would have no importance. For me it is more important to have a Party in Gov that focuses solely on domestic issues with no distractions. The SNP don't hence their woeful record in Gov. They've had over 14 years and still we hear "we still have more work to do, we're sorry, we could do more if we weren't constrained by WM" etc. Just maybe if they delivered more with the Devolved powers they have, far more voters would be inclined to support them on Indy as they would see they were capable of effective Governance. I think this is part of the problem, people don't trust them because of their record and for that reason won't be willing to trust them on anything they say relating to the benefits of an Indy Scotland.

[JeMeSouviens]

So tactical voting is just a thing to be acknowledged for Unionist parties and the Greens didn't win a record number of List seats due to scooping more 2nd votes based on their Indy stance which is in no way tactical?

I think it’s actually the other way round, the SNP get pro-Indy tactical votes from Greens in the constituencies.

[Since90+2]

I obvs can't speak for other voters, but it's the SNP that are the Party who's existence is based on this single issue. Without them there would be ne reason for the other parties to oppose it, it would have no importance. For me it is more important to have a Party in Gov that focuses solely on domestic issues with no distractions. The SNP don't hence their woeful record in Gov. They've had over 14 years and still we hear "we still have more work to do, we're sorry, we could do more if we weren't constrained by WM" etc. Just maybe if they delivered more with the Devolved powers they have, far more voters would be inclined to support them on Indy as they would see they were capable of effective Governance. I think this is part of the problem, people don't trust them because of their record and for that reason won't be willing to trust them on anything they say relating to the benefits of an Indy Scotland.

If the SNP have done such an appalling job which party (either north or south of the border) do you genuinely think would have done a better job of governing Scotland the last 14 years?

[JeMeSouviens]

I obvs can't speak for other voters, but it's the SNP that are the Party who's existence is based on this single issue. Without them there would be ne reason for the other parties to oppose it, it would have no importance. For me it is more important to have a Party in Gov that focuses solely on domestic issues with no distractions. The SNP don't hence their woeful record in Gov. They've had over 14 years and still we hear "we still have more work to do, we're sorry, we could do more if we weren't constrained by WM" etc. Just maybe if they delivered more with the Devolved powers they have, far more voters would be inclined to support them on Indy as they would see they were capable of effective Governance. I think this is part of the problem, people don't trust them because of their record and for that reason won't be willing to trust them on anything they say relating to the benefits of an Indy Scotland.

The pandemic ought to have been the ultimate wake up call to the “use the powers you have” crowd. Without the financial power to support business or fund furlough, there’s **** all point having the health powers.

Lab/lib had almost a decade of devolved power and didn’t do much either.

[degenerated]

If the SNP have done such an appalling job which party (either north or south of the border) do you genuinely think would have done a better job of governing Scotland the last 14 years?We have already witnessed labours attempt at managing it so we can be sure it isn't them, and that preceded the recession, the Tories, austerity and a pandemic.

[Santa Cruz]

If the SNP have done such an appalling job which party (either north or south of the border) do you genuinely think would have done a better job of governing Scotland the last 14 years?

After 14 years, any party who has failed either to deliver on many pledges or has a record of poor performance in a number of areas does not deserve to be re-elected. The country needs a change. If it was Labour in this position I would say the same. Despite political allegiance it is not good to have the same party remain in Gov for several terms, they all run out of ideas and stagnate eventually. I actually think 5 years is too long a term and elections should take place every 4 years. Would also be in favour of the US style ruling no longer than 2 terms as Leader.

[Santa Cruz]

The pandemic ought to have been the ultimate wake up call to the “use the powers you have” crowd. Without the financial power to support business or fund furlough, there’s **** all point having the health powers.

Lab/lib had almost a decade of devolved power and didn’t do much either.

If they had delivered on their pledge to take fuller control of the benefits system on time, after constant complaints about not having more powers, they could have done more to help people during the Pandemic. The system was too complex apparently and they failed to deliver pre-pandemic. If they couldn't get their head round migrating one department of government, I personally have little faith they could run all aspects of an independent country.

[Moulin Yarns]

Indy voters sussed both votes SNP wasn't a great tactical strategy because of PR voting (it was discussed on here) and gave their 2nd vote to the Greens because of Independence not because of the Green's other policies. That's no different to unionist voters voting tactically imo.

As a self proclaimed Indy supporter I would like to take issue with that assumption, but I lent my first vote to the SNP to keep the tories out 😂😂

[Moulin Yarns]

After 14 years, any party who has failed either to deliver on many pledges or has a record of poor performance in a number of areas does not deserve to be re-elected. The country needs a change. If it was Labour in this position I would say the same. Despite political allegiance it is not good to have the same party remain in Gov for several terms, they all run out of ideas and stagnate eventually. I actually think 5 years is too long a term and elections should take place every 4 years. Would also be in favour of the US style ruling no longer than 2 terms as Leader.

The original idea was for the Scottish Parliament elections to be every 4 years, until it coincided with a Westminster election and was moved back a year.

[Glory Lurker]

If they had delivered on their pledge to take fuller control of the benefits system on time, after constant complaints about not having more powers, they could have done more to help people during the Pandemic. The system was too complex apparently and they failed to deliver pre-pandemic. If they couldn't get their head round migrating one department of government, I personally have little faith they could run all aspects of an independent country.

The complexity is down to needing to run the UK system on a devolved basis. How does that work?

It's clean slate with independence. I appreciate that brings in the "How could we afford it" question which is valid. But having a pop at SG being cool on handling Westminster’s admin is unfair.

[Santa Cruz]

The complexity is down to needing to run the UK system on a devolved basis. How does that work?

It's clean slate with independence. I appreciate that brings in the "How could we afford it" question which is valid. But having a pop at SG being cool on handling Westminster’s admin is unfair.

Should you not be asking why does it take so long to resolve after demanding more Devolved powers. It's the disadvantaged that have been let down by the pre-pandemic delay. I could link screeds of articles, but would there really be any point.... Here's a headline from 2016 that kind of sums up my earlier point.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/row-as-holyrood-delays-welfare-power-handover-g9tdjprzr

[Ozyhibby]

Should you not be asking why does it take so long to resolve after demanding more Devolved powers. It's the disadvantaged that have been let down by the pre-pandemic delay. I could link screeds of articles, but would there really be any point.... Here's a headline from 2016 that kind of sums up my earlier point.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/row-as-holyrood-delays-welfare-power-handover-g9tdjprzr

Let down? What wrong with the UK welfare system?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

If they had delivered on their pledge to take fuller control of the benefits system on time, after constant complaints about not having more powers, they could have done more to help people during the Pandemic. The system was too complex apparently and they failed to deliver pre-pandemic. If they couldn't get their head round migrating one department of government, I personally have little faith they could run all aspects of an independent country.

This is another bizarre rerun of “Scots are somehow uniquely incapable of running their own country”. Why would you think that? Exceptionalism is wrong. It’s equal opposite inferiority complex is equally wrong.

[Santa Cruz]

Let down? What wrong with the UK welfare system?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not fit for purpose. The SG promised the most disadvantaged a much fairer, compassionate system and they did not deliver. That's what you call unfair, raising expectations and letting the most vulnerable down.

[Santa Cruz]

This is another bizarre rerun of “Scots are somehow uniquely incapable of running their own country”. Why would you think that? Exceptionalism is wrong. It’s equal opposite inferiority complex is equally wrong.

Where did I say Scots?? I said the SNP. They are heavily reliant on the FM. I hear the phrase "rising star" about some of her Cabinet as potential successors and I'm just not seeing it. That's not normal to be so reliant on one person to run a country.

[Ozyhibby]

Where did I say Scots?? I said the SNP. They are heavily reliant on the FM. I hear the phrase "rising star" about some of her Cabinet as potential successors and I'm just not seeing it. That's not normal to be so reliant on one person to run a country.

One person? Which person are we relying on to run the UK govt? I’m struggling to find one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

I aint no Tory cheerleader, the perma deflection is zzzzzz and too predictable. Dare to criticise the SG, the answer will be bring up the Tory's. Night all.

[Glory Lurker]

Should you not be asking why does it take so long to resolve after demanding more Devolved powers. It's the disadvantaged that have been let down by the pre-pandemic delay. I could link screeds of articles, but would there really be any point.... Here's a headline from 2016 that kind of sums up my earlier point.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/row-as-holyrood-delays-welfare-power-handover-g9tdjprzr

Good morning!

This is a "power" that was devolved on the back of the Smith Commission. Devolution just means doing the UK stuff without needing the UK's permission. What the SNP wanted "for years" was to control Scottish income and outgoings. Not to implement UK systems at a cost to the Scottish tax payer.

[cabbageandribs1875]

any Dalkeith members here :)

i think that's maybe nine or ten branches that i've saw support it

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/244032410_6295408843862601_66247166156332073_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=t2fkj8TVqp0AX9oKqtt&_nc_oc=AQlGUJ6JGxrCTwKF8nrh3iZV4bP7paVLXBxNy2JbQxg hMqR55vlMsVwQCoGxshE8z5E&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=d87ab3e4bfc85d33ef9cf64e1e910fce&oe=61878B36

[James310]

I am never sure if SNP people take Tim Rideout seriously? I know he is on the SNPs Policy Committee but his Scottish Reserve Bank is not a bank it's his own personal website.

His timetable for Independence had a referendum happening a few weeks ago until he updated his website so it now has the referendum happening in 2022.

https://www.reservebank.scot/timetable

He goes into odd details like:

2023

The Scottish Reserve Bank Act receives Royal Assent. The new bank occupies the old Royal High School Building in Edinburgh. The Bank's President and Directors are appointed.

And

Independence Day

Elizabeth I & II attends lowering of the Union Flag for the last time at Edinburgh Castle.

He has designed banknotes with unicorns on them and printed out fake notes to hand out to people.

He says we will keep the pound for roughly 4 weeks (yes 4 weeks) after Independence and then move to a free floating brand new currency. I find that quite a scary prospect, especially for people with mortgages, pensions and savings. All of which is totally at odds with current SNP policy, infact he goes as far to say the SNP policy of Sterlingisation is a disastrous policy.

Andrew Wilson is clear what he thinks of Tim Rideouts plan.

"An SNP economic adviser has warned activists in the run-up to the party conference that adopting a separate currency too soon under Scottish independence could lead to it being devalued, hitting incomes, pensions and mortgages.

Andrew Wilson, who led the party’s economic growth commission for Nicola Sturgeon, added that there would be a risk of “capital flight”, with money leaving the country."

Rideout has in the past said a Central Bank can be set up.for £15K with a few people in a room.

"..yes Scotland has ‘sophisticated financial infrastructure’, but you do not really need that. A basic Central Bank needs about £15,000 of IT, a bank accounting software package, a connection to the inter-bank payment system, a couple of people to run it and a one room office"

Wings thinks Tim Rideout is great, so read into that what you want. He also is a supporter of Craig Murray, again read into that what you want. He attends the Alba party conference and is very sympathetic to their party.

He said if Nicola Sturgeon doesn't deliver a referendum by 2023 (even although his own website has 2022 and 2021 until a few weeks ago) she will be "oot the door". He accuses her of having no plan or no strategy and no answers on things like currency and says Independence is not high on her lists of priorities.

Sounds like someone ready to join Alba to me.

[Crunchie]

any Dalkeith members here :)

i think that's maybe nine or ten branches that i've saw support it

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/244032410_6295408843862601_66247166156332073_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=t2fkj8TVqp0AX9oKqtt&_nc_oc=AQlGUJ6JGxrCTwKF8nrh3iZV4bP7paVLXBxNy2JbQxg hMqR55vlMsVwQCoGxshE8z5E&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=d87ab3e4bfc85d33ef9cf64e1e910fce&oe=61878B36
:faf: The Darien scheme springs to mind.

[Jack]

This is another bizarre rerun of “Scots are somehow uniquely incapable of running their own country”. Why would you think that? Exceptionalism is wrong. It’s equal opposite inferiority complex is equally wrong.

Indeed too stupid. Is there a Commonwealth country ever asked to return to being ruled from London or any other country once it was free to go its own way? Are any of these countries a basket case? I can't think of any. It appears Scotland is unique that it wouldn't be able to manage its affairs.

[lapsedhibee]

Indeed too stupid. Is there a Commonwealth country ever asked to return to being ruled from London or any other country once it was free to go its own way? Are any of these countries a basket case? I can't think of any. It appears Scotland is unique that it wouldn't be able to manage its affairs.

Think Zimbabwe might be, or have been.

[ronaldo7]

Whilst we continue to receive more new benefits from social security Scotland and the SG, and continue to benefit from all those which we have retained. They're for all who live here. Until we stop building houses, and return money to Westminster from our budget after running out of things to do with it, I'll happily keep voting for the SNP. Those devolved Labour governments just pandered to their UK masters, before donning their ermine robes, in a house of lords they said they'd abolish 100 years ago.

[ronaldo7]

Where did I say Scots?? I said the SNP. They are heavily reliant on the FM. I hear the phrase "rising star" about some of her Cabinet as potential successors and I'm just not seeing it. That's not normal to be so reliant on one person to run a country.

Tired Tory and lib Dem tropes.

[Moulin Yarns]

Where did I say Scots?? I said the SNP. They are heavily reliant on the FM. I hear the phrase "rising star" about some of her Cabinet as potential successors and I'm just not seeing it. That's not normal to be so reliant on one person to run a country.

You are alex Cole Hamilton and I claim the prize 😉

[Santa Cruz]

You are alex Cole Hamilton and I claim the prize 😉

How do you know I'm not Jim Sillars :greengrin

[Jack]

Think Zimbabwe might be, or have been.

Good choice. I think Zimbabwe and many of the African countries have struggled as they have gone from an almost white supremacy to their roots in tribal politics in a modern world. These have basically seen the most predominant tribes dominate and in many cases bribery and corruption have been rife, even in the better run ones with huge resources and wealth. See the recent Pandora papers.

Do you think Scotland would be run on similar lines to the independent African nations?

[StevieC]

Do you think Scotland would be run on similar lines to the independent African nations?

Possibly. I envisage problems with the Weegie tribe in the west.

[He's here!]

It was the constituency votes where unionist tactical voting was most noticeable. There's nothing wrong with that but they should at least spare us the pretence that the constitution isn't the single most important thing to them.

What pretence? The constitution is the only show in town when it comes to Scottish politics and will remain so for as long as the SNP are in power. It's their raison d'etre after all. Why, then, is it any less valid for other political parties and (at least) half of the electorate to focus on registering their deeply-held opposition to independence? Tactical voting is the most effective way of doing that. There was no pretence that there was any other reason behind it than to deny the SNP a majority.

[lapsedhibee]

Good choice. I think Zimbabwe and many of the African countries have struggled as they have gone from an almost white supremacy to their roots in tribal politics in a modern world. These have basically seen the most predominant tribes dominate and in many cases bribery and corruption have been rife, even in the better run ones with huge resources and wealth. See the recent Pandora papers.

Do you think Scotland would be run on similar lines to the independent African nations?

A bit similar to the tribalism you speak of, I would have a genuine worry in iScotland about sectarianism. At the moment it's happily swamped by the largely non-sectarian England & Wales, but divested of that population weight who knows what might come crawling out. It's absolutely shocking that OO marches still take place, and it's all very well talking about iScotland being a modern democracy without a House of Lords and ridiculous electoral system etc, but there's an ancient poison here not yet properly dealt with.

[degenerated]

What pretence? The constitution is the only show in town when it comes to Scottish politics and will remain so for as long as the SNP are in power. It's their raison d'etre after all. Why, then, is it any less valid for other political parties and (at least) half of the electorate to focus on registering their deeply-held opposition to independence? Tactical voting is the most effective way of doing that and was positively encouraged.I said there was nothing wrong with it. And no one can accuse you of pretending not to be a British Nationalist.

[Ozyhibby]

What pretence? The constitution is the only show in town when it comes to Scottish politics and will remain so for as long as the SNP are in power. It's their raison d'etre after all. Why, then, is it any less valid for other political parties and (at least) half of the electorate to focus on registering their deeply-held opposition to independence? Tactical voting is the most effective way of doing that. There was no pretence that there was any other reason behind it than to deny the SNP a majority.

And it’s very effective in the short term. It also strengthens the SNP in power. How can Anas Sarwar ever hope to actually build enough support to ever actually win an election though, if the Scottish Labour Party have effectively stood down in half the constituencies in Scotland? And the same goes for the Tories? They have pretty much baked in permanent opposition for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

How do you know I'm not Jim Sillars :greengrin

Because what you said is exactly what ACH said about the SNP being up **** creek when nicola steps down before the next election 🤔🙄

[Moulin Yarns]

Possibly. I envisage problems with the Weegie tribe in the west.

No change there then 😉

[Keith_M]

Sturgeon should announce a referendum this week.


They'd win it off the back off the Scotland result.












Just a joke, honestly :-)

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/245111936_4496268497096613_7353069195683555449_n.j pg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=g6nv6mKSy-4AX-cU3G8&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=8944480322cd5e15e657bf427054b818&oe=6167FEEE

[heretoday]

Possibly. I envisage problems with the Weegie tribe in the west.

They'll become an even bigger stench in a smaller bucket.

[lord bunberry]

Possibly. I envisage problems with the Weegie tribe in the west.
Na they’re all moving to England if we become independent.

[degenerated]

Despite the cries of get on with the day job here's what the Tories have been up to with their strength in union campaign

https://www.cps.org.uk/research/strength-in-union-the-case-for-the-united-kingdom/#

100 odd pages of British Nationalist nonsense about how Scotland needs the union to protect itself from Russia, how Welsh democracy isn't working because labour keeps winning and rising to a crescendo of utter tripe from Alister Jack who doesn't want Scotland referred to as a nation anymore in his "Unity is Strength" essay.
25187

[Ozyhibby]

Despite the cries of get on with the day job here's what the Tories have been up to with their strength in union campaign

https://www.cps.org.uk/research/strength-in-union-the-case-for-the-united-kingdom/#

100 odd pages of British Nationalist nonsense about how Scotland needs the union to protect itself from Russia, how Welsh democracy isn't working because labour keeps winning and rising to a crescendo of utter tripe from Alister Jack who doesn't want Scotland referred to as a nation anymore in his "Unity is Strength" essay.
25187

They’ll be banning kilts and saltires soon.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

Despite the cries of get on with the day job here's what the Tories have been up to with their strength in union campaign

https://www.cps.org.uk/research/strength-in-union-the-case-for-the-united-kingdom/#

100 odd pages of British Nationalist nonsense about how Scotland needs the union to protect itself from Russia, how Welsh democracy isn't working because labour keeps winning and rising to a crescendo of utter tripe from Alister Jack who doesn't want Scotland referred to as a nation anymore in his "Unity is Strength" essay.
25187

Nothing about the utter embarrassment of being linked to Westminster.

[degenerated]

Nothing about the utter embarrassment of being linked to Westminster.That bit appeared to be glossed over :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

she's a star, hopefully our first president/head of state whatever after indy :agree:

Nicola Sturgeon named the 'most influential woman' in the UK ahead of the Queen - Glasgow Live (https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/nicola-sturgeon-named-most-influential-21838421?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR2DcBxkLh4ZgRM13KkOdiAHhb2HHrGS504ViFSt7 erU7IaJ6ZQL1IBGUA0)

Nicola Sturgeon has been named the "most influential woman" in the UK, according to a new study.
In addition to coming first, the First Minister (https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/all-about/scottish-national-party) also placed 20th out of 100 among the most influential people in the world coming ahead of other popular figures such as the Queen, Michelle Obama and Angela Merkel.

[ronaldo7]

she's a star, hopefully our first president/head of state whatever after indy :agree:

Nicola Sturgeon named the 'most influential woman' in the UK ahead of the Queen - Glasgow Live (https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/nicola-sturgeon-named-most-influential-21838421?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR2DcBxkLh4ZgRM13KkOdiAHhb2HHrGS504ViFSt7 erU7IaJ6ZQL1IBGUA0)

Nicola Sturgeon has been named the "most influential woman" in the UK, according to a new study.
In addition to coming first, the First Minister (https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/all-about/scottish-national-party) also placed 20th out of 100 among the most influential people in the world coming ahead of other popular figures such as the Queen, Michelle Obama and Angela Merkel.

There'll be heads exploding all over the shop in union world tonight.

[lord bunberry]

There'll be heads exploding all over the shop in union world tonight.
Most of them can’t even bring themselves to say or write her name. This news will finish them off. :faf:

[Jack]

Most of them can’t even bring themselves to say or write her name. This news will finish them off. :faf:

Judging by the local unionists absence here they would seem to be shaking with so much rage they're having difficulty typing a comment 🙄

[JimBHibees]

Judging by the local unionists absence here they would seem to be shaking with so much rage they're having difficulty typing a comment 🙄

No doubt watching a hysterical rerun of the Krankies to keep themselves amused. :greengrin

[Since90+2]

NS is, IMO atleast, head and shoulders the best policitian in the UK.

The only other who I gets close to her is Andy Burnham.

[weecounty hibby]

You would think that would be one of the main headlines on BBC Scotland, FM being named as the most influential woman in UK and one of the most influential in the world is surely very news worthy!!!!.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211014/b1b2c9012feacfbb100ed410b4383625.jpg

More power for England’s voters. Wales to lose 8 seats as well.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-claim-boundary-reforms-will-weaken-scotlands-voice-with-loss-of-two-mps-3418220


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

You would think that would be one of the main headlines on BBC Scotland, FM being named as the most influential woman in UK and one of the most influential in the world is surely very news worthy!!!!.

Must have been was it not. Surprise that.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211014/b1b2c9012feacfbb100ed410b4383625.jpg

More power for England’s voters. Wales to lose 8 seats as well.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-claim-boundary-reforms-will-weaken-scotlands-voice-with-loss-of-two-mps-3418220


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's been on the cards for a while, I think it might even have been delayed due to covid.

It highlights the disparity between the different areas around the UQ (United Queendom) with population growth in the south east of England and decline or stagnation elsewhere.

[ronaldo7]

You would think that would be one of the main headlines on BBC Scotland, FM being named as the most influential woman in UK and one of the most influential in the world is surely very news worthy!!!!.

https://twitter.com/ElphinstoneJack/status/1448614341612392458

Heids burstin all over England, and in the staunch areas of Scotland.:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

https://www.gov.scot/news/supporting-fair-work-practices/

Real Living Wage conditionality for winning public sector contracts.

Companies bidding to win Scottish Government contracts will have to pay the real Living Wage.

This will ensure public sector contracts tackle in work poverty and promote fair work practices across the public, private and third sector where there is a risk of low pay.

The real Living Wage has been consistently higher than the UK National Living Wage and helps create an inclusive and fair economy for all.

Business Minister Ivan McKee said:

“We want to use every opportunity possible to promote fair work and ensure people are paid at least the real Living Wage. By using procurement powers to ensure bidders pay the real Living Wage, the Scottish Government is leading by example to help influence employment practices and embed fair work principles.

“We will continue to engage with relevant sectors to encourage others to adopt this change across the public, private and third sector. We are firmly focused on creating the right economic conditions and fair work practices to drive a greener, fairer and more sustainable economy.”

Fair Work Minister Richard Lochhead said:

“As outlined in our Programme for Government, a range of measures are being taken forward to embed Fair Work First across the economy. The Scottish Government recognises pay as a clear way that an employer can demonstrate a commitment to their workforce, helping tackle in-work poverty alongside wider Fair Work First criteria.

“We will also introduce further changes to strengthen criteria for Scottish Government grants from next summer, subject to limits on devolved competence, as part of the Cooperation Agreement with the Scottish Green Party.

“The number of accredited living wage employers has increased from 14 in 2014 to just over 2,300 in 2021 and we would encourage more businesses to sign up to help ensure more people see their pay uplifted to at least the real Living Wage. We encourage organisations, regardless of size, sector or location, to adopt our progressive fair work approach which will help ensure all staff receive a fair day’s pay for the work they do.”

[Bostonhibby]

Possibly. I envisage problems with the Weegie tribe in the west.[emoji23]
Especially if the messiah at Tynecastle keeps banging on about their being fried potatoes in the east.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3533700/scottish-tory-leader-to-defy-government-over-changes-to-westminster-boundaries/

Douglas Ross has finally found an issue he doesn’t agree with the UK govt on. Just a coincidence that it’s saving his own job that has him all flustered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/police-nhs-patient-data-bill-b1938998.html

The union is heading in a very worrying direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/police-nhs-patient-data-bill-b1938998.html

The union is heading in a very worrying direction.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI suggested previously, on the Covid thread that I believed the reason the Scottish government was keen not to use English Covid track and trace and passport systems was, not as unionists claim just to be be different, but because of a real worry over the data being used elsewhere or sold to insurance companies.

[ronaldo7]

They told us pre 2014 referendum that we'd get carbon capture for Peterhead. They cancelled the project, and they've only gone and done it again. The North east misses out to Liverpool and the Humber.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3543963/catastrophic-blow-tory-ministers-under-fire-as-north-east-misses-out-on-carbon-capture-cash-again/?utm_source=twitter

[Ozyhibby]

They told us pre 2014 referendum that we'd get carbon capture for Peterhead. They cancelled the project, and they've only gone and done it again. The North east misses out to Liverpool and the Humber.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3543963/catastrophic-blow-tory-ministers-under-fire-as-north-east-misses-out-on-carbon-capture-cash-again/?utm_source=twitter

Won’t be long before Douglas Ross is telling us this is a great deal for Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://twitter.com/YesScot/status/1450389636484845569

[Ozyhibby]

They told us pre 2014 referendum that we'd get carbon capture for Peterhead. They cancelled the project, and they've only gone and done it again. The North east misses out to Liverpool and the Humber.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3543963/catastrophic-blow-tory-ministers-under-fire-as-north-east-misses-out-on-carbon-capture-cash-again/?utm_source=twitter

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58960740.amp

This really is a terrible decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58960740.amp

This really is a terrible decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. This bit from the article is key. From a shovel ready area of Scotland, which is geographically suited. To bases further south. It's political. BBC shortbread will be door stepping dougie as we speak.

"The Climate Change Committee - which advises the Scottish and UK governments - has recommended a 2045 target date for Scotland to become "net zero" where our only remaining emissions are being offset.

That date relied heavily on the much greater potential that could be offered by carbon capture and storage in Scotland.

Secondly, workers in Aberdeen's oil and gas sector, whose engineering skills can rapidly make this happen, have been looking for an alternative greener industry to which they can transition."

Many will now feel like that's a distant dream.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/andrewward96/status/1450431008390754309?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211020/8f32b225dff39a45ac4b3a3eed106c17.jpg

More unelected governance for Scotland.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211020/8f32b225dff39a45ac4b3a3eed106c17.jpg

More unelected governance for Scotland.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Setting their ducks up for the Naw you cannae, Naw you wullnae campaign.

This is the same guy who told us during the EU referendum that all the powers held in devolved areas in Brussels would automatically come back to Scotland.

He's tainted with the Brexit brush.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/what-scotland-thinks/id1500003987?i=1000538692854


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Setting their ducks up for the Naw you cannae, Naw you wullnae campaign.

This is the same guy who told us during the EU referendum that all the powers held in devolved areas in Brussels would automatically come back to Scotland.

He's tainted with the Brexit brush.He's also an idiot25216

[Moulin Yarns]

Happy independence day



Zambia

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211028/b3a8eb5b5092d3f5d195214d418556b3.jpg

Stagnant living standard in the Uk? What’s the plan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211028/b3a8eb5b5092d3f5d195214d418556b3.jpg

Stagnant living standard in the Uk? What’s the plan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Find a way to stagnate it even more and watch the money funnel up towards the rich. Same as the last 40 years.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211028/b3a8eb5b5092d3f5d195214d418556b3.jpg

Stagnant living standard in the Uk? What’s the plan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Distract with pointless culture wars.

[lapsedhibee]

Distract with pointless culture wars.

And if that fails, threaten actual wars.

[lapsedhibee]

England gets more and more surreal.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/29/dukes-daughter-cites-cashflow-issues-to-get-speeding-fine-halved-to-50

[Kato]

England gets more and more surreal.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/29/dukes-daughter-cites-cashflow-issues-to-get-speeding-fine-halved-to-50Quite right too. Given her father is a Duke and has more than likely met the lady with the metal hat and gets to wear animal skins and feathers in the presence of the lady with the metal hat it's only correct that she isn't subject to fripperies like laws, fines or to mind the safety of oiks like us.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[DaveF]

England gets more and more surreal.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/29/dukes-daughter-cites-cashflow-issues-to-get-speeding-fine-halved-to-50

They should have doubled it due to her brass neck.

[heretoday]

she's a star, hopefully our first president/head of state whatever after indy :agree:

Nicola Sturgeon named the 'most influential woman' in the UK ahead of the Queen - Glasgow Live (https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/nicola-sturgeon-named-most-influential-21838421?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR2DcBxkLh4ZgRM13KkOdiAHhb2HHrGS504ViFSt7 erU7IaJ6ZQL1IBGUA0)

Nicola Sturgeon has been named the "most influential woman" in the UK, according to a new study.
In addition to coming first, the First Minister (https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/all-about/scottish-national-party) also placed 20th out of 100 among the most influential people in the world coming ahead of other popular figures such as the Queen, Michelle Obama and Angela Merkel.

Who says?

[DaveF]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2wzk4G5Drn31Xhm6LQ331Rq/the-map-that-reveals-just-how-much-of-scotland-is-in-private-ownership

I'm sure this is known by a good number already but it's quite a good little segment on who owns Scotland's land.

[lord bunberry]

Who says?
Vouge magazine and a study by the body shop. It says it in the linked article.

[Moulin Yarns]

Vogue magazine and a study by the body shop. It says it in the linked article.

FTFY :wink:

[heretoday]

Vouge magazine and a study by the body shop. It says it in the linked article.

Vogue and Body Shop yeah?

[lord bunberry]

Vogue and Body Shop yeah?
I didn’t offer an opinion, I answered your question.

[Crunchie]

Vogue and Body Shop yeah?
And all his FB pals :greengrin