Scottish Independence

[Ozyhibby]

And by the same token sturgeon is ignoring 55% of Scot’s who voted no in 2014

No she isn’t. That vote has been respected. We are still in the UK.
She would like another vote though since we have been taking out the EU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[allmodcons]

Nicola sturgeon is not Scotland.She's the democratically elected First Minister of Scotland.

You think it's ok that the our likely next (unelected) Prime Minster should ignore her?

It doesn't matter what your politics are it's just embarrassing (but not surprising) to hear Liz Truss talk like that in a 'Union of equals'.

[grunt]

And by the same token sturgeon is ignoring 55% of Scot’s who voted no in 2014
You really need to keep up. Things have changed since 2014 and we're now out of the EU. Material change to the status of Scotland requires a new referendum. But you know that don't you?

Do you REALLY want to stay in the UK ruled by these lying Tory politicians who will ignore Scotland at every turn?

[Kato]

She's the democratically elected First Minister of Scotland.

You think it's ok that the our likely next (unelected) Prime Minster should ignore her?

It doesn't matter what your politics are it's just embarrassing (but not surprising) to hear Liz Truss talk like that in a 'Union of equals'.https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1554196629078642693?t=LNVJYb6oiqHnzs5I_ZxunA&s=19

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

She's the democratically elected First Minister of Scotland.

You think it's ok that the our likely next (unelected) Prime Minster should ignore her?

It doesn't matter what your politics are it's just embarrassing (but not surprising) to hear Liz Truss talk like that in a 'Union of equals'.

Better together my hoop

[weecounty hibby]

And by the same token sturgeon is ignoring 55% of Scot’s who voted no in 2014

Yeah, we keep hearing that one recently. If she had ignored the 55% we would now be independent. The sad fact that we are not means she respected democracy. Remember democracy and how it works?

[Kato]

https://twitter.com/SaorAlbannach/status/1546134817519067137?t=s4vdTQLXCyP56h3ppbF29w&s=19

This is a fair point. Why does the Supreme Court have ascendancy over Scots Law?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Scotland is now to be ignored.

https://twitter.com/davidparsley50/status/1554184823610171398?s=21&t=aFKGXKGpJttW224ktRYcfw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's bold, deliberate headline-seeking stuff from Truss and while she wouldn't have been my choice for PM among the Tory candidates there's no question it will resonate heartily with plenty of those in Scotland who roll their eyes and think 'gie's peace' whenever Sturgeon prattles on about another referendum.

I checked out the footage of Truss speaking earlier and the 'ignore her' quote is not quite as blunt as it sounds. There's some context there to back it up. I think what she's looking to do is shift the conversation away from independence and take on the SNP in other ways. The 'ignore her' part of that is, I'm guessing, likely to be similar to what Alex Massie advocates in the article already posted on the drugs deaths thread:

"Across many areas of devolved responsibility — health, education, transport — the SNP’s record in government is utterly underwhelming. Sturgeon complains this is because the powers available to her are limited but this cop-out masks her government’s failure to make the best of the opportunities available to it. “Westminster won’t let us” is the SNP version of the Brexiteers’ complaint that Britain was strangled by Brussels. There is nothing objectionable about Conservative and Labour politicians in London noting this. As so often, however, tone matters. The SNP’s failures should be publicised with disappointment, not anger. Kindness and understanding are a sicker burn than splenetic condemnation.
The realities of Scottish, and hence British, politics are such that everything inevitably loops back to the independence debate. Scottish successes demonstrate that independence would be a joyous carnival of celebration; Scottish failures highlight the fierce urgency of independence, for only national liberation can provide the tools by which these disappointments may be remedied. This is a fool’s prospectus but also the gold upon which the SNP relies.
From a Unionist perspective, the best way to win the independence argument is to avoid talking about the constitution at all. Doing so means engaging the SNP on its preferred turf. Better, instead, to focus on the SNP’s record in government. This may not yield immediate electoral rewards but it remains the best means by which opposition parties may chip away at the nationalists’ current electoral supremacy. Time ruins all governments and Sturgeon’s is no exception to this granite-tough rule.
Few things demonstrate this as surely as Scotland’s drugs debacle. The SNP is in the business of fixing problems that grew on its own watch. Even if some progress is belatedly made on this front, there is no reason to grant the nationalists any credit for rectifying a disgrace of their own creation. The SNP’s record in power, not the constitution, is the ball upon which other parties should keep their eye."

[He's here!]

https://twitter.com/SaorAlbannach/status/1546134817519067137?t=s4vdTQLXCyP56h3ppbF29w&s=19

This is a fair point. Why does the Supreme Court have ascendancy over Scots Law?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Because nothing outranks supreme.

[Kato]

Because nothing outranks supreme.Never used to be the case. The law in Scotland was supreme. Treaty of Union and all that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Rumble de Thump]

That's bold, deliberate headline-seeking stuff from Truss and while she wouldn't have been my choice for PM among the Tory candidates there's no question it will resonate heartily with plenty of those in Scotland who roll their eyes and think 'gie's peace' whenever Sturgeon prattles on about another referendum.

I checked out the footage of Truss speaking earlier and the 'ignore her' quote is not quite as blunt as it sounds. There's some context there to back it up. I think what she's looking to do is shift the conversation away from independence and take on the SNP in other ways. The 'ignore her' part of that is, I'm guessing, likely to be similar to what Alex Massie advocates in the article already posted on the drugs deaths thread:

"Across many areas of devolved responsibility — health, education, transport — the SNP’s record in government is utterly underwhelming. Sturgeon complains this is because the powers available to her are limited but this cop-out masks her government’s failure to make the best of the opportunities available to it. “Westminster won’t let us” is the SNP version of the Brexiteers’ complaint that Britain was strangled by Brussels. There is nothing objectionable about Conservative and Labour politicians in London noting this. As so often, however, tone matters. The SNP’s failures should be publicised with disappointment, not anger. Kindness and understanding are a sicker burn than splenetic condemnation.
The realities of Scottish, and hence British, politics are such that everything inevitably loops back to the independence debate. Scottish successes demonstrate that independence would be a joyous carnival of celebration; Scottish failures highlight the fierce urgency of independence, for only national liberation can provide the tools by which these disappointments may be remedied. This is a fool’s prospectus but also the gold upon which the SNP relies.
From a Unionist perspective, the best way to win the independence argument is to avoid talking about the constitution at all. Doing so means engaging the SNP on its preferred turf. Better, instead, to focus on the SNP’s record in government. This may not yield immediate electoral rewards but it remains the best means by which opposition parties may chip away at the nationalists’ current electoral supremacy. Time ruins all governments and Sturgeon’s is no exception to this granite-tough rule.
Few things demonstrate this as surely as Scotland’s drugs debacle. The SNP is in the business of fixing problems that grew on its own watch. Even if some progress is belatedly made on this front, there is no reason to grant the nationalists any credit for rectifying a disgrace of their own creation. The SNP’s record in power, not the constitution, is the ball upon which other parties should keep their eye."

Taking on the SNP in any way would be pointless as Scottish independence is not about the SNP. Truss is not intelligent enough to understand that, and she's certainly not intelligent enough to understand that the Conservatives are the biggest threat to the United Kingdom.

[grunt]

that's bold, deliberate headline-seeking stuff from truss and while she wouldn't have been my choice for pm among the tory candidates there's no question it will resonate heartily with plenty of those in scotland who roll their eyes and think 'gie's peace' whenever sturgeon prattles on about another referendum.

I checked out the footage of truss speaking earlier and the 'ignore her' quote is not quite as blunt as it sounds. There's some context there to back it up. I think what she's looking to do is shift the conversation away from independence and take on the snp in other ways. The 'ignore her' part of that is, i'm guessing, likely to be similar to what alex massie advocates in the article already posted on the drugs deaths thread:

"across many areas of devolved responsibility — health, education, transport — the snp’s record in government is utterly underwhelming. Sturgeon complains this is because the powers available to her are limited but this cop-out masks her government’s failure to make the best of the opportunities available to it. “westminster won’t let us” is the snp version of the brexiteers’ complaint that britain was strangled by brussels. There is nothing objectionable about conservative and labour politicians in london noting this. As so often, however, tone matters. The snp’s failures should be publicised with disappointment, not anger. Kindness and understanding are a sicker burn than splenetic condemnation.
the realities of scottish, and hence british, politics are such that everything inevitably loops back to the independence debate. Scottish successes demonstrate that independence would be a joyous carnival of celebration; scottish failures highlight the fierce urgency of independence, for only national liberation can provide the tools by which these disappointments may be remedied. This is a fool’s prospectus but also the gold upon which the snp relies.
from a unionist perspective, the best way to win the independence argument is to avoid talking about the constitution at all. Doing so means engaging the snp on its preferred turf. Better, instead, to focus on the snp’s record in government. This may not yield immediate electoral rewards but it remains the best means by which opposition parties may chip away at the nationalists’ current electoral supremacy. Time ruins all governments and sturgeon’s is no exception to this granite-tough rule.
few things demonstrate this as surely as scotland’s drugs debacle. The snp is in the business of fixing problems that grew on its own watch. Even if some progress is belatedly made on this front, there is no reason to grant the nationalists any credit for rectifying a disgrace of their own creation. The snp’s record in power, not the constitution, is the ball upon which other parties should keep their eye."

lol

[degenerated]

That's bold, deliberate headline-seeking stuff from Truss and while she wouldn't have been my choice for PM among the Tory candidates there's no question it will resonate heartily with plenty of those in Scotland who roll their eyes and think 'gie's peace' whenever Sturgeon prattles on about another referendum.

I checked out the footage of Truss speaking earlier and the 'ignore her' quote is not quite as blunt as it sounds. There's some context there to back it up. I think what she's looking to do is shift the conversation away from independence and take on the SNP in other ways. The 'ignore her' part of that is, I'm guessing, likely to be similar to what Alex Massie advocates in the article already posted on the drugs deaths thread:

"Across many areas of devolved responsibility — health, education, transport — the SNP’s record in government is utterly underwhelming. Sturgeon complains this is because the powers available to her are limited but this cop-out masks her government’s failure to make the best of the opportunities available to it. “Westminster won’t let us” is the SNP version of the Brexiteers’ complaint that Britain was strangled by Brussels. There is nothing objectionable about Conservative and Labour politicians in London noting this. As so often, however, tone matters. The SNP’s failures should be publicised with disappointment, not anger. Kindness and understanding are a sicker burn than splenetic condemnation.
The realities of Scottish, and hence British, politics are such that everything inevitably loops back to the independence debate. Scottish successes demonstrate that independence would be a joyous carnival of celebration; Scottish failures highlight the fierce urgency of independence, for only national liberation can provide the tools by which these disappointments may be remedied. This is a fool’s prospectus but also the gold upon which the SNP relies.
From a Unionist perspective, the best way to win the independence argument is to avoid talking about the constitution at all. Doing so means engaging the SNP on its preferred turf. Better, instead, to focus on the SNP’s record in government. This may not yield immediate electoral rewards but it remains the best means by which opposition parties may chip away at the nationalists’ current electoral supremacy. Time ruins all governments and Sturgeon’s is no exception to this granite-tough rule.
Few things demonstrate this as surely as Scotland’s drugs debacle. The SNP is in the business of fixing problems that grew on its own watch. Even if some progress is belatedly made on this front, there is no reason to grant the nationalists any credit for rectifying a disgrace of their own creation. The SNP’s record in power, not the constitution, is the ball upon which other parties should keep their eye."I see Alex Massie has written his article again :hilarious

[danhibees1875]

Nicola sturgeon is not Scotland.

She isn't, and the exaggerated take doesn't help things but it's a ridiculous stance for Truss to take/thing for her to say.

[degenerated]

She isn't, and the exaggerated take doesn't help things but it's a ridiculous stance for Truss to take/thing for her to say.It's an unusual position she's taking. Scotland will be at the heart of the union if she wins but only if the democratically elected leader of the Scottish government is ignored.

[lapsedhibee]

Truss is not intelligent enough to understand that, and she's certainly not intelligent enough to understand that the Conservatives are the biggest threat to the United Kingdom.

She apparently doesn't like her first name Mary. Perhaps she could change it by deed poll to Margaret. And while she's at it change the Liz to Hilda and the Truss to Thatcher. That would be more than enough to get her the job she wants and we could perhaps be spared any more of her ridiculous policy announcements.

[degenerated]

She apparently doesn't like her first name Mary. Perhaps she could change it by deed poll to Margaret. And while she's at it change the Liz to Hilda and the Truss to Thatcher. That would be more than enough to get her the job she wants and we could perhaps be spared any more of her ridiculous policy announcements.Whether you loathe Thatcher or not at least she knew what she was doing, it was despicable but calculated and planned. Truss is an actual idiot who is as much a threat to England as she is to the continuance of the UK.

[Ozyhibby]

Whether you loathe Thatcher or not at least she knew what she was doing, it was despicable but calculated and planned. Truss is an actual idiot who is as much a threat to England as she is to the continuance of the UK.

At least she’s not an attention seeker.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220802/db3a2300da62784f0cee22ce5fd937a6.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

Whether you loathe Thatcher or not at least she knew what she was doing, it was despicable but calculated and planned. Truss is an actual idiot who is as much a threat to England as she is to the continuance of the UK.

I’m not so sure, I think there’s a team of people behind truss who know exactly what they’re doing and why.

She’s the figurehead and she’s a moron but she’s also going to be the ****ing prime minister 😂

[Berwickhibby]

At least she’s not an attention seeker.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220802/db3a2300da62784f0cee22ce5fd937a6.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still an amateur compared to Elfie McSelfie ..,, :greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

They don't give a **** about Scotland. Never have, never will. That is all about winning votes in England.

[ronaldo7]

And by the same token sturgeon is ignoring 55% of Scot’s who voted no in 2014

You missed, "once in a generation".

The unionist argument seems to be, back in your box and eat your cereal.

Desperate. Last time I looked the union Flag was still flying in Scotland.

[lapsedhibee]

I’m not so sure, I think there’s a team of people behind truss who know exactly what they’re doing and why.


Looking forward to another in-depth Kuenssberg investigation into whether that team is exclusively, or just predominantly, Russian.

[Kato]

At least she’s not an attention seeker.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220802/db3a2300da62784f0cee22ce5fd937a6.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkMore photo shoots than Paris Hilton but Sturgeon is an attention seeker.

Lack of self awareness is off the scale.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1554373323131420673?s=20&t=Dh2zjjQC6IdsTxW-rfHuag


Jacob Rees-Mogg defends Liz Truss' comments that she would "just ignore" Nicola Sturgeon, by saying that the Scottish First Minister is "often wrong and always moaning."

[H18 SFR]

Looks like Truss has it in her locker to create levels of seethe not seen since the Huns banter years in peak flow.

[ronaldo7]

I'd be more inclined to be worried about her comments on pushing through her policies for the whole UK. Devolution is dead. The internal market bill has just started, it'll be ramped up in all our devolved areas.

[Berwickhibby]

More photo shoots than Paris Hilton but Sturgeon is an attention seeker.

Lack of self awareness is off the scale.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Sturgeon is the biggest attention seeker in politics…. Likes a wee picture or 50

[Ozyhibby]

It’s the main talking point in Scotland today in the media and when independence is high up the news agenda, support for it usually rises. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

It's an unusual position she's taking. Scotland will be at the heart of the union if she wins but only if the democratically elected leader of the Scottish government is ignored.

At the heart of the Union. :greengrin They're just extracting the urine. They might put a chair in the corner of the meeting room next time. I wouldn't hold my breath though. As Northern Ireland prospers with their special arrangements, we continue declining under the UK Tories.

[grunt]

Sturgeon is the biggest attention seeker in politics…. Likes a wee picture or 50Such an attention seeker that in 19500 posts on the subject of Scottish Independence on this board, no one has called her that before.

I will admit that a number of people ask for selfies with her, but the issue there is that this is down to people wanting to have their photo taken with her. Her selfies generally have someone else in the photo, and are generally (I expect) taken at the request of the person wanting the photo.

Truss's photos are taken of her on her own, and are taken to make her look statesmanlike.

But this is not the important part of what Truss said; the fact that she suggests ignoring the FM of a devolved country within the UK is far more significant. And worrying.

[grunt]

Amusing to think that James Cleverly posted this about support for Truss from Scottish Tory MSPs only yesterday

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZI5PeOX0AA9_AA?format=jpg&name=medium

[Kato]

Sturgeon is the biggest attention seeker in politics…. Likes a wee picture or 50There's a difference between being in lots of photos and organising multiple photos shoots of yourself in which you try to look like Maggie Thatcher.

But you are entitled not to see that at all and ignore it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-david-mcwilliams-podcast/id1462649946?i=1000574617900

Interesting podcast on how Ireland became a manufacturing powerhouse.
Ireland now manufactures 50% of what the UK manufactures with less than 8% of the population. They have 1% of the EU population but manufacture 5% of EU goods.
There is a better way out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-david-mcwilliams-podcast/id1462649946?i=1000574617900

Interesting podcast on how Ireland became a manufacturing powerhouse.
Ireland now manufactures 50% of what the UK manufactures with less than 8% of the population. They have 1% of the EU population but manufacture 5% of EU goods.
There is a better way out there.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIncreased manufacturing won't be coming to the UK. It isn't a priority. UK investors can make far more in returns from the Tiny Island Magic Bank business that they have fashioned for themselves.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

There's a difference between being in lots of photos and organising multiple photos shoots of yourself in which you try to look like Maggie Thatcher.

But you are entitled not to see that at all and ignore it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

As are you, let’s ignore the various times like COP 26 for example, where she hung about getting her photo with anyone of relevance 🙄

[Bostonhibby]

Scotland is now to be ignored.

https://twitter.com/davidparsley50/status/1554184823610171398?s=21&t=aFKGXKGpJttW224ktRYcfw


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat will be popular in right wing imperialist corners of Engerlund but will surely help sway a few undecided's in Scotland, whether it's voting nasty party or for independence.

Truss really isn't very astute.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

As are you, let’s ignore the various times like COP 26 for example, where she hung about getting her photo with anyone of relevance 🙄

Is this not part of the job though, whether you’re Nicola Sturgeon, Liz Truss, Gordon Brown or anyone else you happen to like or dislike?

[ronaldo7]

It’s the main talking point in Scotland today in the media and when independence is high up the news agenda, support for it usually rises. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's always refreshing to actually here what the Tories really think of the democratically elected FM of Scotland.

Work together they say. Not much chance of that then.

Big cheers from the Unionists on here who deflect with selfie gate. :greengrin

[Berwickhibby]

Is this not part of the job though, whether you’re Nicola Sturgeon, Liz Truss, Gordon Brown or anyone else you happen to like or dislike?

Please do not misunderstand me I think Truss is an odious cretin, but the suggestion was that compared to Sturgeon she is a media whore…..really

[Smartie]

Please do not misunderstand me I think Truss is an odious cretin, but the suggestion was that compared to Sturgeon she is a media whore…..really

Haha, fair enough.

I may disagree with some of your posts but I don't disagree with this one.

[Kato]

Please do not misunderstand me I think Truss is an odious cretin, but the suggestion was that compared to Sturgeon she is a media whore…..reallyNot been paying attention I'm afraid

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Please do not misunderstand me I think Truss is an odious cretin, but the suggestion was that compared to Sturgeon she is a media whore…..really

These people are disgusting, stick with them Scotland.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

As are you, let’s ignore the various times like COP 26 for example, where she hung about getting her photo with anyone of relevance 🙄

Is that not her job, as leader of the host country, to welcome guests?

Would you throw a party and not greet everyone that came for fear of looking like you're attention seeking?

[Berwickhibby]

Is that not her job, as leader of the host country, to welcome guests?

Would you throw a party and not greet everyone that came for fear of looking like you're attention seeking?

She did not have a seat at the table… Imho was just an excuse to promote herself

[grunt]

She did not have a seat at the table… Imho was just an excuse to promote herself
And you're happy with that? A major global conference addressing the number one issue of our age, and the FM of the host country was not invited / "did not have a seat at the table"? And the PM - when he did eventually turn up - made a ridiculous speech and promptly fell asleep in the audience.

Please just let us have independence now.

[cabbageandribs1875]

tonight mathew, i want to be...............


https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/296127330_10159298349224527_2005820140548892309_n. jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=enS6PgaScU8AX8brq7N&tn=vIvSFNl06GFFe0Qb&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AT-daky3xSvLacwA_KDRaA3SBp9TO3xdkr5R5jCMUiLJAA&oe=62EDCDAA

[weecounty hibby]

She did not have a seat at the table… Imho was just an excuse to promote herself

A deliberate action by Johnson who didn’t want to be seen to be upstaged by a competent leader. Somewhat backfired on him but at least it gave the unionists another wee pet name for her.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/truss-name-calling-sturgeon-harms-the-unionist-cause

Even Massie isn’t happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

As are you, let’s ignore the various times like COP 26 for example, where she hung about getting her photo with anyone of relevance 🙄

The daily Sturgeon show during the pandemic certainly seemed like overkill on the days when there was next to nothing of merit to say. Think the BBC eventually pulled their daily live coverage IIRC.

[grunt]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/truss-name-calling-sturgeon-harms-the-unionist-cause

Even Massie isn’t happy.

Wonder why he used the adjective "Scotch" in that article. Looks and sounds odd IMO.

[grunt]

The daily Sturgeon show during the pandemic certainly seemed like overkill on the days when there was next to nothing of merit to say. Think the BBC eventually pulled their daily live coverage IIRC.
And yet many people say they found the consistent and clear messaging very helpful and reassuring.

[Ozyhibby]

Wonder why he used the adjective "Scotch" in that article. Looks and sounds odd IMO.

Did seem weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220802/729fe81f069f0aa57ffb95f29817daab.jpg

Didn’t hear this at the time but I guess that’s what they must think of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/truss-name-calling-sturgeon-harms-the-unionist-cause

Even Massie isn’t happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'There is much to be said for ignoring SNP provocations, but this should be done quietly, not out loud.'

I take Massie's point, but as I said I think Truss was talking more about changing the conversation on Scotland rather than repeating 'now is not the time' ad nauseum.

Meanwhile his colleague Stephen Daisley is almost 'songful of heart' about Truss's stance:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/truss-s-stance-on-scottish-independence-is-welcome-but-could-be-better

[Ozyhibby]

'There is much to be said for ignoring SNP provocations, but this should be done quietly, not out loud.'

I take Massie's point, but as I said I think Truss was talking more about changing the conversation on Scotland rather than repeating 'now is not the time' ad nauseum.

Meanwhile his colleague Stephen Daisley is almost 'songful of heart' about Truss's stance:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/truss-s-stance-on-scottish-independence-is-welcome-but-could-be-better

I haven’t read it yet but short of rolling tanks into the Royal Mile to close the parliament, there is nothing she could have said that would be too much for Daisley.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220802/729fe81f069f0aa57ffb95f29817daab.jpg

Didn’t hear this at the time but I guess that’s what they must think of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is 'they'? An individual at a Tory hustings event?

It's the equivalent of saying if one SNP supporter said something anti English at an SNP event then all Scots must think the same which is of course nonsense.

[grunt]

Who is 'they'? An individual at a Tory hustings event?

It's the equivalent of saying if one SNP supporter said something anti English at an SNP event then all Scots must think the same which is of course nonsense.
Did you listen to the interview? Truss's comment about NS was met by sustained and vigorous applause from the audience. That was almost as chilling as Truss's reply.

[James310]

Did you listen to the interview? Truss's comment about NS was met by sustained and vigorous applause from the audience. That was almost as chilling as Truss's reply.

If Nicola Sturgeon said I am going to ignore Boris Johnson at an exclusively SNP event would she be met with a chorus of boos and jeering?

Secretly though you must be delighted, as it can only boost support for Independence can't it?

[lapsedhibee]

Truss's comment about NS was met by sustained and vigorous applause from the audience.
Hard to tell whether a threshold 60% joined in though.

[Rumble de Thump]

Did you listen to the interview? Truss's comment about NS was met by sustained and vigorous applause from the audience. That was almost as chilling as Truss's reply.

It mainly seemed to be elderly bigots in the audience who were lapping it up. There's a certain type of person who would enjoy, approve of, or defend her comments. And they're not decent people.

[grunt]

If Nicola Sturgeon said I am going to ignore Boris Johnson at an exclusively SNP event would she be met with a chorus of boos and jeering?

Secretly though you must be delighted, as it can only boost support for Independence can't it?
I assume you live in Scotland. How do YOU feel about the next PM saying that she's going to ignore the elected FM of Scotland? That seems like a policy statement from Truss, so does it make you feel like Scotland is a valued member of the Union?

[James310]

I assume you live in Scotland. How do YOU feel about the next PM saying that she's going to ignore the elected FM of Scotland? That seems like a policy statement from Truss, so does it make you feel like Scotland is a valued member of the Union?

Funnily enough that's not how I saw it. Granted it was clumsy words and I think what she meant was she is going to ignore her on Independence, as someone who feels ignored by Nicola Sturgeon since 2014 I am cool with that.

I don't think she literally meant she is going to ignore her regarding anything and everything thing, I know that's what some people want us to believe but it won't be true. It can't be true as there will be discussions going on all the time between both governments about all manner of things and they will continue.

All it did was shore up both bases.

[He's here!]

Funnily enough that's not how I saw it. Granted it was clumsy words and I think what she meant was she is going to ignore her on Independence, as someone who feels ignored by Nicola Sturgeon since 2014 I am cool with that.

I don't think she literally meant she is going to ignore her regarding anything and everything thing, I know that's what some people want us to believe but it won't be true. It can't be true as there will be discussions going on all the time between both governments about all manner of things and they will continue.

All it did was shore up both bases.

Yep, that was my take on it too.

[Ozyhibby]

Funnily enough that's not how I saw it. Granted it was clumsy words and I think what she meant was she is going to ignore her on Independence, as someone who feels ignored by Nicola Sturgeon since 2014 I am cool with that.

I don't think she literally meant she is going to ignore her regarding anything and everything thing, I know that's what some people want us to believe but it won't be true. It can't be true as there will be discussions going on all the time between both governments about all manner of things and they will continue.

All it did was shore up both bases.

It certainly did. That was some cheer that went up.[emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Talking of Nicola Sturgeon I see she is getting some stick for her celebration of the deaths of 40,000 Russians.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1554414968061284354?t=oCBfNjvt-M6aE3QrfCW4mA&s=19

Could be seen as quite tasteless? I am sure a large majority of the dead men were young men conscripted who has little choice in the matter.

I am sure if there was no Robert Burns reference she would not have said a thing. #BAIRNSNOTBOMBS

[ronaldo7]

Perth hustings should be a hoot. Any tory got a space in their car? 😆

[grunt]

Talking of Nicola Sturgeon I see she is getting some stick for her celebration of the deaths of 40,000 Russians.
Funnily enough that's not how I saw it. She was expressing solidarity for Ukraine which has been invaded by Russia. You must have a different definition of "celebration" to me.

[H18 SFR]

Talking of Nicola Sturgeon I see she is getting some stick for her celebration of the deaths of 40,000 Russians.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1554414968061284354?t=oCBfNjvt-M6aE3QrfCW4mA&s=19

Could be seen as quite tasteless? I am sure a large majority of the dead men were young men conscripted who has little choice in the matter.

I am sure if there was no Robert Burns reference she would not have said a thing. #BAIRNSNOTBOMBS

Gets her some attention.

[JeMeSouviens]

I assume you live in Scotland. How do YOU feel about the next PM saying that she's going to ignore the elected FM of Scotland? That seems like a policy statement from Truss, so does it make you feel like Scotland is a valued member of the Union?

The references to NS are panto stuff. More important I think were her comments about rolling out their policies across the whole UK. The prevailing mood in the Tory party is now to roll back devolution. That could have long term implications among what's left of Labour's Scottish voters.

[James310]

Funnily enough that's not how I saw it. She was expressing solidarity for Ukraine which has been invaded by Russia. You must have a different definition of "celebration" to me.

That's fine and people will see it differently, she seems to be getting quite a bit of stick about it on social media even from her own supporters which is quite unusual.

[Hibrandenburg]

Who is 'they'? An individual at a Tory hustings event?

It's the equivalent of saying if one SNP supporter said something anti English at an SNP event then all Scots must think the same which is of course nonsense.

Or quoting the opinion of one EU politician and claing it's the EU's final decision on the matter?

[grunt]

Funnily enough that's not how I saw it. Granted it was clumsy words and I think what she meant was she is going to ignore her on Independence, as someone who feels ignored by Nicola Sturgeon since 2014 I am cool with that.

I don't think she literally meant she is going to ignore her regarding anything and everything thing, I know that's what some people want us to believe but it won't be true. It can't be true as there will be discussions going on all the time between both governments about all manner of things and they will continue.

All it did was shore up both bases.
Nothing that she said could possibly lead you to think this, so you must be inferring what she meant based on your own views. What she said was, "I think the best thing to do with Nicola Sturgeon is ignore her". For a politician who overuses the phrase "to be clear", Truss was surprisingly clear last night. Any other reading of her words is not based on what she said.

[ronaldo7]

The references to NS are panto stuff. More important I think were her comments about rolling out their policies across the whole UK. The prevailing mood in the Tory party is now to roll back devolution. That could have long term implications among what's left of Labour's Scottish voters.

I said as much earlier in the thread. Tories don't really give a toss about devolution, the labour peeps should be sitting up and taking note.

[James310]

Or quoting the opinion of one EU politician and claing it's the EU's final decision on the matter?

Or claiming it never existed in the first place.

We can go back around again and again but would rather not.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://twitter.com/SaorAlbannach/status/1546134817519067137?t=s4vdTQLXCyP56h3ppbF29w&s=19

This is a fair point. Why does the Supreme Court have ascendancy over Scots Law?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

The UK Supreme Court is the ultimate court of Scots Law, at least for civil matters. When it gives a judgment on Scotland it's supposed to follow Scots Law rather than English. You might think that's a bit weird, but in the old days pre-2009 it was the House of Lords. :confused:

[degenerated]

Who is 'they'? An individual at a Tory hustings event?

It's the equivalent of saying if one SNP supporter said something anti English at an SNP event then all Scots must think the same which is of course nonsense.It's something unionists often claim though, isn't it.

[James310]

Nothing that she said could possibly lead you to think this

Thanks for telling me what I think now. If only I thought like you I would see the truth?

[Berwickhibby]

Funnily enough that's not how I saw it. She was expressing solidarity for Ukraine which has been invaded by Russia. You must have a different definition of "celebration" to me.

Funnily enough….god I will need to disinfect my browser :greengrin….I am actually in full agreement with Sturgeon and her post in regard to the solidarity with the Ukraine 🇺🇦

[Hibrandenburg]

I assume you live in Scotland. How do YOU feel about the next PM saying that she's going to ignore the elected FM of Scotland? That seems like a policy statement from Truss, so does it make you feel like Scotland is a valued member of the Union?

An independence supporter would be outraged at both that speech and the reaction it received, a Labour supporter might raise his eyebrows and be concerned about devolution and the consequences her intentions will have on Scotland having a say in how Scotland is governed but a die in the wool Tory or British Nationalist will either be shouting hurrah or dabbling in whataboutery about what she actually meant.

[Hibrandenburg]

Talking of Nicola Sturgeon I see she is getting some stick for her celebration of the deaths of 40,000 Russians.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1554414968061284354?t=oCBfNjvt-M6aE3QrfCW4mA&s=19

Could be seen as quite tasteless? I am sure a large majority of the dead men were young men conscripted who has little choice in the matter.

I am sure if there was no Robert Burns reference she would not have said a thing. #BAIRNSNOTBOMBS

Celebrating :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Funnily enough….god I will need to disinfect my browser :greengrin….I am actually in full agreement with Sturgeon and her post in regard to the solidarity with the Ukraine 🇺🇦

ARCHIVE THIS POST!!!! :greengrin

[James310]

An independence supporter would be outraged at both that speech and the reaction it received, a Labour supporter might raise his eyebrows and be concerned about devolution and the consequences her intentions will have on Scotland having a say in how Scotland is governed but a die in the wool Tory or British Nationalist will either be shouting hurrah or dabbling in whataboutery about what she actually meant.

Nobody actually believes she is going to ignore Nicola Sturgeon, other than probably the hard core Scottish Nationalists. If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow in Edinburgh and Liz Truss was PM do you really seriously believe she would put the phone down on her and ignore her, of course not. They would work together. It's panto stuff as said by another poster.

[weecounty hibby]

Nobody actually believes she is going to ignore Nicola Sturgeon, other than probably the hard core Scottish Nationalists. If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow in Edinburgh and Liz Truss was PM do you really seriously believe she would put the phone down on her and ignore her, of course not. They would work together. It's panto stuff as said by another poster.
Oh, so perhaps a bit of rhetoric? You know like once in a generation? Based on you and other unionists history of holding people to account when using rhetoric you will clearly not be happy for Truss to go back on anything she has said

[Hibrandenburg]

Nobody actually believes she is going to ignore Nicola Sturgeon, other than probably the hard core Scottish Nationalists. If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow in Edinburgh and Liz Truss was PM do you really seriously believe she would put the phone down on her and ignore her, of course not. They would work together. It's panto stuff as said by another poster.

I'm loving your interpretation of the words that come out of her mouth not being actually what she meant but somehow what Alex Salmond muttered during an interview is gospel and written in stone. Your hypocrisy is amusingly embarrassing as usual.

[Hibrandenburg]

Oh, so perhaps a bit of rhetoric? You know like once in a generation? Based on you and other unionists history of holding people to account when using rhetoric you will clearly not be happy for Truss to go back on anything she has said

Beat me to it. :greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

Beat me to it. :greengrin

It’s tragic and so predictable

[James310]

I'm loving your interpretation of the words that come out of her mouth not being actually what she meant but somehow what Alex Salmond muttered during an interview is gospel and written in stone. Your hypocrisy is amusingly embarrassing as usual.

He repeated it multiple times as did Nicola Sturgeon. If Truss repeats it the same number if times then you may have a point.

Anyway I would hold a referendum tomorrow if I saw evidence that support for Independence had increased significantly since 2014, it hasn't so I rarely use the once in a generation line.

Have a great day.

[grunt]

Thanks for telling me what I think now. If only I thought like you I would see the truth?
Do I have to preface every comment with "in my opinion"? It's pretty clear from my post that, IN MY VIEW, nothing that she said could possibly lead you to think this. Happy now?

[Ozyhibby]

Talking of Nicola Sturgeon I see she is getting some stick for her celebration of the deaths of 40,000 Russians.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1554414968061284354?t=oCBfNjvt-M6aE3QrfCW4mA&s=19

Could be seen as quite tasteless? I am sure a large majority of the dead men were young men conscripted who has little choice in the matter.

I am sure if there was no Robert Burns reference she would not have said a thing. #BAIRNSNOTBOMBS

I stand 100% Sturgeon and Zelensky. You can choose whatever side you wish.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Oh, so perhaps a bit of rhetoric? You know like once in a generation? Based on you and other unionists history of holding people to account when using rhetoric you will clearly not be happy for Truss to go back on anything she has saidOne rule for one... etc ...

[ronaldo7]

An independence supporter would be outraged at both that speech and the reaction it received, a Labour supporter might raise his eyebrows and be concerned about devolution and the consequences her intentions will have on Scotland having a say in how Scotland is governed but a die in the wool Tory or British Nationalist will either be shouting hurrah or dabbling in whataboutery about what she actually meant.

Little England love their house jocks. :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

He repeated it multiple times as did Nicola Sturgeon. If Truss repeats it the same number if times then you may have a point.

Anyway I would hold a referendum tomorrow if I saw evidence that support for Independence had increased significantly since 2014, it hasn't so I rarely use the once in a generation line.

Have a great day.

Aye right :faf:

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1554488216308383744?s=21&t=FOrfjQFfpm3RN3KNWbMOOQ

Thread summarising SNP’s submission to Supreme Court. Seem to be taking the position I thought they might. That while the Scotland act is clear it surely does not negate Scotland’s right to self determination.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rumble de Thump]

The Truss team have already said that she meant the complete opposite of what she actually said about public service workers' pay. So it's very possibly that when she said Sturgeon is best ignored and that she's an attention seeker Truss really meant that the UK Government should increase engagement with Sturgeon because it doesn't pay enough attention to her.

[Just Alf]

The Truss team have already said that she meant the complete opposite of what she actually said about public service workers' pay. So it's very possibly that when she said Sturgeon is best ignored and that she's an attention seeker Truss really meant that the UK Government should increase engagement with Sturgeon because it doesn't pay enough attention to her.Evidence appears to support your post :greengrin

[Stairway 2 7]

I stand 100% Sturgeon and Zelensky. You can choose whatever side you wish.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. This isn’t a civil war its a genocide with one aggressor invading a independent state. War is brutal but Ukraine needs solidarity and I'm glad NS showed it

[Ozyhibby]

Indeed. This isn’t a civil war its a genocide with one aggressor invading a independent state. War is brutal but Ukraine needs solidarity and I'm glad NS showed it

Yip, once the war is won, we can then start to feel sorry for individual Russian soldier but not a second before that. In the meantime we should celebrate every single Ukrainian success, even if that involves the death of some poor Russian lad who doesn’t know why he’s there. If he’s carrying a gun then he’s fair game. Sad but true. We’ll done NS for being absolutely clear where Scotland stands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Little England love their house jocks. :greengrin

Outrage at how disrespectful Liz Truss is being but happy to call people house jocks, dear oh dear. That's as bad as traitor or quisling.

[Jones28]

She did not have a seat at the table… Imho was just an excuse to promote herself

Right, so blinkered are you by your dislike of Sturgeon that you think the leader of the country hosting possibly the biggest event for the future of the planet in history should have sat at home while it was going on?

[Berwickhibby]

Right, so blinkered are you by your dislike of Sturgeon that you think the leader of the country hosting possibly the biggest event for the future of the planet in history should have sat at home while it was going on?

She was not invited …… so yeah…. A glorified gatecrasher

[James310]

Indeed. This isn’t a civil war its a genocide with one aggressor invading a independent state. War is brutal but Ukraine needs solidarity and I'm glad NS showed it

She has now deleted the tweet.

[ronaldo7]

Outrage at how disrespectful Liz Truss is being but happy to call people house jocks, dear oh dear. That's as bad as traitor or quisling.

It's not really. It's just what people in England think of you. :greengrin

Not outraged are you? :wink:

[Stairway 2 7]

She has now deleted the tweet.

Think Scotland is so polarised that people will jump on and attack even when she has said the right thing. Wonder if the people replying to the thread were feeling terrible for the Russian soldiers when uk donated nlaws were blowing up their tanks

[Kato]

The UK Supreme Court is the ultimate court of Scots Law, at least for civil matters. When it gives a judgment on Scotland it's supposed to follow Scots Law rather than English. You might think that's a bit weird, but in the old days pre-2009 it was the House of Lords. :confused:I don't find it weird. Looks normal to me [emoji2].

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Nobody actually believes she is going to ignore Nicola Sturgeon, other than probably the hard core Scottish Nationalists. If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow in Edinburgh and Liz Truss was PM do you really seriously believe she would put the phone down on her and ignore her, of course not. They would work together. It's panto stuff as said by another poster....and treating the FM of Scotland as a panto prop is ok by you apparently.

We're not in a panto in case you haven't noticed. But it's easy to imagine we are given the circumstances and people involved.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

English nationalists in the audience shouting "Build a wall" with Truss laughing. All very civic.

[Hibrandenburg]

She was not invited …… so yeah…. A glorified gatecrasher

It's quite sad that you think the elected leader of the country of your birth has no place at an event in the country she democratically represents. I can't get my head around the thought process that makes you think that way.

[Keith_M]

English nationalists in the audience shouting "Build a wall" with Truss laughing. All very civic.


To keep out the English? Sounds a bit racist to me.

Can we restrict it to English Tory Twats like Liz Truss?

[Keith_M]

It's quite sad that you think the elected leader of the country of your birth has no place at an event in the country she democratically represents. I can't get my head around the thought process that makes you think that way.



Too wee, too stupid?

:dunno:

[Lendo]

English nationalists in the audience shouting "Build a wall" with Truss laughing. All very civic.

Did that really happen? Best chance we have for independence is actually having the English Independence movement grow I think.

[ronaldo7]

To keep out the English? Sounds a bit racist to me.

Can we restrict it to English Tory Twats like Liz Truss?

Not really. The audience were full of cheers when she mentioned it. The xenophobes were in their element.

[ronaldo7]

Did that really happen? Best chance we have for independence is actually having the English Independence movement grow I think.

TORY members howled with laughter as an audience member at the leadership hustings suggested Liz Truss “build a wall” to deal with the prospect of Scottish independence.

The FT’s Sebastian Payne had asked the Tory leadership hopeful how she would handle the push for independence from the Scottish Government. Truss has already said she would not grant a Section 30 order to allow indyref2 to go ahead.

[Berwickhibby]

It's quite sad that you think the elected leader of the country of your birth has no place at an event in the country she democratically represents. I can't get my head around the thought process that makes you think that way.

I never said she had no place, but she was not invited but still attended for a wee photo shoot with Greta Thunberg etc…read the thread far back enough it was about that Truss likes a photo shoot …… as does Sturgeon this being a perfect example

[lapsedhibee]

I never said she had no place, but she was not invited but still attended for a wee photo shoot with Greta Thunberg etc…read the thread far back enough it was about that Truss likes a photo shoot …… as does Sturgeon this being a perfect example

There's getting your photo taken and there's cosplaying, and only one of the two people that you're trying, desperately, to make an equivalence between does cosplaying. (The one with the missing brain.)

[JimBHibees]

She was not invited …… so yeah…. A glorified gatecrasher

Laughable

[degenerated]

Outrage at how disrespectful Liz Truss is being but happy to call people house jocks, dear oh dear. That's as bad as traitor or quisling.He's right though.

[Berwickhibby]

[QUOTE=lapsedhibee;7050215]There's getting your photo taken and there's cosplaying, and only one of the two people that you're trying, desperately, to make an equivalence between does cosplaying. (The one with the missing brain.)[/QUOTE

Desperately 🤣🤣🤣🤣 could not really care the pair of them are both media hunting maniacs

[ronaldo7]

I never said she had no place, but she was not invited but still attended for a wee photo shoot with Greta Thunberg etc…read the thread far back enough it was about that Truss likes a photo shoot …… as does Sturgeon this being a perfect example

You seem to be a bit mixed up.

There was a time when Boris Johnson seemed determined to exclude Nicola Sturgeon from COP26.

At his party's 2019 conference he told Scottish Conservatives that he did not want Scotland's first minister "anywhere near it".

That would have been hard to achieve given the UK is hosting the UN climate summit in Ms Sturgeon's home city.

In any event the prime minister relented, telling the BBC in August that all devolved leaders would have a big role to play.

[Kato]

There's getting your photo taken and there's cosplaying, and only one of the two people that you're trying, desperately, to make an equivalence between does cosplaying. (The one with the missing brain.)[/QUOTE

Desperately [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] could not really care the pair of them are both media hunting maniacshttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXjpY2JWAAIU3q0?format=jpg

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Anyone heard from "Scottish" Labour regarding the comments about the FM from Liz Truss?

Where have they gone?

[Bristolhibby]

Nobody actually believes she is going to ignore Nicola Sturgeon, other than probably the hard core Scottish Nationalists. If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow in Edinburgh and Liz Truss was PM do you really seriously believe she would put the phone down on her and ignore her, of course not. They would work together. It's panto stuff as said by another poster.

So it’s just a phrase, something said during an election, but not what they really mean?

So glad we can move on from “Once in a Generation” now.

Truss was throwing read meat to the Loyal. They were lapping it up.

Optics are terrible to Scots.

J

[Bristolhibby]

Think Scotland is so polarised that people will jump on and attack even when she has said the right thing. Wonder if the people replying to the thread were feeling terrible for the Russian soldiers when uk donated nlaws were blowing up their tanks

What did the tweet say?

Personally celebrating the Ukrainian resistance and them messing up Russians should be a thing to cheer.

War is ugly, there will always be deaths. There is a clear right and wrong here.

J

[JimBHibees]

It's an unusual position she's taking. Scotland will be at the heart of the union if she wins but only if the democratically elected leader of the Scottish government is ignored.

Sounds like par for the course.

[JimBHibees]

Anyone heard from "Scottish" Labour regarding the comments about the FM from Liz Truss?

Where have they gone?

Probably texting her saying go girl

[degenerated]

Anyone heard from "Scottish" Labour regarding the comments about the FM from Liz Truss?

Where have they gone?Starmer will be working out how to trump her comments. He is going to have to escalate his position from just not speaking to the SNP, Sarwar will be told what his view is at that point.

[Stairway 2 7]

What did the tweet say?

Personally celebrating the Ukrainian resistance and them messing up Russians should be a thing to cheer.

War is ugly, there will always be deaths. There is a clear right and wrong here.

J

It was the daily list Ukraine ministry of defence put up of Russian total loses. Ukraine mod had a quote from burns accompanying the tweet today. NS Retweeted it and said solidarity with Ukraine.

[Kato]

Starmer will be working out how to trump her comments. He is going to have to escalate his position from just not speaking to the SNP, Sarwar will be told what his view is at that point.Someone in the audience shouted, to hearty cheers and laughter, "build a wall".

No one is going to trump that comment.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

It was the daily list Ukraine ministry of defence put up of Russian total loses. Ukraine mod had a quote from burns accompanying the tweet today. NS Retweeted it and said solidarity with Ukraine.Was that it? It was seen as "celebrating" young Russian men's deaths on here.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Someone in the audience shouted, to hearty cheers and laughter, "build a wall".

No one is going to trump that comment.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalkhttps://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1554427289290657792?t=xMBx76887gjehNmr7u4gIg&s=19

That's the votes that Keir hardly is trying to capture though.

[degenerated]

Was that it? It was seen as "celebrating" young Russian men's deaths on here.

Sent from my SM-A528B using TapatalkBy one person, the same person who is busy trying to defend Liz truss and the little England Tory members xenophobic and imperialistic attitude towards his own country.

[ronaldo7]

The guy arguing against a referendum sounds familiar. Once in a generation, and Polls. :greengrin

Jonathon Lis giving him the facts.

https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1554518991141584901

[degenerated]

The guy arguing against a referendum sounds familiar. Once in a generation, and Polls. :greengrin

Jonathon Lis giving him the facts.

https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1554518991141584901The chinless stuttering stumblebum arguing against Scottish people's sovereign right is really struggling with his lines there.

[Kato]

The chinless stuttering stumblebum arguing against Scottish people's sovereign right is really struggling with his lines there.I was going to post regarding that guys appearance.

"@ 32s - The proverbial Speccy Twat", I was going to say but decided not to, until you came along.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Jack]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXjpY2JWAAIU3q0?format=jpg

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I look forward to the unionist posting a similar montage of our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon to prove his/her point.

[degenerated]

I was going to post regarding that guys appearance.

"@ 32s - The proverbial Speccy Twat", I was going to say but decided not to, until you came along.

Sent from my SM-A528B using TapatalkI've never knowingly been guilty of raising the tone :hilarious

[Kato]

I look forward to the unionist posting a similar montage of our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon to prove his/her point.There will be. But at actual events. Which she has been invited to. Truss was waking up to a diary date with her photographer/dressers/flunkies almost everyday a while back. When the current Prime Minister looked like getting arrested ambushed by something he couldn't wriggle-piggle out of, she was creating her portfolio while saying she was right behind him. What she was doing was "modelling". Sattchi and Sattchi style.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

There really needs to be more attention paid to what Truss said about UK government policy being applied throughout the country.

[grunt]

There really needs to be more attention paid to what Truss said about UK government policy being applied throughout the country.

Agreed.

[xyz23jc]

Yep, that was my take on it too.

I am genuinely surprised by this.... :rolleyes:

[Jones28]

She was not invited …… so yeah…. A glorified gatecrasher

Oh ffs, ok then.

And you fully believe that as the Scottish first minister she had no place at Cop26 in Glasgow?

[xyz23jc]

The references to NS are panto stuff. More important I think were her comments about rolling out their policies across the whole UK. The prevailing mood in the Tory party is now to roll back devolution. That could have long term implications among what's left of Labour's Scottish voters.

Pretty sure they'll be more than happy with the way things are panning out at the moment, Liebour that is, two pronged divide and rule and all that, ANYTHING BUT ENGAGE IN AN ADULT FASHION WITH ANY ISSUE!

UnionistSoundbitesandhidingbehindafridgeapproach# :greengrin

[Berwickhibby]

Oh ffs, ok then.

And you fully believe that as the Scottish first minister she had no place at Cop26 in Glasgow?

Do you actually read the posts!! I clearly said in an early post, I did not say there was no place for her, but she was not invited but attended anyway … but crack on

[xyz23jc]

Gets her some attention.

Given the media of the british state, she obvs in the right job then, aye? :agree::wink::greengrin

[xyz23jc]

Nobody actually believes she is going to ignore Nicola Sturgeon, other than probably the hard core Scottish Nationalists. If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow in Edinburgh and Liz Truss was PM do you really seriously believe she would put the phone down on her and ignore her, of course not. They would work together. It's panto stuff as said by another poster.

I CAN'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS POST IS FOR REAL....AND FOR THAT REASON....JEREMY, ETC:confused:

[xyz23jc]

English nationalists in the audience shouting "Build a wall" with Truss laughing. All very civic.

Need to copyright and invent a meme for that! Make a fortune, on both sides of the border, thus re-uniting the precious respected Union that they all talk of at a stroke! surely even James and he'S BAWB** would approve! :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Do you actually read the posts!! I clearly said in an early post, I did not say there was no place for her, but she was not invited but attended anyway … but crack on

She was speaking at events at Cop26, but crack on.

[xyz23jc]

Starmer will be working out how to trump her comments. He is going to have to escalate his position from just not speaking to the SNP, Sarwar will be told what his view is at that point.

:top marks:agree:

[Ozyhibby]

Anyone heard from "Scottish" Labour regarding the comments about the FM from Liz Truss?

Where have they gone?

I think it’s Scottish Labour voters that he thinks should be ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xyz23jc]

So it’s just a phrase, something said during an election, but not what they really mean?

So glad we can move on from “Once in a Generation” now.

Truss was throwing read meat to the Loyal. They were lapping it up.

Optics are terrible to Scots.

J

The quote, IIRC, was, ONCE IN A GENERATION OPPORTUNITY, ...OFT MISQUOTED & DISTORTED.....Just4t'Record# :flag:

[Bristolhibby]

The quote, IIRC, was, ONCE IN A GENERATION OPPORTUNITY, ...OFT MISQUOTED & DISTORTED.....Just4t'Record# :flag:

Good point

[xyz23jc]

There really needs to be more attention paid to what Truss said about UK government policy being applied throughout the country.


GOOD LUCK WITH OBTAINING SUFFICIENT HALLUCOGENICS..... :thumbsup:

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/charleshymas/status/1554710430366449664?s=21&t=ou4Mcb1ZbVytaLTu_Zx4EQ

Jeezo, Truss only wanted to ignore Sturgeon.[emoji102]
Seems a bit like what China are doing with the Uighurs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

🎙️ Policy Podcast 🎙️

Joining @thecommongreen, today, are past Common Weal team members, @Ben_Wray1989 & James Foley to talk about their book @twosoulsindy which spotlights pro-independence politics post-Brexit & pandemic.

Check back here for the episode later today 👀 https://t.co/yc20SxcclC


A heads up for what should be a good listen.

[Bristolhibby]

https://twitter.com/charleshymas/status/1554710430366449664?s=21&t=ou4Mcb1ZbVytaLTu_Zx4EQ

Jeezo, Truss only wanted to ignore Sturgeon.[emoji102]
Seems a bit like what China are doing with the Uighurs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just as well he won’t be near Downing Street.

J

[He's here!]

She was not invited …… so yeah…. A glorified gatecrasher

I don't think it was quite the case that she just showed up uninvited. She had a sort of meet and greet role IIRC. Bit like a mascot for the event. As you say it was a rich source of selfies.

I do remember cringing when I saw that Susan Aitken, hhe Glasgow Council leader, had been invited to give a welcome speech. Baffles me how she was ever elected.

[ronaldo7]

Let's see if we can get the Unionists away from playing with their dolls/mascots for a bit. They might even put an argument up for the Union over time. Chance would be a fine thing.

The submission from the SNP to the court has been released. Some parts here.

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.snp.org/uploads/2022/08/Scottish-National-Party-2022-0098-Paper-Apart-Application-for-permission-to-intervene-1.pdf

Some excerpts

10. The applicant is a political party which was founded in 1934. Its aims, as set out in its
constitution, are:
‘a) Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by
restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the
sovereign power of the people of Scotland to bind it with a written constitution and by such
agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international
organisations for the purpose of furthering international cooperation, world peace and the
protection of the environment.
b) the furtherance of all Scottish interests.’

14. The disagreement on competence was rendered moot by the Edinburgh Agreement,
whereby the UK Government agreed to present a draft section 30 order to Parliament,
which had the effect of explicitly, but temporarily, devolving authority to legislate for
an independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament. The applicant’s position was,
and remains, that the section 30 order was legally unnecessary - or, at the very least,
that its necessity had not been established - but, at that time, politically expedient. It
removed the threat of legal challenge from the process.

20. The applicant contends that there have been a series of material changes in
circumstances since the 2014 independence referendum which collectively justify the
Scottish people being asked for their views in relation to Scottish independence again,
including (but not limited to):
a. The dramatic growth in support at UK Parliamentary elections for the
applicant and other pro-independence parties. In the 2010 UK general election,
the applicant secured 19.9% of the Scottish vote and 6 seats. In the 2015 election
(the first since the 2014 independence referendum) the applicant secured 50.0%
of the Scottish vote and 56 out of the 59 Scottish seats. Its dominance continued
through the 2017 and 2019 UK elections.
b. The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, against the wishes of the
Scottish people.
6
c. The terms of that exit, which could never have been anticipated in 2014, and
which fundamentally contradict the arguments presented by the Better
Together campaign.
d. The long-term fundamentally-changed economic circumstances caused by the
foregoing.

24. The applicant’s manifesto for the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary election included the
following commitment:
‘A vote for the SNP at this election is a vote in favour of these basic democratic principles: The
people of Scotland have the right to decide our own future… and… The people best able to
decide how Scotland is governed are the people who live here. Based on those principles we
believe the people of Scotland should have the opportunity in a referendum when the Covid
crisis is over to decide whether Scotland should be an independent country. We are seeking the
permission of the Scottish people in this election for an independence referendum to take place
after the crisis. This would be within the next Parliamentary term on a specific date to be
decided by our democratically elected parliament.’
7
25. The manifesto repeated the pledge to discuss with the UK Government a transfer of
power ‘to put a referendum beyond legal challenge and in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.
For the UK government to refuse to do so would both undemocratic and unsustainable.’

More to follow.

[Berwickhibby]

I don't think it was quite the case that she just showed up uninvited. She had a sort of meet and greet role IIRC. Bit like a mascot for the event. As you say it was a rich source of selfies.

I do remember cringing when I saw that Susan Aitken, hhe Glasgow Council leader, had been invited to give a welcome speech. Baffles me how she was ever elected.

My original point still stands that Truss and Sturgeon are as bad as each other when it comes to getting a wee bit publicity and a selfie

[ronaldo7]

The applicant’s duty to implement its manifesto commitment
29. Having secured election to both the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish
Parliament on a clear manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on independence,
the applicant’s position is that it has a duty to the people of Scotland to seek to
implement that manifesto commitment in order to place beyond doubt the view of
those people – the Scottish demos – as regards the manner in which they choose to be
governed.
30. The position of the applicant as regards Scottish independence could scarcely be
clearer. As with the basis of the Salisbury Convention that the House of Lords does
not generally prevent the UK Government of the day from seeking to implement its
manifesto commitments, the applicant’s position is that it is at least constitutionally
8
improper for any part of the UK Government to seek to prevent a devolved
administration from implementing a clear manifesto commitment on which its demos
has elected it to govern.

Self-determination
32. The applicant wishes to make submissions on the right to self-determination. It is the
applicant’s position that the right to self-determination, as a fundamental and
inalienable right, must inform the interpretation of the 1998 Act when considering the
answer to the questions posed by the Lord Advocate. For the reasons set out below,
the applicant submits that, properly construed, the Scottish Parliament does have the
legislative competence to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence. The
applicant wishes to make developed submissions on this matter if permitted to
intervene in these proceedings.

35. Self-determination is a central pillar of modern international law. Deriving ultimately
from customary international law, Article 1 of the UN Charter states that one of the
fundamental purposes of the United Nations is ‘to develop friendly relations among
nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples’.
36. Furthermore, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(adopted by the United Kingdom in 1966 and ratified in 1976) provides as follows:
‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’
37. Self-determination favours the territorial integrity of states at an international law
level and favours the democratic method of a demos in determining for itself how and
by whom it chooses to be governed. The UK’s own position on such matters was stated
as follows in its written statement to the International Court of Justice in relation to
the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo at §5.33:
‘To summarise, international law favourstheterritorial integrity of States. Outsidethe context
of self-determination, normally limited to situations of colonial type or those involving foreign
occupation, it does not confer any “right to secede”. But neither, in general, does it prohibit
secession or separation, or guarantee the unity of predecessor States against internal
movements leading to separation or independence with the support of the peoples concerned.’
38. The right of a demos to self-determination is a fundamental and inalienable right. It is
recognised as such in international law: see, for example, the Resolution of the General
Assembly of the United Nations on 22 May 2019, following the advisory opinion of
the ICJ on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from
Mauritius in 1965 (A/RES/7/295).1

45. Most fundamentally, the tradition of parliamentary sovereignty as a fundamental
principle of the ‘UK Constitution’ as referred to by this court in Miller at §43 is borne
of a reading of Dicey which plays no part in Scots law. Indeed, the passage quoted
from Dicey in Miller expressly refers to ‘the law of England’. The matter is, perhaps,
most succinctly set out in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396, per the Lord
President (Cooper) at 411:
‘The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle
which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and
Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey,
the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution.
Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England
and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been
supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics
of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707
was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what
was done. Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great
Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and
England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain
powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or
emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be
fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never
been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction
the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly
different types of provisions.’
46. The Scots law tradition of the sovereignty of the people, entrusted by them to their
elected representatives, is different in nature from the Diceyan theory of the absolute
vesting of power in the Crown in Parliament which Dicey refers to as the despotism of
King in Parliament.

[ronaldo7]

Argument in favour of legislative competence
50. The Scottish Parliament forms part of the UK’s current constitutional arrangement as
a self-standing democratically-elected legislature: AXA General Insurance Ltd v. Lord
Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, 2012 SC (UKSC) 122 per Lord Hope at §46. The competence
of the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation is limited by law as is set out by the Lord
Advocate: Lord Advocate’s written case at §§88ff.
51. The Scottish Parliament cannot be abolished other than by way of a decision of the
people of Scotland in a referendum: section 63A(3) of the 1998 Act.
52. The 1998 Act is ‘an essential element of the architecture of the modern United
Kingdom’: Somerville v. Scottish Ministers [2007] UKHL 44, 2008 SC (HL) 45 per Lord
Mance at §169. It is a constitutional statute, meaning its provisions are not subject to
implied repeal by later non-constitutional Acts of Parliament: H v. Lord Advocate [2012]
UKSC 24, 2012 SC (UKSC) 308 per Lord Hope at §30.
13
53. The Scottish Parliament exercises its legislative power for and over the people of
Scotland to whom it is democratically accountable. It is firmly rooted in the traditions
of a universal democracy: AXA v. Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, 2012 SC (UKSC) 122
per Lord Hope at §49.
54. On the matter of the power to hold referendums, the applicant is at one with the
submissions of the Lord Advocate insofar as they set out the arguments in favour of
the existence of that power, and the applicant does not seek to repeat those
submissions unnecessarily: Lord Advocate’s written case at §§114-129, 135-138.
55. The applicant regards it of fundamental importance to these proceedings that it be
recognised that the holding of a referendum, such as that which is being proposed,
does not of itself implement the result or the outcome of that referendum. The
referendum indicates the view of the demos on the question posed to it. That there
will be subsequent secondary discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments
in the event that the Scottish people indicate their support for Scottish independence
does not change that. Those discussions are separate from the referendum and do not
inform its purpose.
56. Section 29(3) of the 1998 Act requires consideration of the ‘effect in all the circumstances’
of the provision which is said to be outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish
Parliament. It is therefore important to consider the purpose of the provision in
question before being able to determine whether it ‘relates to’ a reserved matter: Re
UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill [2018] UKSC
64; 2019 SC (UKSC) 13 at §27. Notably, in the same paragraph, it is stated that:
‘The purpose of an enactment … may extend beyond its legal effect, but it is not the same thing
as its political motivation.’
57. For the reasons set out at paragraph 52 above, the purpose of any legislation to hold a
consultative referendum on Scottish independence is self-evidently to determine the
view of the Scottish people in relation to the question posed. That is an exercise by the
Scottish people of their right to self-determination. The implementation of the exercise
of that right in the event of a vote in favour of independence would require an Act of
the UK Parliament. Whatever the outcome of any such referendum, Scotland would
not – and could not as a matter of law – become an independent country by default
the day after ‘referendum day’. The referendum itself is not an act of secession; it is
14
not a unilateral declaration of independence. A process of negotiation and subsequent
legislation would be required to give effect to a referendum outcome in favour of
independence.
58. It is, therefore, in the respectful submission of the applicant, very difficult to see how
the holding of a referendum to determine the view of the Scottish people has anything
more than a loose or consequential connection with any reserved matter in the 1998
Act. Seeking to test the views of the Scottish people by way of a referendum is perfectly
competent and, standing the continued electoral mandate given to the applicant as set
out above, it is democratically unthinkable that the people of Scotland would be
denied such a right to express their view.

[lapsedhibee]

I look forward to the unionist posting a similar montage of our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon to prove his/her point.


My original point still stands that Truss and Sturgeon are as bad as each other when it comes to getting a wee bit publicity and a selfie

:I'm waiti

[ronaldo7]

Conclusion
15
62. The applicant is an official body seeking to make submissions in the public interest
and would be a person with an interest in the questions raised by these proceedings
had they been brought by way of judicial review. For that reason, the applicant
satisfies two of the categories of person who are encouraged ‘in particular’ by Rule 26,
read alongside Rule 41, to seek to intervene.
63. As set out above, the applicant does not seek to repeat arguments that will be made
by others but seeks to make submissions to this court on discrete and complementary
legal arguments, most particularly the effect of the fundamental right of selfdetermination on the interpretation exercise that this court is being asked to carry out.
The arguments set out above are wholly arguable as a matter of law.
64. It is right and proper that this court considers the questions posed by the Lord
Advocate, which are of fundamental constitutional importance, in the full context of
all arguments and having heard submissions from all relevant parties. The applicant
does not propose to extend or delay the proceedings before this court, and seeks only
a period of allocated time for oral submissions in addition to the ability to make
written submissions to this court.
65. In all the circumstances, it would be fair, just, and reasonable for the applicant to be
granted permission to intervene in these proceedings in order to make submissions on
the matters set out above. The submissions will be of assistance to the court and no
party will suffer prejudice as a result of the applicant being able to take part in these
proceedings.
66. This court is therefore respectfully invited to grant the applicant’s application to
intervene and to issue directions in relation to (i) a timetable for the lodging of the
applicant’s written case, and (ii) the allocation of time for oral submissions by the
applicant.

Get yer teeth into that. :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

Get yer teeth into that. :greengrin

Interesting, thanks for posting. :agree:

[James310]

Get yer teeth into that. :greengrin

Before you get too excited if you cut through all the waffle then it also says the SNP expect IndyRef2 would not "have any affect on the Union". And that the holding of a vote would have no more “than a loose or consequential connection with any reserved matter" and that a win for Yes “is not an act of secession.”

So what's the point?

The thing is lots of SNP supporters believe there will be a referendum and if there is one and its won it will mean Independence, when the SNP are actually saying the exact opposite, they are making the legal point it will have no effect on the Union, that's their legal argument for having the referendum.

But it keep her supporters occupied and the pressure off, until the Westminster elections and then it's back to vote SNP for IndyRef2. More money for the party and large salaries for the MPs.

[degenerated]

They're both back now, long trip to the shops or CCHQ has just communicated the lines :hilarious

[James310]

They're both back now, long trip to the shops or CCHQ has just communicated the lines :hilarious

Hilarious.

[lapsedhibee]

So what's the point?



To seek attention. Keep up.

[Moulin Yarns]

Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(adopted by the United Kingdom in 1966 and ratified in 1976) provides as follows:
‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’
37. Self-determination favours the territorial integrity of states at an international law
level and favours the democratic method of a demos in determining for itself how and
by whom it chooses to be governed. at §5.33:
‘To summarise, international law favourstheterritorial integrity of States. Outsidethe context
of self-determination, normally limited to situations of colonial type or those involving foreign
occupation, it does not confer any “right to secede”. But neither, in general, does it prohibit
secession or separation, or guarantee the unity of predecessor States against internal
movements leading to separation or independence with the support of the peoples concerned.’

Something I posted a week or so ago is included in the official submission. :greengrin

Particularly this bit


‘To summarise, international law favours the territorial integrity of States. Outside the context
of self-determination, normally limited to situations of colonial type or those involving foreign
occupation, it does not confer any “right to secede”. But neither, in general, does it prohibit
secession or separation, or guarantee the unity of predecessor States against internal
movements leading to separation or independence with the support of the peoples concerned.’

So while the outcome does not guarantee independence, it crucially does not prevent it.

:giruy2:

[Moulin Yarns]

They're both back now, long trip to the shops or CCHQ has just communicated the lines :hilarious

:faf::faf::faf:

[Kato]

Before you get too excited if you cut through all the waffle then it also says the SNP expect IndyRef2 would not "have any affect on the Union". And that the holding of a vote would have no more “than a loose or consequential connection with any reserved matter" and that a win for Yes “is not an act of secession.”

So what's the point?

The thing is lots of SNP supporters believe there will be a referendum and if there is one and its won it will mean Independence, when the SNP are actually saying the exact opposite, they are making the legal point it will have no effect on the Union, that's their legal argument for having the referendum.

But it keep her supporters occupied and the pressure off, until the Westminster elections and then it's back to vote SNP for IndyRef2. More money for the party and large salaries for the MPs.Is this the same as the Brexit referendum being advisory?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[James310]

Is this the same as the Brexit referendum being advisory?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Exactly like that, but there was the political will from all sides to enact that decision. That doesn't exist in this situation. Generally all referendum are advisory, but the first Scottish one had I believe a legal agreement regarding the result which made it different to any 'normal' referendum. Gold standard I think is what Nicola Sturgeon called it.

If there is an advisory referendum and as per the SNPs own argument it's meaningless in terms of the Union it will likely be boycotted by half the country, Yes will win with like 95% on a turnout of around 40% and people will just go so what.

[Ozyhibby]

Something I posted a week or so ago is included in the official submission. :greengrin

Particularly this bit



So while the outcome does not guarantee independence, it crucially does not prevent it.

:giruy2:

Correct. It gives the SG the permission to negotiate our independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Exactly like that, but there was the political will from all sides to enact that decision. That doesn't exist in this situation. Generally all referendum are advisory, but the first Scottish one had I believe a legal agreement regarding the result which made it different to any 'normal' referendum. Gold standard I think is what Nicola Sturgeon called it.

If there is an advisory referendum and as per the SNPs own argument it's meaningless in terms of the Union it will likely be boycotted by half the country, Yes will win with like 95% on a turnout of around 40% and people will just go so what.

They will get the votes in the Scottish Parliament to take it forward.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Before you get too excited if you cut through all the waffle then it also says the SNP expect IndyRef2 would not "have any affect on the Union". And that the holding of a vote would have no more “than a loose or consequential connection with any reserved matter" and that a win for Yes “is not an act of secession.”

So what's the point?

The thing is lots of SNP supporters believe there will be a referendum and if there is one and its won it will mean Independence, when the SNP are actually saying the exact opposite, they are making the legal point it will have no effect on the Union, that's their legal argument for having the referendum.

But it keep her supporters occupied and the pressure off, until the Westminster elections and then it's back to vote SNP for IndyRef2. More money for the party and large salaries for the MPs.

It's exactly the same as what occurred on the referendum to leave the EU. Every referendum is advisory, but if you'd bothered to read the link I produced, you'd see that's exactly what they're saying.

Who's saying different here?

The discussions on how we leave the Union take place after a vote in Parliament.

You'd be better reading the document before contributing again. Saves the blushes.

[James310]

I know its all seen as me posting here pissing on the parade and there he is again taking pish etc. but at what point do Indy supporters question the strategy of the SNP? Or is it the case as it seems to be everyone is all fine and dandy with it all. I find it hard there aren't some Indy supporters here who are thinking is this really the right way to go.

[James310]

It's exactly the same as what occurred on the referendum to leave the EU. Every referendum is advisory, but if you'd bothered to read the link I produced, you'd see that's exactly what they're saying.

Who's saying different here?

The discussions on how we leave the Union take place after a vote in Parliament.

You'd be better reading the document before contributing again. Saves the blushes.

See my response above about the EU referendum. It's a totally different situation, pretend it's the same all you like but it's not.

[James310]

Correct. It gives the SG the permission to negotiate our independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On a result of 95% for Yes? Nobody would take that seriously.

[Kato]

I know its all seen as me posting here pissing on the parade and there he is again taking pish etc. .

I don't think you're pissing on the parade.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

On a result of 95% for Yes? Nobody would take that seriously.

Are you certain of a boycott? Are you sure you want to even hint at it because a partial boycott is a disaster. If vote is deemed legal then the result will stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mon Dieu4]

I know its all seen as me posting here pissing on the parade and there he is again taking pish etc. but at what point do Indy supporters question the strategy of the SNP? Or is it the case as it seems to be everyone is all fine and dandy with it all. I find it hard there aren't some Indy supporters here who are thinking is this really the right way to go.

I see it as win win either way, if we get it then great, if we don't and the new PM turns us down again then it breeds more resentment, I'm not adverse to getting petty as **** if I ultimately get what I want

[Ozyhibby]

I’m very comfortable with the patient approach of the SNP. The demographics are only moving in one direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Are you certain of a boycott? Are you sure you want to even hint at it because a partial boycott is a disaster. If vote is deemed legal then the result will stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/25/scottish-tories-would-boycott-unofficial-independence-referendum?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%2 51%24s&aoh=16595377328941&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolit ics%2F2021%2Fjan%2F25%2Fscottish-tories-would-boycott-unofficial-independence-referendum


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lib-dems-could-boycott-second-27301517


https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/labour-could-boycott-wildcat-scottish-092851988.html


Pretty sure yes.

So if we play this out to a conclusion let's assume the Supreme Court says ok have your advisory referendum, it's on October 2023 and very likely boycotted by half the country, Yes wins with 95% on. turnout of say 40%. A vote happens in Parliament and you think everyone will sit around the table and start to negotiate the terms of Indy?

[Smartie]

I know its all seen as me posting here pissing on the parade and there he is again taking pish etc. but at what point do Indy supporters question the strategy of the SNP? Or is it the case as it seems to be everyone is all fine and dandy with it all. I find it hard there aren't some Indy supporters here who are thinking is this really the right way to go.

I guess we're a broad church of people of varying commitments to independence, differing ideas regarding how any referendum might be carried out and with different opinions on what Scotland might look like post independence.

Some will agree and some will disagree.

It doesn't change the fact that we all agree in the broad principle that Scotland should be independent.

Of course there will be many people questioning many aspects of it, some possibly being put off independence as a result.

[James310]

I’m very comfortable with the patient approach of the SNP. The demographics are only moving in one direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's patient about trying to force a referendum in 12 months time then using the General Election as a de facto referendum the next year.

If demographics is the winning formula then that's years away.

If it plays out like it could you don't think it will set back the Yes movement. For example if there is no referendum and the General Election is used as the de facto referendum and the SNP and Greens get 48%, then according to Nicola Sturgeons rules that's IndyRef2 lost, two referendums lost in 10 years. That won't have an impact?

[ronaldo7]

I know its all seen as me posting here pissing on the parade and there he is again taking pish etc. but at what point do Indy supporters question the strategy of the SNP? Or is it the case as it seems to be everyone is all fine and dandy with it all. I find it hard there aren't some Indy supporters here who are thinking is this really the right way to go.

No pissing on the parade here.

What other route should we take? We must have one. Every demos has. :wink:

[ronaldo7]

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/25/scottish-tories-would-boycott-unofficial-independence-referendum?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%2 51%24s&aoh=16595377328941&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolit ics%2F2021%2Fjan%2F25%2Fscottish-tories-would-boycott-unofficial-independence-referendum


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lib-dems-could-boycott-second-27301517


https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/labour-could-boycott-wildcat-scottish-092851988.html


Pretty sure yes.

So if we play this out to a conclusion let's assume the Supreme Court says ok have your advisory referendum, it's on October 2023 and very likely boycotted by half the country, Yes wins with 95% on. turnout of say 40%. A vote happens in Parliament and you think everyone will sit around the table and start to negotiate the terms of Indy?

In two of your links, one says "wildcat", and another, "unofficial". They won't be either if the law lords say otherwise. If they do, then we move onto the next stage.

Why would you want to boycott a referendum to stay in your Union if it's that good?

Surely you can put up an argument for the Union. It seems to be withering on the vine.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/25/scottish-tories-would-boycott-unofficial-independence-referendum?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%2 51%24s&aoh=16595377328941&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolit ics%2F2021%2Fjan%2F25%2Fscottish-tories-would-boycott-unofficial-independence-referendum


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lib-dems-could-boycott-second-27301517


https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/labour-could-boycott-wildcat-scottish-092851988.html


Pretty sure yes.

So if we play this out to a conclusion let's assume the Supreme Court says ok have your advisory referendum, it's on October 2023 and very likely boycotted by half the country, Yes wins with 95% on. turnout of say 40%. A vote happens in Parliament and you think everyone will sit around the table and start to negotiate the terms of Indy?

Yahoo link - Wildcat referendum. Not happening because we are already at the courts to decide if it is legal or not!

Daily record - Wildcat referendum. Not happening because we are already at the courts to decide if it is legal or not!

Guardian link - Unofficial referendum (although they also use the Wildcat word later) -Not happening because we are already at the courts to decide if it is legal or not!

Do you accept that there won't be any form of wildcat, unofficial, or illegal referendum because wea are already going down the court route to get a ruling? The 'de facto' referendum at the next election however, so fill yer boots with your boycotts.

[ronaldo7]

No mention of wildcat here.

https://twitter.com/BylineTV/status/1554820924314071043

[Bristolhibby]

What's patient about trying to force a referendum in 12 months time then using the General Election as a de facto referendum the next year.

If demographics is the winning formula then that's years away.

If it plays out like it could you don't think it will set back the Yes movement. For example if there is no referendum and the General Election is used as the de facto referendum and the SNP and Greens get 48%, then according to Nicola Sturgeons rules that's IndyRef2 lost, two referendums lost in 10 years. That won't have an impact?

Why not have one?

[Kato]

Why would you want to boycott a referendum to stay in your Union if it's that good?



It's all they have left?

Better Together2 won't look as shiny as the 1st time around.

Govt is a fascist bin fire facilitating huge profits for their pals in the City.

Inaction on wages for the less well off.

David Bowie is deid.

Getting rid of one liar PM just to get another.

Any talk of social justice sees the same rhetoric employed by Putin and Trump.

"You will lose EU membership" ha ha.

"The Beatles were good."

BT2 would look like a list of their own incompetencies and swindles.

So the tactics will be to belittle, boycott and wreck. Bannon/Trump playbook.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

What's patient about trying to force a referendum in 12 months time then using the General Election as a de facto referendum the next year.

If demographics is the winning formula then that's years away.

If it plays out like it could you don't think it will set back the Yes movement. For example if there is no referendum and the General Election is used as the de facto referendum and the SNP and Greens get 48%, then according to Nicola Sturgeons rules that's IndyRef2 lost, two referendums lost in 10 years. That won't have an impact?

You do realise if we have the referendum that you will boycott next October then there will be no need for the De-Facto referendum at the genereal election?

It's either or, not both. :rolleyes:

[Since90+2]

You do realise if we have the referendum that you will boycott next October then there will be no need for the De-Facto referendum at the genereal election?

It's either or, not both. :rolleyes:

I'd have thought that was obvious?

[James310]

You do realise if we have the referendum that you will boycott next October then there will be no need for the De-Facto referendum at the genereal election?

It's either or, not both. :rolleyes:

Vampire something or another. 🤣

See it's hilarious.

[cabbageandribs1875]

James O'Brien gives his thoughts on those comments by Truss on our first minister

starts 1:55 in


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGQzTsQOE4Q

[Moulin Yarns]

Vampire something or another. 🤣

See it's hilarious.

Actually no, it's draining!! :rolleyes:

You need to understand why The Scottish Government, and the wider Yes movement, wants to have a referendum, but obviously you have your union blinkers on and can't see that if there is a referendum then there will not be a need for the election to be used as a de-facto referendum and somehow think it's both. Kind of explains how you don't have a clue!!

[Stairway 2 7]

Hopefully we get the power by the courts for a full referendum as one that isn't binding will be boycotted. That's not a bad thing and will certainly build momentum for the inevitable

[James310]

Actually no, it's draining!! :rolleyes:

You need to understand why The Scottish Government, and the wider Yes movement, wants to have a referendum, but obviously you have your union blinkers on and can't see that if there is a referendum then there will not be a need for the election to be used as a de-facto referendum and somehow think it's both. Kind of explains how you don't have a clue!!

🤣 Hilarious.

[Moulin Yarns]

�� Hilarious.

Boring :rolleyes:

Not to say, underlines that you haven't got a clue how democracy works!

[CropleyWasGod]

🤣 Hilarious.

Is it not correct, though? It's one or the other, or have I misunderstood?

[James310]

Boring :rolleyes:

Not to say, underlines that you haven't got a clue how democracy works!

👍

[James310]

Is it not correct, though? It's one or the other, or have I misunderstood?

If there is a referendum and Yes wins with 95% on a turnout of 40% I don't see how that moves anything forward. Must just be me though.

[Hibrandenburg]

Exactly like that, but there was the political will from all sides to enact that decision. That doesn't exist in this situation. Generally all referendum are advisory, but the first Scottish one had I believe a legal agreement regarding the result which made it different to any 'normal' referendum. Gold standard I think is what Nicola Sturgeon called it.

If there is an advisory referendum and as per the SNPs own argument it's meaningless in terms of the Union it will likely be boycotted by half the country, Yes will win with like 95% on a turnout of around 40% and people will just go so what.

I'm sure at least 45 of the 65 Scottish MPs will be happy enough to endorse the decision. Or have you changed your mind and now think the power to decide lies in Holyrood? :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

Is it not correct, though? It's one or the other, or have I misunderstood?

I think that he is just being difficult and trying to be funny, and failing, at the same time.

Ronaldo's posting of the submission makes a lot of sense, and includes previously suggested lines of argument about other independence arguments which were previously dismissed.

There is international precedence that allows people to decide on how they want to be governed, whether by self determination, or even UDI, such as Kosovo, that has been recognised by the UK government, and IMHO will be difficult to argue against.

[CropleyWasGod]

If there is a referendum and Yes wins with 95% on a turnout of 40% I don't see how that moves anything forward. Must just be me though.

That doesn't really answer my question.

[Moulin Yarns]

If there is a referendum and Yes wins with 95% on a turnout of 40% I don't see how that moves anything forward. Must just be me though.

Keep repeating it to yourself, always good to have a comfort blanket. :greengrin

[James310]

I'm sure at least 45 of the 65 Scottish MPs will be happy enough to endorse the decision. Or have you changed your mind and now think the power to decide lies in Holyrood? :wink:

Isn't it Holyrood we are talking about, why would Westminster vote on it. If the referendum is granted it's an advisory non S30 referendum, nothing to do with Westminster. As the SNP say themselves, it will have no effect on the Union.

[James310]

Keep repeating it to yourself, always good to have a comfort blanket. :greengrin

🤣👍

[James310]

That doesn't really answer my question.

If an advisory referendum is granted and Yes win with 95% on a turnout of 40% most people will go so what, no serious discussion on Indy would take place. It could quite easily then move on to the de facto referendum plan.

[Moulin Yarns]

That doesn't really answer my question.

You can ask the question in any number of ways, just don't expect an answer.

Even if there is approval from the Supreme Court that the Scottish Government has competence to hold the referendum, there will always be some who will believe that it's worth boycotting because they think that will be a win!!

[James310]

I don't think people are understanding the SNPs own legal argument here, they are saying grant us an advisory referendum and we are can have it because it will have zero effect on the Union.

[Moulin Yarns]

If an advisory referendum is granted and Yes win with 95% on a turnout of 40% most people will go so what, no serious discussion on Indy would take place. It could quite easily then move on to the de facto referendum plan.

Have you not been paying attention?

No, obviuosly not. Supreme court allows the referendum, yes wins, then there is the beginning of negotiations, regardless of your boycott, between the two governments. That's exactly what is included in the submission.

Your only hope is the Supreme court says no, then you have to boycott the general election :faf::faf::faf::faf:

[Moulin Yarns]

I don't think people are understanding the SNPs own legal argument here, they are saying grant us an advisory referendum and we are can have it because it will have zero effect on the Union.

Oh dear, the lack of understanding is a big mistake from the Union!!

[CropleyWasGod]

If an advisory referendum is granted and Yes win with 95% on a turnout of 40% most people will go so what, no serious discussion on Indy would take place. It could quite easily then move on to the de facto referendum plan.

I'll try asking it in a different way.

What makes you certain that this "advisory referendum" (which, after all, the last one was, as was the Brexit one), which has yet to be approved and, therefore, no parties have expressed their actual views on (how could they, since it's still not known whether it will be held?), would attract a turnout of 40%?

[James310]

Have you not been paying attention?

No, obviuosly not. Supreme court allows the referendum, yes wins, then there is the beginning of negotiations, regardless of your boycott, between the two governments. That's exactly what is included in the submission.

Your only hope is the Supreme court says no, then you have to boycott the general election :faf::faf::faf::faf:

👍🤣

[James310]

Oh dear, the lack of understanding is a big mistake from the Union!!

👍🤣

[lapsedhibee]

I'll try asking it in a different way.

What makes you certain that this "advisory referendum" (which, after all, the last one was, as was the Brexit one), which has yet to be approved and, therefore, no parties have expressed their actual views on (how could they, since it's still not known whether it will be held?), would attract a turnout of 40%?

40% and 60% are magic numbers, they don't have to be explained.

[Just Alf]

You can ask the question in any number of ways, just don't expect an answer.

Even if there is approval from the Supreme Court that the Scottish Government has competence to hold the referendum, there will always be some who will believe that it's worth boycotting because they think that will be a win!!Not scientific by any means, but a fair few of my pals never voted in the Brexit referendum as they thought it was a foregone conclusion that remain would win.

Not voting in an officially sanctioned referendum can only ever be taken as you're happy with the outcome whatever way the decision falls.

[James310]

I'll try asking it in a different way.

What makes you certain that this "advisory referendum" (which, after all, the last one was, as was the Brexit one), which has yet to be approved and, therefore, no parties have expressed their actual views on (how could they, since it's still not known whether it will be held?), would attract a turnout of 40%?

In my opinion, if it's advisory and has no effect on the Union, and that's the SNPs own argument, the opposition parties are likely to say well if it has no effect on the Union and is meaningless then what's the point. They have been clear unless it's a S30 referendum then it's pointless. That's the gold standard.

It's the same as saying the Brexit referendum would have no impact on Brexit, nonsense really.

[Kato]

All referendums in UK have been advisory.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

In my opinion, if it's advisory and has no effect on the Union, and that's the SNPs own argument, the opposition parties are likely to say well if it has no effect on the Union and is meaningless then what's the point. They have been clear unless it's a S30 referendum then it's pointless. That's the gold standard.

As has been said above, the recent referenda have all been advisory.

However, you don't know that will be the view of the other parties, which was the point of my question.

Those other parties would then have a dilemma. They can either:-

1. ignore it, and risk losing heavily. If that happens, in a legally sanctioned referendum, we'll probably be back in the Courts to test the validity of the result. Do they really want to risk that?

2. take part in it, either in full or in part. Again , there's a risk there.

If the Court rules in the SG's favour, and a referendum is sanctioned, the other parties have a major decision to make.

[James310]

As has been said above, the recent referenda have all been advisory.

However, you don't know that will be the view of the other parties, which was my question.

Those other parties would then have a dilemma. They can either:-

1. ignore it, and risk losing heavily. If that happens, in a legal referendum, we'll probably be back in the Courts to test the validity of the result. Do they really want to risk that?

2. take part in it, either in full or in part. Again , there's a risk there.

If the Court rules in the SG's favour, and a referendum is sanctioned, the other parties have a major decision to make.

The SNP are asking for permission to run an advisory referendum.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20596063.snp-set-case-supreme-court-indyref2-legal-battle/?ref=twtrec

"AN INDEPENDENCE referendum without the consent of Westminster would not “have any effect on the Union,” the SNP has said.

In a submission to the Supreme Court, the party claim that the holding of a vote would have no more “than a loose or consequential connection with any reserved matter" and that a win for Yes “is not an act of secession.”

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it will have any effect, in fact the SNP are actually arguing it should and will have no effect. Sure I am speculating what the opposition parties will do, but speculating on what they have said regarding referendums that are not done via a S30.

If they ignore it and lose heavily why would anyone take it to court to question the result? Yes have won with 95%, would anyone take that seriously? Would everyone go what a stunning victory, it's obviously the will of the people. According to the SNP the result has no effect on the Union so why would anyone take it to court to oppose it, it's meaningless and that's the SNPs own argument, it has no effect on the Union.

[ronaldo7]

Not scientific by any means, but a fair few of my pals never voted in the Brexit referendum as they thought it was a foregone conclusion that remain would win.

Not voting in an officially sanctioned referendum can only ever be taken as you're happy with the outcome whatever way the decision falls.

Those deciding to stay at home will then be supporting the other side. Thanks guys. 😙

[Hibrandenburg]

Isn't it Holyrood we are talking about, why would Westminster vote on it. If the referendum is granted it's an advisory non S30 referendum, nothing to do with Westminster. As the SNP say themselves, it will have no effect on the Union.

You drew the parallel to Brexit in that there was political consensus to get it done. The vast majority of Scottish seats in Westminster are pro independence, the majority of seats in Holyrood are also pro independence. So I'm baffled to see how you think there isn't the political consensus to make independence happen if a referendum shows it's the will of the electorate. Feel free to explain.

[Moulin Yarns]

In my opinion, if it's advisory and has no effect on the Union, and that's the SNPs own argument, the opposition parties are likely to say well if it has no effect on the Union and is meaningless then what's the point. They have been clear unless it's a S30 referendum then it's pointless. That's the gold standard.

It's the same as saying the Brexit referendum would have no impact on Brexit, nonsense really.

How. Many. Times. Do. You. Need. It. Explained?

Go back to read the submissions that Ronaldo posted, please?

I know you have an issue with me, but the constant ' advisory referendum' talk from you is just showing up your ignorance of the issue.

The results of any referendum will not be the end of the case, but, assuming that your boycott leads to a win for the yes argument, it will only be the beginning of the negotiations between the two governments.

[James310]

You drew the parallel to Brexit in that there was political consensus to get it done. The vast majority of Scottish seats in Westminster are pro independence, the majority of seats in Holyrood are also pro independence. So I'm baffled to see how you think there isn't the political consensus to make independence happen if a referendum shows it's the will of the electorate. Feel free to explain.

I am not following, any votes in Westminster would require votes from all 650 MPs.

[James310]

How. Many. Times. Do. You. Need. It. Explained?

Go back to read the submissions that Ronaldo posted, please?

I know you have an issue with me, but the constant ' advisory referendum' talk from you is just showing up your ignorance of the issue.

The results of any referendum will not be the end of the case, but, assuming that your boycott leads to a win for the yes argument, it will only be the beginning of the negotiations between the two governments.

Just stop replying to me you vampire.

See it's really annoying isn't it. 🤣

Damn forgot the YouTube link.

[grunt]

Not scientific by any means, but a fair few of my pals never voted in the Brexit referendum as they thought it was a foregone conclusion that remain would win.
I have to say this is really something I don't want to hear.

[Bostonhibby]

https://twitter.com/charleshymas/status/1554710430366449664?s=21&t=ou4Mcb1ZbVytaLTu_Zx4EQ

Jeezo, Truss only wanted to ignore Sturgeon.[emoji102]
Seems a bit like what China are doing with the Uighurs.

Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThis could be serious, there's an outside chance at least one of the two knows which hemisphere Britain is in.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

If an advisory referendum is granted and Yes win with 95% on a turnout of 40% most people will go so what, no serious discussion on Indy would take place. It could quite easily then move on to the de facto referendum plan.
What was the vote share and turnout for Brexit?

[James310]

What was the vote share and turnout for Brexit?

72% turnout, 51.9% Leave and 48.1% Remain. 33.5M people voted.

At the last Indy ref turnout was 84.6% and 3.6M people voted.

[Just Alf]

I have to say this is really something I don't want to hear.I was well unimpressed when various folks told me.

[Just Alf]

I am not following, any votes in Westminster would require votes from all 650 MPs.Thanks, a really good demonstration on why there's a democratic deficit.

Essentially, the Scottish electorate could vote 99% for independence, return 100% independence supporting MPs to Westminster and yet If English MPs don't want to allow it Scotland can't become independent... is that what you're meaning?

[Ozyhibby]

Thanks, a really good demonstration on why there's a democratic deficit.

Essentially, the Scottish electorate could vote 99% for independence, return 100% independence supporting MPs to Westminster and yet If English MPs don't want to allow it Scotland can't become independent... is that what you're meaning?

That’s certainly the way James wants it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Thanks, a really good demonstration on why there's a democratic deficit.

Essentially, the Scottish electorate could vote 99% for independence, return 100% independence supporting MPs to Westminster and yet If English MPs don't want to allow it Scotland can't become independent... is that what you're meaning?

No. Scotland has about 9% of MPs but about 8% of the UK population, so if it was a deficit we would have less MPs?

If Scotland voted 99% in favor of Independence then it depends on the circumstances, if a fully engaged and agreed referendum on a turnout similar to last time then I don't think anyone would argue that's a valid results and like last time the result would be respected.

I don't ever see a day when any side will get 99% so it's not really relevant.

[James310]

That’s certainly the way James wants it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, that's just not true.

I know it's really comfortable for some people to drop people into little comfortable boxes, but that's not what I think at all.

[Just Alf]

No. Scotland has about 9% of MPs but about 8% of the UK population, so if it was a deficit we would have less MPs?

If Scotland voted 99% in favor of Independence then it depends on the circumstances, if a fully engaged and agreed referendum on a turnout similar to last time then I don't think anyone would argue that's a valid results and like last time the result would be respected.

I don't ever see a day when any side will get 99% so it's not really relevant.Paragraph 1 and 3 are irrelevant to the conversation, I was trying to gut us away from the 60% discussion, I'm sure you.know that though.

On your 2nd paragraph, I agree... whether the referendum is enabled by a sec 30 or the courts both will be valid.


Edit: just add... you.did say it would.need agreed at Westminster and that "any votes in Westminster would require votes from all 650 MPs."

[Skol]

I can see the point James is making a,though I know many don’t.

My take is the snp position is to try and get the court to say yes. Once that’s done then they will change tack and it will suddenly have a material impact on the union.

[James310]

I can see the point James is making a,though I know many don’t.

My take is the snp position is to try and get the court to say yes. Once that’s done then they will change tack and it will suddenly have a material impact on the union.

I think the reality of what I am trying to show is just too hard for some to believe, almost like they are in denial that it might not work out how Nicola Sturgeon has told them.

Yes I think you are right, they will claim it's meaningless, well they already are claiming it is meaningless and will have no effect on the Union as that's their argument for having one, but if the other parties took them at their word and engaged and ran a No campaign then if Yes won by say a small margin it immediately becomes not meaningless and really important. The SNP must think half of Scotland are zipped up the back, that's why if it's a meaningless advisory referendum the opposition parties just ignore it, we can't trust them to stick to their word that it's meaningless even although that's what they are claiming it will be.

I am glad someone gets it!

[James310]

Paragraph 1 and 3 are irrelevant to the conversation, I was trying to gut us away from the 60% discussion, I'm sure you.know that though.

On your 2nd paragraph, I agree... whether the referendum is enabled by a sec 30 or the courts both will be valid.


Edit: just add... you.did say it would.need agreed at Westminster and that "any votes in Westminster would require votes from all 650 MPs."

Any referendum without a S30 is an advisory one, and then we are back into the world of if its advisory and will be meaningless, and remember that's the SNPs words not mine, what's the point. It can still be legal but only if it's advisory. And round and round we go.

[Hibrandenburg]

Any referendum without a S30 is an advisory one, and then we are back into the world of if its advisory and will be meaningless, and remember that's the SNPs words not mine, what's the point. It can still be legal but only if it's advisory. And round and round we go.

So what is Scotland's route to self determination?

[lapsedhibee]

Any referendum without a S30 is an advisory one, and then we are back into the world of if its advisory and will be meaningless, and remember that's the SNPs words not mine, what's the point. It can still be legal but only if it's advisory. And round and round we go.

I missed the SNP saying it would be meaningless. Can you direct me to the exact quote please?

[Kato]

I can see the point James is making a,though I know many don’t.

My take is the snp position is to try and get the court to say yes. Once that’s done then they will change tack and it will suddenly have a material impact on the union.Like brexit?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[James310]

I missed the SNP saying it would be meaningless. Can you direct me to the exact quote please?

I will hold my hands up, they don't use the exact word meaningless in their submission, so my apologies.

But they do infer that as and this is a direct quote from their submission

"Put short, the holding of a consultative referendum does not result in a reduction in
the scope of the powers of the UK Parliament and nor does it, of itself, have any effect
on the Union"

If has no "effect on the Union" then what's the point of it? What me and Skol are saying is they say that now, but assuming there was an advisory referendum and Yes wins by a small margin then do we really believe the SNP go well there you go, it has no effect on the Union. Of course not, nobody believes that.

[James310]

Like brexit?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Nobody claimed the Brexit referendum would have no effect on Brexit.

See how silly it sounds, but that's what the SNP are saying, a referendum on Scottish Independence would have no impact on Scottish Independence. It's daft.

[grunt]

Any referendum without a S30 is an advisory one, and then we are back into the world of if its advisory and will be meaningless, and remember that's the SNPs words not mine, what's the point. It can still be legal but only if it's advisory. And round and round we go.
You are missing the WHOLE point. If we don't get a s30, then we're effectively prisoners in the union. Any union you're not allowed to leave is no longer a union, it's a prison. Did the UK need to obtain (the equivalent of) a s30 in order to leave the EU?

No, they didn't, and nor should we.

And you say that an advisory referendum is meaningless. But the EU referendum was an advisory one?

[Keith_M]

Wow, ten posts from 'you know who' on one page!


He's getting more and more obsessed with independence

:greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

So what is Scotland's route to self determination?

None, we have already been told this week that scotlands democratically elected FM will be ignored and that under no circumstances will England allow a referendum. Key word being allow, let that sink in. No matter what, we need England to allow us to decide for ourselves. I can't get my head round anyone thinking that is normal

[James310]

Wow, ten posts from 'you know who' on one page!


He's getting more and more obsessed with independence

:greengrin

It would be so much easier if people understood what the SNP are arguing for and stopped asking questions! It seems to be a right challenge for some.

[Keith_M]

...and now it's eleven


:greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

It would be so much easier if people understood what the SNP are arguing for and stopped asking questions! It seems to be a right challenge for some.
So you are the only person who understands what the SNP are saying? Maybe we are just too stupid