Scottish Independence

[Ozyhibby]

So it's not the principles that are important, just what people might think? That's hardly a refutation.

We know democracy deniers don’t care what people think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

So it's not the principles that are important, just what people might think? That's hardly a refutation.

Whether you label it a "principle" or not, it used to be the accepted position on all sides that Scotland could become an independent state by voting for it.

[ronaldo7]

Because people don't want a referendum and there is no majority support for Independence.

Here is a bunch of SNP voters, they are clear they support Indy but don't want a referendum next year.

https://twitter.com/martinmccluskey/status/1595334850478833664?t=Hy3vgMj2q3sRGEqsnaHUcQ&s=19


And in 2011 civic Scotland wanted one, that's not the case now.

I can keep repeating the same answer over and over if you like, the approach of if only you saw what I saw you would agree with me won't work.

Is that the Scottish Fabians who are affiliated to the Scottish Labour party

[Stairway 2 7]

We know democracy deniers don’t care what people think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Calling the 50% of Scots who want to be a part of the uk democracy deniers, isn't going to help win the next referendum. The yes group is won, I see hardly any effort to win the other, just attempts at further separation

[ronaldo7]

Through the electorate consistently returning a government with a mandate to hold a second referendum. Rather than returning a party that campaigned not to hold one.

Nailed it.

[degenerated]

That channel 4 poll that was referenced yesterday. I suspect it's a bit of a rogue result because it frankly it's too good to be true, but it claims to be a representative sample of >1000 Scottish voters and the question was "would you vote for the SNP at the next GE if your vote would be used as a mandate to negotiate independence with the UK government?"

Yes - 51%
No - 33%
DK - 16%


ex-DK that's 60% Yes! Stunning.

But ... caveats ... the data was collected and crunched astoundingly quickly which is a bit of a red flag and tbh I don't know anything about the pollster "Find Out Now" or if they have any track record at all in Scotland?

Be very interesting to see if there's any uptick in the more regular polling series.Wasn't the question used the remain/leave one rather than the standard yes/no, which usually delivers greater unionist %

[JeMeSouviens]

Wasn't the question used the remain/leave one rather than the standard yes/no, which usually delivers greater unionist %

No, I've quoted the actual question.

[He's here!]

Alistair Carmichael's opinion piece in the Independent will ring true with many bored to tears by the SNP's appropriation of what being Scottish means:

The people of Scotland have many voices - Nicola Sturgeon should remember that

It may shock very few people in 2022 to discover that for Nicola Sturgeon (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/nicola-sturgeon) the top priority today, as on every other day, is another referendum (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/referendum). When all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.

The Supreme Court, a voice for the rule of law and constitutionalism in our country, has found that the SNP does not have a unilateral power to break up the UK (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/indyref2-supreme-court-scotland-referendum-b2231191.html). The response from the nationalist movement and its leader is to suggest that democracy itself is about to come crashing down.
The choice of wording from the first minister tells a tale in of itself. Sturgeon and the SNP suggest that we are currently not living in a real democracy. It is a dangerous route to go down.

If you tell people for long enough that they do not live in a democracy, that there is a boot upon their neck, then they will start to believe it – and act accordingly. If you tell people – as the first minister did today – that “the very democracy of our nation depends on independence” then the implication is chilling. If you do not believe that the country you live in is a democracy then all sorts of behaviours become legitimised. Opponents become enemies; contrary voices become traitors and quislings.

The trouble for Sturgeon and the SNP, of course, is that we do live in a democracy. The last decade alone has seen two referendums and seven Scottish and UK-wide elections, all free and open votes. Whatever its flaws, we have democracy coming out of our gills.

More importantly, we live in a liberal democracy. Our political life is defined by more than just the votes that are cast, but also by the norms and institutions – like the rule of law embodied by the independent Supreme Court – that protect diversity and pluralism.

Liberal democracy is a challenging, sometimes uncomfortable political system. It means spending a lot of time arguing over ideas and ideals. It means respecting legal restrictions and challenges that you may find frustrating. When you look around the world at the alternatives, however, it is pretty clear that liberal democracy is the best option we have yet come up with.

It is my opinion that the SNP holds a narrow and distorted vision of democratic values. It is not liberal democracy, but nationalist and populist. It is hostile to independent sources of legitimacy and non-nationalist voices in the media or civil society. Why else is the nationalist broadcaster Leslie Riddoch planning to lead a march on the BBC?

Theirs is the sort of democracy in which, rather than solving problems through debate and competing ideas, the solution is to divide communities up on the false basis of identity.
When nationalists like the first minister talk about “Scotland’s voice being ignored” they want us to accept that Scotland has one voice. It does not.

The people of Scotland have many voices. We are millions of individuals; soft-hearted liberals and red-blooded socialists. Brexiteers and Scexiteers, tartan Tories and the completely apolitical. Every viewpoint you can imagine is included, and they are all “Scottish”, for good or bad. Each of those voices has a vote, and when it comes to our democratic rights, each vote counts just as much as anyone else’s, whether it is cast in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland or in England.

When the SNP talk about “Scotland’s voice being ignored”, they want us to buy into a narrative in which the only legitimate voice is nationalist, not individual – nor even the voice of local communities, as the SNP’s perpetual assault on council budgets and powers can attest.

It is a narrative in which it is assumed that “we” do not have full democracy as long as we have to share it with people in Carlisle or Swansea – because somehow “we” are irreconcilably different from “them”. And that is really the only question that needs to be answered, today and every other day: are people in Scotland so fundamentally different from people in Wales, Northern Ireland and England that we cannot share a community?

The SNP want us to believe that people in Scotland and the rest of the UK are immutably different and irreconcilable. But if you truly believe in liberal democracy, then you believe that what matters most is not your identity – but the ideals that you put forward. You have to believe that building barriers and cutting off debate is no real solution to our problems.

When I look at the challenges people are facing around the UK right now, I see far more that we share and can learn from one another than that divides us.

There are strikes in Glasgow and in London. There are families struggling with bills in Shetland and in Sheffield. There are people in all corners of the country looking for some sense of social solidarity. We share a real democracy – a political community – with all of them.

The debates over the best ways to support communities across the UK cannot be reduced to “how do we cut ourselves off from one another”. There is no ideal or principle behind that approach. It is a moral vacuum.

However narrowly you slice your community in the name of nationalism, once you have built up your borders the same problems will be waiting for you. Debates over ideas – not identity – are the only solution.

Liberal democracy is a messy thing. It requires us to respect and recognise one another as equal members of our community, despite our differences. To deny, as the SNP do today, that each one of us has an individual right and voice, not defined by narrow nationalism, is the true denial of democracy.

[J-C]

By that token the SNP was only endorsed by about 30% of the voting population. Hardly a ringing endorsement for change if you want to use those rules.

2019 elections, Labour 21.6% the SNP 47.7%, facts.

[archie]

We know democracy deniers don’t care what people think.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat doesn't make any sense in the context of the overarching principle. You didn't address the point yesterday either when you rather haughtily dismissed it.

[James310]

2019 elections, Labour 21.6% the SNP 47.7%, facts.

Since when is over 20% a 1/6 ?

I wasn't sure if you were using turnout or eligible voters. When you said eligible voters I thought that meant exactly that.

[Ozyhibby]

That doesn't make any sense in the context of the overarching principle. You didn't address the point yesterday either when you rather haughtily dismissed it.

The point is, you used to be able to vote for independence. Now you can’t. It’s been taken away from us. That’s the only point worth talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Is that the Scottish Fabians who are affiliated to the Scottish Labour party

So are saying the SNP voters they are talking to aren't real, plants are they?

See, yet again another easy sound byte and ignore the substance of what is being discussed. I sense a pattern.

[Ozyhibby]

Alistair Carmichael's opinion piece in the Independent will ring true with many bored to tears by the SNP's appropriation of what being Scottish means:

The people of Scotland have many voices - Nicola Sturgeon should remember that

It may shock very few people in 2022 to discover that for Nicola Sturgeon (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/nicola-sturgeon) the top priority today, as on every other day, is another referendum (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/referendum). When all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.

The Supreme Court, a voice for the rule of law and constitutionalism in our country, has found that the SNP does not have a unilateral power to break up the UK (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/indyref2-supreme-court-scotland-referendum-b2231191.html). The response from the nationalist movement and its leader is to suggest that democracy itself is about to come crashing down.
The choice of wording from the first minister tells a tale in of itself. Sturgeon and the SNP suggest that we are currently not living in a real democracy. It is a dangerous route to go down.

If you tell people for long enough that they do not live in a democracy, that there is a boot upon their neck, then they will start to believe it – and act accordingly. If you tell people – as the first minister did today – that “the very democracy of our nation depends on independence” then the implication is chilling. If you do not believe that the country you live in is a democracy then all sorts of behaviours become legitimised. Opponents become enemies; contrary voices become traitors and quislings.

The trouble for Sturgeon and the SNP, of course, is that we do live in a democracy. The last decade alone has seen two referendums and seven Scottish and UK-wide elections, all free and open votes. Whatever its flaws, we have democracy coming out of our gills.

More importantly, we live in a liberal democracy. Our political life is defined by more than just the votes that are cast, but also by the norms and institutions – like the rule of law embodied by the independent Supreme Court – that protect diversity and pluralism.

Liberal democracy is a challenging, sometimes uncomfortable political system. It means spending a lot of time arguing over ideas and ideals. It means respecting legal restrictions and challenges that you may find frustrating. When you look around the world at the alternatives, however, it is pretty clear that liberal democracy is the best option we have yet come up with.

It is my opinion that the SNP holds a narrow and distorted vision of democratic values. It is not liberal democracy, but nationalist and populist. It is hostile to independent sources of legitimacy and non-nationalist voices in the media or civil society. Why else is the nationalist broadcaster Leslie Riddoch planning to lead a march on the BBC?

Theirs is the sort of democracy in which, rather than solving problems through debate and competing ideas, the solution is to divide communities up on the false basis of identity.
When nationalists like the first minister talk about “Scotland’s voice being ignored” they want us to accept that Scotland has one voice. It does not.

The people of Scotland have many voices. We are millions of individuals; soft-hearted liberals and red-blooded socialists. Brexiteers and Scexiteers, tartan Tories and the completely apolitical. Every viewpoint you can imagine is included, and they are all “Scottish”, for good or bad. Each of those voices has a vote, and when it comes to our democratic rights, each vote counts just as much as anyone else’s, whether it is cast in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland or in England.

When the SNP talk about “Scotland’s voice being ignored”, they want us to buy into a narrative in which the only legitimate voice is nationalist, not individual – nor even the voice of local communities, as the SNP’s perpetual assault on council budgets and powers can attest.

It is a narrative in which it is assumed that “we” do not have full democracy as long as we have to share it with people in Carlisle or Swansea – because somehow “we” are irreconcilably different from “them”. And that is really the only question that needs to be answered, today and every other day: are people in Scotland so fundamentally different from people in Wales, Northern Ireland and England that we cannot share a community?

The SNP want us to believe that people in Scotland and the rest of the UK are immutably different and irreconcilable. But if you truly believe in liberal democracy, then you believe that what matters most is not your identity – but the ideals that you put forward. You have to believe that building barriers and cutting off debate is no real solution to our problems.

When I look at the challenges people are facing around the UK right now, I see far more that we share and can learn from one another than that divides us.

There are strikes in Glasgow and in London. There are families struggling with bills in Shetland and in Sheffield. There are people in all corners of the country looking for some sense of social solidarity. We share a real democracy – a political community – with all of them.

The debates over the best ways to support communities across the UK cannot be reduced to “how do we cut ourselves off from one another”. There is no ideal or principle behind that approach. It is a moral vacuum.

However narrowly you slice your community in the name of nationalism, once you have built up your borders the same problems will be waiting for you. Debates over ideas – not identity – are the only solution.

Liberal democracy is a messy thing. It requires us to respect and recognise one another as equal members of our community, despite our differences. To deny, as the SNP do today, that each one of us has an individual right and voice, not defined by narrow nationalism, is the true denial of democracy.

Congrats. That’s a full house of representatives of the three main anti-democratic parties you have quoted today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Whether you label it a "principle" or not, it used to be the accepted position on all sides that Scotland could become an independent state by voting for it.I'm not sure where the 'accepted position' comes from. If you mean that a Scottish Government could determine and run a referendum off it's own bat that would be accepted by rUK then I don't think that's the case. The fact is that Salmond was able to negotiate a referendum on very favourable terms. SG controlled it. They were able to set the question and the franchise. So Scotland could and did have a vote. I'm not being obtuse, but in constitutional terms what has changed? I know there's bad blood between them, but Salmond has been very critical of the tactics SG has adopted.

[archie]

The point is, you used to be able to vote for independence. Now you can’t. It’s been taken away from us. That’s the only point worth talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkNothing has changed. The situation is exactly the same as before.

[Mcbizz1998]

you'll know all about sad sacks eh, are SNP still nazi's btw









*awaits all innocence

Yes.

[degenerated]

Is that the Scottish Fabians who are affiliated to the Scottish Labour partyThe Scottish Fabians were set up to fight against independence for Scotland.

26299

[James310]

Nothing has changed. The situation is exactly the same as before.

Exactly, nothing has changed. The law as it was last week and last year has been clarified, which is exactly what Nicola Sturgeon asked for. The law hasn't changed, that's a fact.

As someone on here said "Facts are chiels that winna ding"

She could have done this years ago.

[archie]

Through the electorate consistently returning a government with a mandate to hold a second referendum. Rather than returning a party that campaigned not to hold one.But what you put in a manifesto can only be delivered if you have the powers to do it. The Scottish Government didn't have the power to do it in 2014. But they were able to reach agreement with the UKG to have a referendum. As I said in a previous answer, Salmond was able to secure this and has been extremely critical of the SG approach.

[degenerated]

Alistair Carmichael's opinion piece in the Independent will ring true with many bored to tears by the SNP's appropriation of what being Scottish means:

The people of Scotland have many voices - Nicola Sturgeon should remember that

It may shock very few people in 2022 to discover that for Nicola Sturgeon (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/nicola-sturgeon) the top priority today, as on every other day, is another referendum (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/referendum). When all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.

The Supreme Court, a voice for the rule of law and constitutionalism in our country, has found that the SNP does not have a unilateral power to break up the UK (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/indyref2-supreme-court-scotland-referendum-b2231191.html). The response from the nationalist movement and its leader is to suggest that democracy itself is about to come crashing down.
The choice of wording from the first minister tells a tale in of itself. Sturgeon and the SNP suggest that we are currently not living in a real democracy. It is a dangerous route to go down.

If you tell people for long enough that they do not live in a democracy, that there is a boot upon their neck, then they will start to believe it – and act accordingly. If you tell people – as the first minister did today – that “the very democracy of our nation depends on independence” then the implication is chilling. If you do not believe that the country you live in is a democracy then all sorts of behaviours become legitimised. Opponents become enemies; contrary voices become traitors and quislings.

The trouble for Sturgeon and the SNP, of course, is that we do live in a democracy. The last decade alone has seen two referendums and seven Scottish and UK-wide elections, all free and open votes. Whatever its flaws, we have democracy coming out of our gills.

More importantly, we live in a liberal democracy. Our political life is defined by more than just the votes that are cast, but also by the norms and institutions – like the rule of law embodied by the independent Supreme Court – that protect diversity and pluralism.

Liberal democracy is a challenging, sometimes uncomfortable political system. It means spending a lot of time arguing over ideas and ideals. It means respecting legal restrictions and challenges that you may find frustrating. When you look around the world at the alternatives, however, it is pretty clear that liberal democracy is the best option we have yet come up with.

It is my opinion that the SNP holds a narrow and distorted vision of democratic values. It is not liberal democracy, but nationalist and populist. It is hostile to independent sources of legitimacy and non-nationalist voices in the media or civil society. Why else is the nationalist broadcaster Leslie Riddoch planning to lead a march on the BBC?

Theirs is the sort of democracy in which, rather than solving problems through debate and competing ideas, the solution is to divide communities up on the false basis of identity.
When nationalists like the first minister talk about “Scotland’s voice being ignored” they want us to accept that Scotland has one voice. It does not.

The people of Scotland have many voices. We are millions of individuals; soft-hearted liberals and red-blooded socialists. Brexiteers and Scexiteers, tartan Tories and the completely apolitical. Every viewpoint you can imagine is included, and they are all “Scottish”, for good or bad. Each of those voices has a vote, and when it comes to our democratic rights, each vote counts just as much as anyone else’s, whether it is cast in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland or in England.

When the SNP talk about “Scotland’s voice being ignored”, they want us to buy into a narrative in which the only legitimate voice is nationalist, not individual – nor even the voice of local communities, as the SNP’s perpetual assault on council budgets and powers can attest.

It is a narrative in which it is assumed that “we” do not have full democracy as long as we have to share it with people in Carlisle or Swansea – because somehow “we” are irreconcilably different from “them”. And that is really the only question that needs to be answered, today and every other day: are people in Scotland so fundamentally different from people in Wales, Northern Ireland and England that we cannot share a community?

The SNP want us to believe that people in Scotland and the rest of the UK are immutably different and irreconcilable. But if you truly believe in liberal democracy, then you believe that what matters most is not your identity – but the ideals that you put forward. You have to believe that building barriers and cutting off debate is no real solution to our problems.

When I look at the challenges people are facing around the UK right now, I see far more that we share and can learn from one another than that divides us.

There are strikes in Glasgow and in London. There are families struggling with bills in Shetland and in Sheffield. There are people in all corners of the country looking for some sense of social solidarity. We share a real democracy – a political community – with all of them.

The debates over the best ways to support communities across the UK cannot be reduced to “how do we cut ourselves off from one another”. There is no ideal or principle behind that approach. It is a moral vacuum.

However narrowly you slice your community in the name of nationalism, once you have built up your borders the same problems will be waiting for you. Debates over ideas – not identity – are the only solution.

Liberal democracy is a messy thing. It requires us to respect and recognise one another as equal members of our community, despite our differences. To deny, as the SNP do today, that each one of us has an individual right and voice, not defined by narrow nationalism, is the true denial of democracy.Alistair Carmichael is a proven liar who is unreliable and lacks candour, why should I trust what he has to say?

[ronaldo7]

So are saying the SNP voters they are talking to aren't real, plants are they?

See, yet again another easy sound byte and ignore the substance of what is being discussed. I sense a pattern.

I've no idea, has it been verified? When you provide "evidence" from a body set up in 2012 to fight against Scottish independence, and the rise of the SNP, some may take it with a pinch of salt(ires) 😂

Scottish Fabians launched in spring 2012 as the left came to terms with the challenge posed by the SNP and the independence referendum.

[ronaldo7]

Alistair Carmichael's opinion piece in the Independent will ring true with many bored to tears by the SNP's appropriation of what being Scottish means:

The people of Scotland have many voices - Nicola Sturgeon should remember that

It may shock very few people in 2022 to discover that for Nicola Sturgeon (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/nicola-sturgeon) the top priority today, as on every other day, is another referendum (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/referendum). When all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.

The Supreme Court, a voice for the rule of law and constitutionalism in our country, has found that the SNP does not have a unilateral power to break up the UK (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/indyref2-supreme-court-scotland-referendum-b2231191.html). The response from the nationalist movement and its leader is to suggest that democracy itself is about to come crashing down.
The choice of wording from the first minister tells a tale in of itself. Sturgeon and the SNP suggest that we are currently not living in a real democracy. It is a dangerous route to go down.

If you tell people for long enough that they do not live in a democracy, that there is a boot upon their neck, then they will start to believe it – and act accordingly. If you tell people – as the first minister did today – that “the very democracy of our nation depends on independence” then the implication is chilling. If you do not believe that the country you live in is a democracy then all sorts of behaviours become legitimised. Opponents become enemies; contrary voices become traitors and quislings.

The trouble for Sturgeon and the SNP, of course, is that we do live in a democracy. The last decade alone has seen two referendums and seven Scottish and UK-wide elections, all free and open votes. Whatever its flaws, we have democracy coming out of our gills.

More importantly, we live in a liberal democracy. Our political life is defined by more than just the votes that are cast, but also by the norms and institutions – like the rule of law embodied by the independent Supreme Court – that protect diversity and pluralism.

Liberal democracy is a challenging, sometimes uncomfortable political system. It means spending a lot of time arguing over ideas and ideals. It means respecting legal restrictions and challenges that you may find frustrating. When you look around the world at the alternatives, however, it is pretty clear that liberal democracy is the best option we have yet come up with.

It is my opinion that the SNP holds a narrow and distorted vision of democratic values. It is not liberal democracy, but nationalist and populist. It is hostile to independent sources of legitimacy and non-nationalist voices in the media or civil society. Why else is the nationalist broadcaster Leslie Riddoch planning to lead a march on the BBC?

Theirs is the sort of democracy in which, rather than solving problems through debate and competing ideas, the solution is to divide communities up on the false basis of identity.
When nationalists like the first minister talk about “Scotland’s voice being ignored” they want us to accept that Scotland has one voice. It does not.

The people of Scotland have many voices. We are millions of individuals; soft-hearted liberals and red-blooded socialists. Brexiteers and Scexiteers, tartan Tories and the completely apolitical. Every viewpoint you can imagine is included, and they are all “Scottish”, for good or bad. Each of those voices has a vote, and when it comes to our democratic rights, each vote counts just as much as anyone else’s, whether it is cast in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland or in England.

When the SNP talk about “Scotland’s voice being ignored”, they want us to buy into a narrative in which the only legitimate voice is nationalist, not individual – nor even the voice of local communities, as the SNP’s perpetual assault on council budgets and powers can attest.

It is a narrative in which it is assumed that “we” do not have full democracy as long as we have to share it with people in Carlisle or Swansea – because somehow “we” are irreconcilably different from “them”. And that is really the only question that needs to be answered, today and every other day: are people in Scotland so fundamentally different from people in Wales, Northern Ireland and England that we cannot share a community?

The SNP want us to believe that people in Scotland and the rest of the UK are immutably different and irreconcilable. But if you truly believe in liberal democracy, then you believe that what matters most is not your identity – but the ideals that you put forward. You have to believe that building barriers and cutting off debate is no real solution to our problems.

When I look at the challenges people are facing around the UK right now, I see far more that we share and can learn from one another than that divides us.

There are strikes in Glasgow and in London. There are families struggling with bills in Shetland and in Sheffield. There are people in all corners of the country looking for some sense of social solidarity. We share a real democracy – a political community – with all of them.

The debates over the best ways to support communities across the UK cannot be reduced to “how do we cut ourselves off from one another”. There is no ideal or principle behind that approach. It is a moral vacuum.

However narrowly you slice your community in the name of nationalism, once you have built up your borders the same problems will be waiting for you. Debates over ideas – not identity – are the only solution.

Liberal democracy is a messy thing. It requires us to respect and recognise one another as equal members of our community, despite our differences. To deny, as the SNP do today, that each one of us has an individual right and voice, not defined by narrow nationalism, is the true denial of democracy.

Proven liar.

He's smear.

[James310]

I've no idea, has it been verified? When you provide "evidence" from a body set up in 2012 to fight against Scottish independence, and the rise of the SNP, some may take it with a pinch of salt(ires) 😂

Scottish Fabians launched in spring 2012 as the left came to terms with the challenge posed by the SNP and the independence referendum.

Yes they are probably all actors set up with scripts being paid by some dark agency 🤣. Never had you down as big on conspiracy theories but there you go.

Remember that time you were going to send me evidence from Believe in Scotland or Business for Scotland as the evidence of how great Independence would be? Yea well.... more than a pinch would be needed.

[ronaldo7]

Yes they are probably all actors set up with scripts being paid by some dark agency ��. Never had you down as big on conspiracy theories but there you go.

Remember that time you were going to send me evidence from Believe in Scotland or Business for Scotland as the evidence of how great Independence would be? Yea well.... more than a pinch would be needed.


This should keep you going for a couple of weeks. A bit of light and informative reading for you. Happy to help.

https://www.businessforscotland.com/

Where are those Poll of polls.:faf:

[J-C]

Since when is over 20% a 1/6 ?

I wasn't sure if you were using turnout or eligible voters. When you said eligible voters I thought that meant exactly that.
I guessed roughly, nearer 1/5 if you want to be pedantic. I think there's a massive difference in your 30% to the actual 47.7%, eh.

[The Modfather]

But what you put in a manifesto can only be delivered if you have the powers to do it. The Scottish Government didn't have the power to do it in 2014. But they were able to reach agreement with the UKG to have a referendum. As I said in a previous answer, Salmond was able to secure this and has been extremely critical of the SG approach.

Regardless of the technicalities of holding a referendum and Westminster needing to approve it. Giving the Scottish people the chance to vote on whether they want a new referendum, or not, should be the key point. If the Scottish electorate vote for a party that want to hold one that should be the decision made IMO and a formality for the section 30. For me it’s that simplistic and black and white.

The horse trading, bluffing and trying to shout loudest in order to win that referendum is then the next step and something that’s in the balance. I’m not too bothered about the Scottish government not having the authority to hold a referendum themselves. However if we are a nation of equals and a democracy the section 30 should simply be a tick box process that needs followed not a final hurdle to overcome.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not sure where the 'accepted position' comes from. If you mean that a Scottish Government could determine and run a referendum off it's own bat that would be accepted by rUK then I don't think that's the case. The fact is that Salmond was able to negotiate a referendum on very favourable terms. SG controlled it. They were able to set the question and the franchise. So Scotland could and did have a vote. I'm not being obtuse, but in constitutional terms what has changed? I know there's bad blood between them, but Salmond has been very critical of the tactics SG has adopted.

The only constitutional fact that matters in the UK is the absolute sovereignty of the crown in (the Westminster) parliament. Everything else is malleable. So, if it makes you happy, I'll concede that.

Politically, there has been a big change from "you can be independent whenever you vote for it", accepted even by Tories Cameron, Major, Thatcher, to "you can be independent if you fulfil some unspecified conditions at some unspecified time in the future."

I'm sure the bad blood or the fact he's trying to carve out a position for his Alba vehicle has absolutely nothing at all to do with Salmond's comments, oh no sirree. What alternative is he proposing btw?

[James310]

I guessed roughly, nearer 1/5 if you want to be pedantic. I think there's a massive difference in your 30% to the actual 47.7%, eh.

Yes, but you said eligible voters and that normally means people eligible to erm well vote. According to the National Records of Scotland there are 4,245,200 eligible voters in Scotland.

You meant turnout which is different.

[JeMeSouviens]

I've no idea, has it been verified? When you provide "evidence" from a body set up in 2012 to fight against Scottish independence, and the rise of the SNP, some may take it with a pinch of salt(ires) 😂

Scottish Fabians launched in spring 2012 as the left came to terms with the challenge posed by the SNP and the independence referendum.

The interesting thing about that focus grouping to me is that all they're doing is pushing ways to delay. The pro-UK side has basically adopted a position of en masse hiding under the duvet and hope it goes away.

[He's here!]

Congrats. That’s a full house of representatives of the three main anti-democratic parties you have quoted today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You think I should post only pro-SNP quotes?

The shoot the messenger/play the man not the ball/blame Westminster Rory anything and everything response on here to anything which goes against the SNP narrative is pretty tedious.

[Callum_62]

So, this theoretical uber respect for polling opinions

How long do yes need to be ahead and by what margin to then decide fairs fair and we can probably be granted permission to ask a question of our population?



Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

So, this theoretical uber report for polling opinions

How long do yes need to be ahead and by what margin to then decide fairs fair and we can probably be granted permission to ask a question of our population?



Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

It’s a secret.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000587290217

Interesting podcast from Lewis Goodall yesterday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

There are families struggling with bills in Shetland and in Sheffield.

And Chartres and Schaffhausen. This is a rubbish point. "Arbitrary borders are bad, bad, bad - except my arbitrary borders which are of course fine". If uniform policy across the UK is so important, why have devolution?

[J-C]

Yes, but you said eligible voters and that normally means people eligible to erm well vote. According to the National Records of Scotland there are 4,245,200 eligible voters in Scotland.

You meant turnout which is different.

OK then, eligible voters who decide to give a damn and vote on the day then, is that better

[archie]

The only constitutional fact that matters in the UK is the absolute sovereignty of the crown in (the Westminster) parliament. Everything else is malleable. So, if it makes you happy, I'll concede that.

Politically, there has been a big change from "you can be independent whenever you vote for it", accepted even by Tories Cameron, Major, Thatcher, to "you can be independent if you fulfil some unspecified conditions at some unspecified time in the future."

I'm sure the bad blood or the fact he's trying to carve out a position for his Alba vehicle has absolutely nothing at all to do with Salmond's comments, oh no sirree. What alternative is he proposing btw?

https://www.albaparty.org/delay_democracy_but_you_can_t_deny_it

[degenerated]

Calling the 50% of Scots who want to be a part of the uk democracy deniers, isn't going to help win the next referendum. The yes group is won, I see hardly any effort to win the other, just attempts at further separationConversely there should also be an onus on the unionist and loyalist side to win over yes voters if they want this settled. They're doing a pretty shan job of doing that.

[James310]

Another pro Indy supporter expressing concerns, especially around this democracy denier line that seems to be getting less and less popular as day goes on. It's interesting how they are totally ignored like Darren McGarveys comments.

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/status/1595727005068447744?t=R4TK9O0z0I59dKLbFo327Q&s=19

"The challenge in the end is to do what SNP has not been doing effectively & to make a strong, dynamic, comprehensive case for indy in the EU. There's been 3 papers on indy since summer but no serious follow up, nor campaigning, nor energising, & some core questions not answered.

If SNP now hopes/thinks it can get support from the democracy argument, given it's not making a strong substantive indy case, that risks looking weak. If SNP carries on with business as usual, it will probably get polls as usual. That's the real political challenge"

[Ozyhibby]

Another pro Indy supporter expressing concerns, especially around this democracy denier line that seems to be getting less and less popular as day goes on. It's interesting how they are totally ignored like Darren McGarveys comments.

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/status/1595727005068447744?t=R4TK9O0z0I59dKLbFo327Q&s=19

"The challenge in the end is to do what SNP has not been doing effectively & to make a strong, dynamic, comprehensive case for indy in the EU. There's been 3 papers on indy since summer but no serious follow up, nor campaigning, nor energising, & some core questions not answered.

If SNP now hopes/thinks it can get support from the democracy argument, given it's not making a strong substantive indy case, that risks looking weak. If SNP carries on with business as usual, it will probably get polls as usual. That's the real political challenge"

No need to worry about the campaign when we are not allowed to leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

https://www.albaparty.org/delay_democracy_but_you_can_t_deny_it

Thanks. So, pass the legislation (assuming you can strongarm the Lord Advocate) get the same result from the SC and then assume that it makes a massive difference to the electorate that it was the UK gov rather than Scotgov that brought it before the court? Not seeing it personally.

[Stairway 2 7]

Conversely there should also be an onus on the unionist and loyalist side to win over yes voters if they want this settled. They're doing a pretty shan job of doing that.

The onus isn't unfortunately. They won the referendum convincingly and the polls have sat at similar levels since, with the worst uk govs in memory.

I think there needs to be a change or this thread will still be here in 10 years

[archie]

Thanks. So, pass the legislation (assuming you can strongarm the Lord Advocate) get the same result from the SC and then assume that it makes a massive difference to the electorate that it was the UK gov rather than Scotgov that brought it before the court? Not seeing it personally.

I think the argument was that FM should have chosen a Lord Advocate who would have signed it off. It would still have been challenged by UKG, but maybe the tactics were that the UKG was defying the will of the Scottish Parliament rather than just seeking clarification?

[James310]

I think the argument was that FM should have chosen a Lord Advocate who would have signed it off. It would still have been challenged by UKG, but maybe the tactics were that the UKG was defying the will of the Scottish Parliament rather than just seeking clarification?

So it was all about maximum grievance then? I remember that was the SNP plan and how confident people were Boris Johnson would take the people of Scotland to court and how that would drive up support for Indy. It ended up Nicola Sturgeon taking it to court.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/thesnp/status/1595764022527369216?s=46&t=Qw2emxaFAoxxusYIMFwYuw

What’s not true about this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1595762154891681793?t=rWudUUW8eaZWYsTHaLZ-_A&s=19


If it is in the opposition manifesto that if the SNP win the election that there will be a referendum on independence, shouldn't there be one. 😁

[archie]

The onus isn't unfortunately. They won the referendum convincingly and the polls have sat at similar levels since, with the worst uk govs in memory.

I think there needs to be a change or this thread will still be here in 10 years
I wonder whether the mistake is to see this from the perspective of hard core unionists or hard core nationalists. The holy grail is to teach the large group of people in the middle. What is it most people actually want? I suspect at the core it is good, competent government delivering a stable economy with good outcomes for citizens. I think the group in the middle is less 'locked in' to a particular constitutional endgame. I wonder if Labour's proposals to scrap the House of Lords would be a good starting point? There has to be something to replace it. A second chamber that better reflected the country would be a start. I also wonder if Wales and Scotland would benefit from a second chamber as well. The Scottish Parliament was meant to be more cooperative and constructive. But it isn't. Also, the centralisation of power over the last ten years seriously impacted on notions of subsidiarity. I think we should look at ways to reverse that. These measures may go some way to addressing the concerns of the large group of people in the middle.

[degenerated]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000587290217

Interesting podcast from Lewis Goodall yesterday.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkInteresting though unfortunately he allowed that lib Dem women to talk some nonsense unchallenged.

[JeMeSouviens]

I wonder whether the mistake is to see this from the perspective of hard core unionists or hard core nationalists. The holy grail is to teach the large group of people in the middle. What is it most people actually want? I suspect at the core it is good, competent government delivering a stable economy with good outcomes for citizens. I think the group in the middle is less 'locked in' to a particular constitutional endgame. I wonder if Labour's proposals to scrap the House of Lords would be a good starting point? There has to be something to replace it. A second chamber that better reflected the country would be a start. I also wonder if Wales and Scotland would benefit from a second chamber as well. The Scottish Parliament was meant to be more cooperative and constructive. But it isn't. Also, the centralisation of power over the last ten years seriously impacted on notions of subsidiarity. I think we should look at ways to reverse that. These measures may go some way to addressing the concerns of the large group of people in the middle.

Thanks Gordon, I thought you supported Raith Rovers? :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

Interesting though unfortunately he allowed that lib Dem women to talk some nonsense unchallenged.

It’s all they have though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I wonder whether the mistake is to see this from the perspective of hard core unionists or hard core nationalists. The holy grail is to teach the large group of people in the middle. What is it most people actually want? I suspect at the core it is good, competent government delivering a stable economy with good outcomes for citizens. I think the group in the middle is less 'locked in' to a particular constitutional endgame. I wonder if Labour's proposals to scrap the House of Lords would be a good starting point? There has to be something to replace it. A second chamber that better reflected the country would be a start. I also wonder if Wales and Scotland would benefit from a second chamber as well. The Scottish Parliament was meant to be more cooperative and constructive. But it isn't. Also, the centralisation of power over the last ten years seriously impacted on notions of subsidiarity. I think we should look at ways to reverse that. These measures may go some way to addressing the concerns of the large group of people in the middle.

Sorry, what is Labour’s proposal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

https://twitter.com/thesnp/status/1595764022527369216?s=46&t=Qw2emxaFAoxxusYIMFwYuw

What’s not true about this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think this is a classic example of setting up a strawman argument. I have never seen the union described as a voluntary partnership until recently. The use of the term implies that any part of the UK can opt in our out whenever they like. But when was that ever the case? The constitution has always been the responsibility of the UK Parliament. The Scotland Act made that clear. That was what was clarified yesterday.

[archie]

Sorry, what is Labour’s proposal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To abolish the House of Lords.

[archie]

Sorry, what is Labour’s proposal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To abolish the House of Lords.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/19/keir-starmer-i-will-abolish-house-of-lords-to-restore-trust-in-politics

[Ozyhibby]

To abolish the House of Lords.

And replace it with what? What are the proposals? Where can I read them?

Sounds a lot like Gordon Brown federal plans. Never to be seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

And replace it with what? What are the proposals? Where can I read them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They haven't finished watering them down yet.

It would (well certainly pre-Brexit it would've) been quite possible to come up with a workable compromise around a federal arrangement with written constitutional guarantees. The problem is England and maybe Wales (I've no idea) and probably both sides of NI don't want that.

[archie]

And replace it with what? What are the proposals? Where can I read them?

Sounds a lot like Gordon Brown federal plans. Never to be seen.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkFrom the Guardian article 'It is understood that Labour will hold a consultation on the composition and size of a new chamber as well as immediate reforms to the current appointments process. Final proposals will be included in the party’s next election manifesto.'

I suspect it's well sourced.

[archie]

They haven't finished watering them down yet.

It would (well certainly pre-Brexit it would've) been quite possible to come up with a workable compromise around a federal arrangement with written constitutional guarantees. The problem is England and maybe Wales (I've no idea) and probably both sides of NI don't want that.Cynical much?

[JeMeSouviens]

Cynical much?

More like frustrated. I'm getting old. Nothing is changing (for the better anyway). The Tories are getting worse.

[James310]

Stewart McDonald SNP MP

"Scotland is not a colony and our people are not oppressed. We didn’t need the court to tell us this - it was in the Scottish Gov’t white paper in 2013. That fact was correct then and remains correct today.

So although the court has made clear the consent aspect of the union lies with Westminster, we must shun talk of being imprisoned or shackled. Our campaign is not a liberation struggle, but one of democratic, social and economic renewal and empowerment."

Looks like there is going to be quite a few splits in the SNP now as it works out what to do next. The above could also be seen as an attack on Nicola Sturgeon who has used such words.

[archie]

More like frustrated. I'm getting old. Nothing is changing (for the better anyway). The Tories are getting worse.I suspect the vast majority on here would feel the same. The issue is the route forward.

[grunt]

Stewart McDonald SNP MP

"Scotland is not a colony and our people are not oppressed. We didn’t need the court to tell us this - it was in the Scottish Gov’t white paper in 2013. That fact was correct then and remains correct today.

So although the court has made clear the consent aspect of the union lies with Westminster, we must shun talk of being imprisoned or shackled. Our campaign is not a liberation struggle, but one of democratic, social and economic renewal and empowerment."

Looks like there is going to be quite a few splits in the SNP now as it works out what to do next. The above could also be seen as an attack on Nicola Sturgeon who has used such words.Desperate.

[Moulin Yarns]

To abolish the House of Lords.

The same plan as 1930, how is that progressing? 😉

[James310]

Desperate.

Because it says something you don't agree with? Do you disagree with him?

[archie]

The same plan as 1930, how is that progressing? 😉At a similar pace to the SNP manifesto commitment to scrap the Council Tax.

[grunt]

Because it says something you don't agree with? Do you disagree with him?I'm not going to entertain your made up SNP feud. It's pathetic attention seeking. I'll say no more on it.

[Hibs4185]

The Uk government is being undemocratic by not allowing a vote.

I wonder if there was a way for SNP MP’s to block government bills etc by delaying and being convienentky obstructive.

Not radical, aggressive or any such manner but if they cause enough of a nuisance and upset the running of parliament, it may help persuade the Tories to grant the Section 30.

I wouldn’t advocate this in any other circumstances but to deny a vote is scandalous

In America I think it’s called Phillibusting or something similar. Well there’s 50 odd MP’s so even if 10 got suspended a week for a week or two they’d have the numbers to keep it going.

[archie]

I'm not going to entertain your made up SNP feud. It's pathetic attention seeking. I'll say no more on it.

Are you saying there are not competing views in the SNP on how to take their aims forward? They are all as one? Here's the thread https://twitter.com/StewartMcDonald/status/1595763715374293001

[ronaldo7]

The same plan as 1930, how is that progressing? 😉

They go back to 1910. Progressive bunch.:greengrin

The Lords must go
At this crisis the Labour party merits your support. It comes with great achievements and with a determination to do much more.

[archie]

They go back to 1910. Progressive bunch.:greengrin

The Lords must go
At this crisis the Labour party merits your support. It comes with great achievements and with a determination to do much more.
Why am I still paying Council Tax?

[ronaldo7]

Why am I still paying Council Tax?

Only you would know that I suppose. :aok:

[archie]

Only you would know that I suppose. :aok:Actually I hoped you could help me as scrapping it was an SNP commitment.

[He's here!]

I think this is a classic example of setting up a strawman argument. I have never seen the union described as a voluntary partnership until recently. The use of the term implies that any part of the UK can opt in our out whenever they like. But when was that ever the case? The constitution has always been the responsibility of the UK Parliament. The Scotland Act made that clear. That was what was clarified yesterday.

Spot on.

[He's here!]

Stewart McDonald SNP MP

"Scotland is not a colony and our people are not oppressed. We didn’t need the court to tell us this - it was in the Scottish Gov’t white paper in 2013. That fact was correct then and remains correct today.

So although the court has made clear the consent aspect of the union lies with Westminster, we must shun talk of being imprisoned or shackled. Our campaign is not a liberation struggle, but one of democratic, social and economic renewal and empowerment."

Looks like there is going to be quite a few splits in the SNP now as it works out what to do next. The above could also be seen as an attack on Nicola Sturgeon who has used such words.

Rare to see an SNP politician saying something I agree with. Sturgeon's hyperbole (and that of her devotees) has assumed that of a nation on a war footing. It's absurd stuff.

[ronaldo7]

Actually I hoped you could help me as scrapping it was an SNP commitment.


Sorry mate, I've got my own bills to pay. Cost of living crisis and all that. :wink:

I think the opposition parties voted against abolishing the council tax didn't they. It was then removed from the manifesto for the following election.

Don't quote me though. I'd have to check. :aok:

This might help you with your council tax.

https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/who-has-to-pay

[Moulin Yarns]

Why am I still paying Council Tax?

Because it's against the law not to pay, in England, Scotland and Wales.

What is the point of asking this?


As for the house of Lords and Labours plans to abolish it which is over 80 years old and no further forward.

Now, it wouldn't matter if Scotland was rid of the additional levels of government we have due to the Palace of Westminster!

[degenerated]

The Uk government is being undemocratic by not allowing a vote.

I wonder if there was a way for SNP MP’s to block government bills etc by delaying and being convienentky obstructive.

Not radical, aggressive or any such manner but if they cause enough of a nuisance and upset the running of parliament, it may help persuade the Tories to grant the Section 30.

I wouldn’t advocate this in any other circumstances but to deny a vote is scandalous

In America I think it’s called Phillibusting or something similar. Well there’s 50 odd MP’s so even if 10 got suspended a week for a week or two they’d have the numbers to keep it going.They should look to how Charles Stewart Parnell operated.

[archie]

Because it's against the law not to pay, in England, Scotland and Wales.

What is the point of asking this?


As for the house of Lords and Labours plans to abolish it which is over 80 years old and no further forward.

Now, it wouldn't matter if Scotland was rid of the additional levels of government we have due to the Palace of Westminster!The point of raising it is to highlight political activists laser guided awareness of their opponents failures coupled with a curious myopia to their own.

[wookie70]

Rare to see an SNP politician saying something I agree with. Sturgeon's hyperbole (and that of her devotees) has assumed that of a nation on a war footing. It's absurd stuff. Can you point me to what you see as hyperbole. I just re-read her statement and it seems pretty measured to me given the Court's decision. I haven't read everything though so may have missed it

[ronaldo7]

Good old Scottish Labour. Still waiting on Gordy Broon to get those plans formulated for constitutional change which we can all vote for in a GE. SNP constitutional plans not so much. :faf:

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1595772889793380353

[weecounty hibby]

This is just noise. Whether you like it or not, the power to hold a referendum on the constitution rests with the UK parliament. The previous first minister was able to agree this.

I will repeat this ad nauseum. That means that Scotland is indeed a colony. I keep saying thus and uts ignored by unionists who seem happy about it. Look at the dictionary definition, look at what the SC said and then explain why that doesn't make Scotland a colony.Even if Scotland voted in 100% indy MPs and 100% indy MSPs then Westminster can just say no. Just let that sink in for a minute. No matter what you want or how you vote we won't let you. And folk are crowing about that. Unbelievable

[grunt]

I will repeat this ad nauseum. That means that Scotland is indeed a colony. You're wasting your time. They don't want to be persuaded, they're just here to keep the argument going. Another recent thread has been to play up Salmond ("Salmond achieved a ref") in a bid to create an argument about AS vs. NS. It completely fails to take any account of the completely different political situations between then and now, and ignores the huge improvement in SNP support under Sturgeon. But hey, it gets the separatists annoyed so let's post it anyway.

I'm sick of this discussion.

[archie]

I will repeat this ad nauseum. That means that Scotland is indeed a colony. I keep saying thus and uts ignored by unionists who seem happy about it. Look at the dictionary definition, look at what the SC said and then explain why that doesn't make Scotland a colony.Even if Scotland voted in 100% indy MPs and 100% indy MSPs then Westminster can just say no. Just let that sink in for a minute. No matter what you want or how you vote we won't let you. And folk are crowing about that. Unbelievable
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.

[Stairway 2 7]

Going with the colony line is offensive to the nations that were slaughtered and had terror under colonisation, that Scotland participated in happily also. If darien worked we weren't bringing shortbread.

The colonies didn't have representation in Westminster or joint army ect. They also didn't have a fair vote where they chose to stay as one

[James310]

Going with the colony line is offensive to the nations that were slaughtered and had terror under colonisation, that Scotland participated in happily also. If darien worked we weren't bringing shortbread.

The colonies didn't have representation in Westminster or joint army ect. They also didn't have a fair vote where they chose to stay as one

There was a post about a black rasta SNP councillor, his name? Graham Campbell, that tells you about Scottish involvement in colonisation.

Alba is the party for the Indy supporters that think this way, they have similar chat.

[Smartie]

If we can agree to accept that the colony chat is OTT and offensive, can we agree upon a more suitable term for a body of people who have no established democratic path towards self-determination?

[CropleyWasGod]

If we can agree to accept that the colony chat is OTT and offensive, can we agree upon a more suitable term for a body of people who have no established democratic path towards self-determination?

Dependency?

:cb

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/supreme-court-scottish-nationalists-judgment?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1669306833

Good article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

Going with the colony line is offensive to the nations that were slaughtered and had terror under colonisation, that Scotland participated in happily also. If darien worked we weren't bringing shortbread.

The colonies didn't have representation in Westminster or joint army ect. They also didn't have a fair vote where they chose to stay as one

A definition of a colony is an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control. I get it can be argued that the UK is that nation and Scotland are part of that and can't be both controller and controlled. But now we have no legal way of exiting that group of Nations and can easily be outvoted on everything by another nation it doesn't feel like we have any control and are absolutely controlled by Westminster which is basically the English Parliament given the imbalance of power and numbers.

Plenty of Commonwealth nations, colonies at one point or another, left that group of nations by way of a vote. They were governed and then abandoned when we could pillage no more so they didn't need a vote to become Independent. There is plenty still left to plunder in Scotland.

I think Sturgeon is correct when she talks about democracy being the new fight, it always was for me anyway. I've not much of an issue with those using colony as an example but this for me is all about the democratic deficit. It was a problem before but more so after the SC verdict

[He's here!]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sturgeons-referendum-plan-could-ruin-the-independence-dream/

I note Iain Macwhirter has been picked up by the Spectator following his sacking by the Herald. Decent journo though for some reason I thought he was pro-independence.

[He's here!]

Going with the colony line is offensive to the nations that were slaughtered and had terror under colonisation, that Scotland participated in happily also. If darien worked we weren't bringing shortbread.

The colonies didn't have representation in Westminster or joint army ect. They also didn't have a fair vote where they chose to stay as one

There's also the simple fact that Scotland has not been colonised with which to dash such nonsense chat.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sturgeons-referendum-plan-could-ruin-the-independence-dream/

I note Iain Macwhirter has been picked up by the Spectator following his sacking by the Herald. Decent journo though for some reason I thought he was pro-independence.

He blows hot and cold on indy. Was Yes in 2014 but lukewarm. Think he's on the GC side of the trans thing with attendant anti-Sturgeonism.

[wookie70]

There's also the simple fact that Scotland has not been colonised with which to dash such nonsense chat.

I think we have voted in favour of being colonised through the last referendum. Previous to that I may have argued we were a colony as we had been taken over by a foreign land and never had a say in that as citizens. The issue now is Democracy is controlled by the media and although we did have a vote the narrative was filled with promises that were almost immediately and demonstrably broken. I think I would argue a vote where what you were voting on was completely untrue could be seen as citizens being hoodwinked rather than consenting to the status quo. Having seen Brexit and the Indi ref many voters, on both sides, are far more aware of the absolute lies that are dressed as truths and would vote in the knowledge of that. The next referendum will be a cesspit of lies from Westminster and lots of rose-tinted glasses predictions from Holyrood. Hopefully, this time the voters can see a path through that and a sensible view is taken on how long another vote can be taken after the result(somewhere in the 15-20 year range would be my view). At that point I think most will agree to the timetable of the next vote as would have happened if Brexit was not forced upon us.

[JeMeSouviens]

If we can agree to accept that the colony chat is OTT and offensive, can we agree upon a more suitable term for a body of people who have no established democratic path towards self-determination?

Scots? :greengrin

The colony chat is not so much offensive as just wrong. People in a colony wouldn't have representation in the Westminster parliament for a start.

What the Scottish electorate has to get its head around is that politically we are not a country, we are a region of a unitary state. We won't be a country unless/until we vote to make ourselves one. If we ever get the chance.

[degenerated]

You're wasting your time. They don't want to be persuaded, they're just here to keep the argument going. Another recent thread has been to play up Salmond ("Salmond achieved a ref") in a bid to create an argument about AS vs. NS. It completely fails to take any account of the completely different political situations between then and now, and ignores the huge improvement in SNP support under Sturgeon. But hey, it gets the separatists annoyed so let's post it anyway.

I'm sick of this discussion.They're best ignored. Thousands of posts on a Hibs forum but without any actually about Hibs. [emoji848]

[James310]

They're best ignored. Thousands of posts on a Hibs forum but without any actually about Hibs. [emoji848]

Going through all this again because I posted some bad words about the SNP? Diddums. Hang on you are the one that thinks I get paid for posting on here? 🤣

We really want to go over all this again, we did it months ago.

[greenginger]

Scots? :greengrin

The colony chat is not so much offensive as just wrong. People in a colony wouldn't have representation in the Westminster parliament for a start.

What the Scottish electorate has to get its head around is that politically we are not a country, we are a region of a unitary state. We won't be a country unless/until we vote to make ourselves one. If we ever get the chance.


If we ever get the chance ?

We had the chance 2014 , remember.

There will be another referendum, 2030 which would be 16 years since the last one would seem about right for me.

They should set a date and let everyone get on with dealing with peoples current problems.

[Callum_62]

If we ever get the chance ?

We had the chance 2014 , remember.

There will be another referendum, 2030 which would be 16 years since the last one would seem about right for me.

They should set a date and let everyone get on with dealing with peoples current problems.9 years seems about right for me

About a whole decade (and massive change in circumstances) since we had the chance to voice our opinion before



Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

If we ever get the chance ?

We had the chance 2014 , remember.

There will be another referendum, 2030 which would be 16 years since the last one would seem about right for me.

They should set a date and let everyone get on with dealing with peoples current problems.

7 years is the number for Northern Ireland. Why should we be treated worse than them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

7 years is the number for Northern Ireland. Why should we be treated worse than them?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkMaybe they had an unspecified period of polling success?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

If we ever get the chance ?

We had the chance 2014 , remember.

There will be another referendum, 2030 which would be 16 years since the last one would seem about right for me.

They should set a date and let everyone get on with dealing with peoples current problems.

I actually think there is a decent amount of common sense in this suggestion.

[Ozyhibby]

I actually think there is a decent amount of common sense in this suggestion.

You think Scots should have less rights than people in Northern Ireland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Game changer?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1700710/Arlene-Foster-Nicola-Sturgeon-anti-independence-together-UK-scotland-northern-ireland

[Moulin Yarns]

Game changer?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1700710/Arlene-Foster-Nicola-Sturgeon-anti-independence-together-UK-scotland-northern-ireland

One of the others involved is Baroness Davidson of Lundin

[He's here!]

They're best ignored. Thousands of posts on a Hibs forum but without any actually about Hibs. [emoji848]

If you look on the main forum you'll see I post plenty about Hibs. I take a stack of flack on there too :-)

What I post on here is not about 'keeping an argument going' or 'annoying nats'. I'm just posting my opinions on independence. I get that for more fervent nationalists there will be a 'how can you possibly not feel the same as me' element to things but the truth is I just don't get the fervour about leaving the UK. Never have.

[Smartie]

You think Scots should have less rights than people in Northern Ireland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm comfortable with the idea that there is a different dynamic to the relationship between NI and the UK to that between Scotland and the UK and that it might lead to certain situations where we have either more or less than them.

[degenerated]

If you look on the main forum you'll see I post plenty about Hibs. I take a stack of flack on there too :-)

What I post on here is not about 'keeping an argument going' or 'annoying nats'. I'm just posting my opinions on independence. I get that for more fervent nationalists there will be a 'how can you possibly not feel the same as me' element to things but the truth is I just don't get the fervour about leaving the UK. Never have.I wasn't referring to you, I don't doubt you are a Hibs fan for a minute and whilst we may not agree on the constitution and politics I fully respect your position. [emoji106]

[wookie70]

Game changer?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1700710/Arlene-Foster-Nicola-Sturgeon-anti-independence-together-UK-scotland-northern-ireland
She could do for Unionism what Ian Paisley did for Peace

[Callum_62]

Game changer?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1700710/Arlene-Foster-Nicola-Sturgeon-anti-independence-together-UK-scotland-northern-irelandSounds like the Brexit opportunities role

In all seriousness I thik its good - although should be under the umbrella. Of a referendum campaign

Also though - it really is some paper! [emoji23]
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221124/fc551f609d181e02b6b470cbdbe5cf3f.jpg

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Kato]

There's also the simple fact that Scotland has not been colonised with which to dash such nonsense chat.Arguable given the way the Union came about.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I wonder what attracted Baroness Foster and Baroness Davidson to pipe up in favour of the establishment?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Hibs90]

They're best ignored. Thousands of posts on a Hibs forum but without any actually about Hibs. [emoji848]

Exactly. Totally agree.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221125/b257ca48ce625046f070419a43b3cfeb.jpg

Sunak wants to ban smart young educated people from coming to Scotland. Another decision made to keep voters south of the border happy at the expense of Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heretoday]

I wish Ian Blackford was up here in Holyrood. He's more of a rounded character than Sturgeon, in every sense, and he has a twinkle in his eye. Hibby too.

[He's here!]

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/alistair-bonnington

'Nicola Sturgeon and the hard lessons of democracy'

[grunt]

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/alistair-bonnington

'Nicola Sturgeon and the hard lessons of democracy'

Bonnington has a long history as a hater of the SNP and NS. Seriously, this guy has problems.

https://newsnet.scot/archive/bonnington-displayed-political-agenda-in-attacks-on-scottish-government-claims-legal-academic/

[degenerated]

Bonnington has a long history as a hater of the SNP and NS. Seriously, this guy has problems.

https://newsnet.scot/archive/bonnington-displayed-political-agenda-in-attacks-on-scottish-government-claims-legal-academic/Former BBC lawyer, no surprise as to why they hired him :greengrin

[Callum_62]

Game changer?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1700710/Arlene-Foster-Nicola-Sturgeon-anti-independence-together-UK-scotland-northern-irelandFocused on the positive case of being together in the UK

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23151091.arlene-foster-snp-anti-english-antisemitic-anti-indian/

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

Focused on the positive case of being together in the UK

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23151091.arlene-foster-snp-anti-english-antisemitic-anti-indian/

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

She doesn’t want to pull people together, she wants to handcuff them by force.

[He's here!]

Telegraph comment piece (so instantly invalid for some on here :wink:):

This is the beginning of the end of Nicola Sturgeon


Self-indulgence to the fore for First Minister while public services fall apart

When the Supreme Court ruled that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was “unlawful” in 2019, Nicola Sturgeon was the first in line for bragging rights. Calling on the former prime minister to quit after spider brooch-wearing Baroness Hale read out the verdict, Scotland’s First Minister hailed the decision as one of “truly historic proportions”.
“We often hear hyperbole at moments like this but it’s no exaggeration today to say this is the most significant and historic constitutional court ruling that we’ve had in all of our lifetimes,” crowed Sturgeon. “In terms of the health of our democracy we cannot allow a Prime Minister who has been the subject of that extraordinary ruling to remain in office with impunity – that would be the wrong decision.”
Yet when it came to Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a second independence referendum (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/23/supreme-court-rules-scots-not-oppressed-people-scotland-isnt/), Sturgeon wasn’t quite so reverential.
In response to the UK’s highest court unanimously deciding that another vote could not be held without Westminster’s approval, she could barely hide her fury. “This ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality,” she said.
Seemingly unaware of the irony of championing the democratic will of a minority of Scots, while campaigning to reverse a majority decision by the British people to leave the EU, she accused the UK Government of “democracy denial”. The SNP will launch and mobilise a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy, she declared, in arguably one of the most self-indulgent displays by a politician in recent memory.
Speaking in front of a bright yellow “Stronger for Scotland” banner, she railed: “The mandate and parliamentary majority for a referendum is undeniable ... Achieving independence is not just desirable, it is essential ... The case for Scotland becoming independent is more compelling and urgent than ever.”
Except, of course, it isn’t. The case for Scotland going it alone isn’t becoming more compelling – it’s collapsing.
In August, an Ipsos poll found that just 29 per cent of Scots wanted another independence referendum next year, down from 32 per cent in May.
And I wouldn’t imagine that many more Scots are going to be persuaded by Sturgeon’s Trumpian rhetoric that those opposed to her fanatical, nationalist dream are somehow anti-democratic.
Sturgeon purports to be a “progressive”. But what exactly is “progressive” about peddling divisive arguments that will only inflame opinion among an activist base that already tends too much towards anger and vitriol? There is nothing remotely “progressive” about foaming-at-the-mouth nationalism, which is why large numbers of Scots now see this zealotry for what it really is: a one-woman survival strategy.
In a desperate bid to remain relevant, Sturgeon has declared that she wants to make the next general election a de facto independence referendum. According to her deluded and disingenuous line of thinking, Scotland can only escape the current economic crisis, and the fall in living standards it has wrought, by relinquishing its Westminster shackles.
“The Westminster system has shown that it is not capable of securing stability,” she opined. “The people relying on food banks are not being offered stability. Those across our country afraid to switch on their heating are not being offered stability. The businesses struggling with Brexit are not being offered stability. The young people denied the rights and opportunities of EU membership are not being offered stability. A UK economic model which delivers low growth and low productivity coupled with sky-high rates of poverty and inequality does not, and never will offer stability. Scotland can do so much better.”
But leaving aside the fact that Sturgeon’s answer to the supposed “instability” of the Union is to launch Scotland into the unknown of independence, the country has been given more than a decade under SNP majority rule to do “much better”. And it has actually done a great deal worse – despite funding per person for public services in Scotland being 30 per cent higher than in England, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Far from giving a fig about independence, the two issues that really matter to the people of Scotland, according to the latest YouGov research, are the economy (71 per cent), and health (48 per cent). Under Sturgeon’s disastrous watch, however, both the prosperity and the well-being of the average Scot appear to have declined dramatically.
Having been the dominant party in Scotland’s devolved legislature since 2007, there is a list of SNP failings as long as Hadrian’s Wall, but here are just a few of them, courtesy of the Scottish Conservatives.
The SNP has presided over the worst A&E waiting times on record. Diagnoses of early-stage cancer in Scotland have fallen to the lowest level in a decade. Drug deaths have tripled under the SNP’s watch (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/30/drug-deaths-soar-scotland-shameful-scar-nicola-sturgeons-conscience/). Figures published by Ucas show just 14.4 per cent of students will come from the poorest backgrounds – the lowest since 2016. Scotland has recorded its lowest scores on record for maths and science in the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings.
Though Sturgeon styles herself as the environment’s own Braveheart, less than half of Scottish waste is recycled. The SNP has repeatedly missed its emissions and renewable heat targets and despite pledging to deliver 130,000 green jobs, by 2020 it had only created 20,000. To please her radical green coalition partners, Sturgeon has seemingly turned her back on the Scottish oil and gas industry, and the thousands of jobs it creates, in favour of foreign imports.
Police numbers have also been cut, with 12 out of 13 local divisions having fewer officers since Police Scotland was first created in 2013. Since the nationalisation of ScotRail, hundreds of services have been cut while the SNP also missed its target to build more affordable homes across the last parliament. Its superfast broadband rollout will not be finished until 2027, five years later than originally planned, while Scotland’s lochs and rivers are in the worst state on record.
I could go on (ferries fiasco anyone?), but you catch my drift. Scotland has become a basket-case under Sturgeon, plagued by broken public finances and a toxic nationalistic debate, and still she has the temerity to suggest that independence should be the number one concern.
And to think I haven’t even mentioned the SNP’s ludicrous stand on trans rights – another of virtue-signalling Sturgeon’s misplaced obsessions. Last week we learnt that, as well as proposing to allow Scots to change their legal gender simply by signing a declaration, Scotland’s NHS is now planning to fast-track irreversible surgeries for transgender patients. An NHS Scotland report is calling for “barriers” to gender reassignment surgery to be removed and proposes radical measures to make operations more widely available.
You’d have thought the health authorities might want to make fast-tracking diagnoses of early-stage cancer their main focus, seeing as they have fallen to the lowest level in a decade. For people with breast, colorectal or lung cancer, just 24.1 per cent were diagnosed at the earliest stage (stage 1).
But it’s all par for the course for SNP-run Scotland. By selfishly taking the high road rather than prioritising what really matters to the people of her country, Sturgeon has lost a once great nation.

[grunt]

Telegraph comment piece
Complete bollocks. But you know that already. I mean really, every sentence exudes spite.

(You didn't mention which swivel eyed loon wrote it ...?)

[grunt]

I used to think the Telegraph was a newspaper of note. The right wing press have created an environment where it's no longer ok to have different views on things, now you have to loathe the opposition and rubbish their views and fire up your supporters to rubbish them too. This country - and I mean the UK as a whole - is severely damaged by the combination of the Mail/Express/Telegraph and the ERG/UKIP politicians. There's no recovering from this, the country is doomed. **** them all.

[degenerated]

Complete bollocks. But you know that already. I mean really, every sentence exudes spite.

(You didn't mention which swivel eyed loon wrote it ...?)Without checking I'm going with either Alan Cochrane or Simon Johnson.

[Ozyhibby]

Telegraph comment piece (so instantly invalid for some on here :wink:):

This is the beginning of the end of Nicola Sturgeon


Self-indulgence to the fore for First Minister while public services fall apart

When the Supreme Court ruled that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was “unlawful” in 2019, Nicola Sturgeon was the first in line for bragging rights. Calling on the former prime minister to quit after spider brooch-wearing Baroness Hale read out the verdict, Scotland’s First Minister hailed the decision as one of “truly historic proportions”.
“We often hear hyperbole at moments like this but it’s no exaggeration today to say this is the most significant and historic constitutional court ruling that we’ve had in all of our lifetimes,” crowed Sturgeon. “In terms of the health of our democracy we cannot allow a Prime Minister who has been the subject of that extraordinary ruling to remain in office with impunity – that would be the wrong decision.”
Yet when it came to Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a second independence referendum (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/23/supreme-court-rules-scots-not-oppressed-people-scotland-isnt/), Sturgeon wasn’t quite so reverential.
In response to the UK’s highest court unanimously deciding that another vote could not be held without Westminster’s approval, she could barely hide her fury. “This ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality,” she said.
Seemingly unaware of the irony of championing the democratic will of a minority of Scots, while campaigning to reverse a majority decision by the British people to leave the EU, she accused the UK Government of “democracy denial”. The SNP will launch and mobilise a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy, she declared, in arguably one of the most self-indulgent displays by a politician in recent memory.
Speaking in front of a bright yellow “Stronger for Scotland” banner, she railed: “The mandate and parliamentary majority for a referendum is undeniable ... Achieving independence is not just desirable, it is essential ... The case for Scotland becoming independent is more compelling and urgent than ever.”
Except, of course, it isn’t. The case for Scotland going it alone isn’t becoming more compelling – it’s collapsing.
In August, an Ipsos poll found that just 29 per cent of Scots wanted another independence referendum next year, down from 32 per cent in May.
And I wouldn’t imagine that many more Scots are going to be persuaded by Sturgeon’s Trumpian rhetoric that those opposed to her fanatical, nationalist dream are somehow anti-democratic.
Sturgeon purports to be a “progressive”. But what exactly is “progressive” about peddling divisive arguments that will only inflame opinion among an activist base that already tends too much towards anger and vitriol? There is nothing remotely “progressive” about foaming-at-the-mouth nationalism, which is why large numbers of Scots now see this zealotry for what it really is: a one-woman survival strategy.
In a desperate bid to remain relevant, Sturgeon has declared that she wants to make the next general election a de facto independence referendum. According to her deluded and disingenuous line of thinking, Scotland can only escape the current economic crisis, and the fall in living standards it has wrought, by relinquishing its Westminster shackles.
“The Westminster system has shown that it is not capable of securing stability,” she opined. “The people relying on food banks are not being offered stability. Those across our country afraid to switch on their heating are not being offered stability. The businesses struggling with Brexit are not being offered stability. The young people denied the rights and opportunities of EU membership are not being offered stability. A UK economic model which delivers low growth and low productivity coupled with sky-high rates of poverty and inequality does not, and never will offer stability. Scotland can do so much better.”
But leaving aside the fact that Sturgeon’s answer to the supposed “instability” of the Union is to launch Scotland into the unknown of independence, the country has been given more than a decade under SNP majority rule to do “much better”. And it has actually done a great deal worse – despite funding per person for public services in Scotland being 30 per cent higher than in England, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Far from giving a fig about independence, the two issues that really matter to the people of Scotland, according to the latest YouGov research, are the economy (71 per cent), and health (48 per cent). Under Sturgeon’s disastrous watch, however, both the prosperity and the well-being of the average Scot appear to have declined dramatically.
Having been the dominant party in Scotland’s devolved legislature since 2007, there is a list of SNP failings as long as Hadrian’s Wall, but here are just a few of them, courtesy of the Scottish Conservatives.
The SNP has presided over the worst A&E waiting times on record. Diagnoses of early-stage cancer in Scotland have fallen to the lowest level in a decade. Drug deaths have tripled under the SNP’s watch (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/30/drug-deaths-soar-scotland-shameful-scar-nicola-sturgeons-conscience/). Figures published by Ucas show just 14.4 per cent of students will come from the poorest backgrounds – the lowest since 2016. Scotland has recorded its lowest scores on record for maths and science in the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings.
Though Sturgeon styles herself as the environment’s own Braveheart, less than half of Scottish waste is recycled. The SNP has repeatedly missed its emissions and renewable heat targets and despite pledging to deliver 130,000 green jobs, by 2020 it had only created 20,000. To please her radical green coalition partners, Sturgeon has seemingly turned her back on the Scottish oil and gas industry, and the thousands of jobs it creates, in favour of foreign imports.
Police numbers have also been cut, with 12 out of 13 local divisions having fewer officers since Police Scotland was first created in 2013. Since the nationalisation of ScotRail, hundreds of services have been cut while the SNP also missed its target to build more affordable homes across the last parliament. Its superfast broadband rollout will not be finished until 2027, five years later than originally planned, while Scotland’s lochs and rivers are in the worst state on record.
I could go on (ferries fiasco anyone?), but you catch my drift. Scotland has become a basket-case under Sturgeon, plagued by broken public finances and a toxic nationalistic debate, and still she has the temerity to suggest that independence should be the number one concern.
And to think I haven’t even mentioned the SNP’s ludicrous stand on trans rights – another of virtue-signalling Sturgeon’s misplaced obsessions. Last week we learnt that, as well as proposing to allow Scots to change their legal gender simply by signing a declaration, Scotland’s NHS is now planning to fast-track irreversible surgeries for transgender patients. An NHS Scotland report is calling for “barriers” to gender reassignment surgery to be removed and proposes radical measures to make operations more widely available.
You’d have thought the health authorities might want to make fast-tracking diagnoses of early-stage cancer their main focus, seeing as they have fallen to the lowest level in a decade. For people with breast, colorectal or lung cancer, just 24.1 per cent were diagnosed at the earliest stage (stage 1).
But it’s all par for the course for SNP-run Scotland. By selfishly taking the high road rather than prioritising what really matters to the people of her country, Sturgeon has lost a once great nation.

Just about every point they make there to show the SNP is failing is actually an area where it is performing better than anywhere else in the UK.
Willing to concede drug deaths. All the rest scream vote for the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

I have said for a long time that although I oppose independence, I do believe there should be agreed criteria for a future referendum.

I was pondering this morning whilst running on what the criteria for a referendum could be and thought I would suggest a starter and see thoughts. I know I won’t have this right and some will be up in arms wanting to argue but I would rather this was taken as a genuine starter to try and see if there are criteria we could agree upon in which a referendum is held.

I would suggest a majority of MSPs voting in favour is a starting barrier, and it should come with a time since last referendum of let’s say 10 years. So if in the first holyrood election 10 years after the last referendum return an independence majority, the barrier is met. The Scottish government then have three months to request a referendum and then 12 months to execute it. The question and voting criteria should all be agreed now. I accept the first holyrood election after 10 years means it could be up to 14 years and so needs some tweakIng, but equally an independence majority from 6 years is equally problematic as it may not reflect the current view of the electorate. Therefore I think it needs to be tied to a period after a holyrood election.

Recognising there can be big events such as brexit, there should be a lower time barrier of let’s say seven years but could be five and again the next holyrood election after the major event same criteria as above. There would need to be some detail on what a major event is. I new Westminster government isn’t one, but a major policy shift could be.

Thoughts?

[Ozyhibby]

I have said for a long time that although I oppose independence, I do believe there should be agreed criteria for a future referendum.

I was pondering this morning whilst running on what the criteria for a referendum could be and thought I would suggest a starter and see thoughts. I know I won’t have this right and some will be up in arms wanting to argue but I would rather this was taken as a genuine starter to try and see if there are criteria we could agree upon in which a referendum is held.

I would suggest a majority of MSPs voting in favour is a starting barrier, and it should come with a time since last referendum of let’s say 10 years. So if in the first holyrood election 10 years after the last referendum return an independence majority, the barrier is met. The Scottish government then have three months to request a referendum and then 12 months to execute it. The question and voting criteria should all be agreed now. I accept the first holyrood election after 10 years means it could be up to 14 years and so needs some tweakIng, but equally an independence majority from 6 years is equally problematic as it may not reflect the current view of the electorate. Therefore I think it needs to be tied to a period after a holyrood election.

Recognising there can be big events such as brexit, there should be a lower time barrier of let’s say seven years but could be five and again the next holyrood election after the major event same criteria as above. There would need to be some detail on what a major event is. I new Westminster government isn’t one, but a major policy shift could be.

Thoughts?

Lots of good points in there which I can mostly agree with. I could live with 10 years and see it as an acceptable time scale but for the fact that NI have a time period of 7 years and I just can’t accept that Scots should be treated worse than anyone else in the union.
I would tweak to a parliament elected after 8 years could have a vote after 10?
Time limits should be nil if there is an act of parliament at Westminster that increases Westminster control such as we have seen recently.

Overall I agree. There needs to be a codified route to independence. That’s how you restore democracy to Scotland while at the same time giving some stability to the union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

Actually to get round the potential length of time issue waiting for the next holyrood election. could it be that the majority in holyrood needs to be in the first half of the term as long as the time barrier has passed from the previous one.

[Skol]

Lots of good points in there which I can mostly agree with. I could live with 10 years and see it as an acceptable time scale but for the fact that NI have a time period of 7 years and I just can’t accept that Scots should be treated worse than anyone else in the union.
I would tweak to a parliament elected after 8 years could have a vote after 10?
Time limits should be nil if there is an act of parliament at Westminster that increases Westminster control such as we have seen recently.

Overall I agree. There needs to be a codified route to independence. That’s how you restore democracy to Scotland while at the same time giving some stability to the union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s nice to see some consensus for a change, or close it at least.

Re NI, I am not close to their agreement at all. What are their criteria ? I know 7 years, but what else is required to trigger this and why hasn’t it been triggered so far given sin fein are now largestbparty I think but maybe not with a majority.

[wookie70]

I have said for a long time that although I oppose independence, I do believe there should be agreed criteria for a future referendum.

I was pondering this morning whilst running on what the criteria for a referendum could be and thought I would suggest a starter and see thoughts. I know I won’t have this right and some will be up in arms wanting to argue but I would rather this was taken as a genuine starter to try and see if there are criteria we could agree upon in which a referendum is held.

I would suggest a majority of MSPs voting in favour is a starting barrier, and it should come with a time since last referendum of let’s say 10 years. So if in the first holyrood election 10 years after the last referendum return an independence majority, the barrier is met. The Scottish government then have three months to request a referendum and then 12 months to execute it. The question and voting criteria should all be agreed now. I accept the first holyrood election after 10 years means it could be up to 14 years and so needs some tweakIng, but equally an independence majority from 6 years is equally problematic as it may not reflect the current view of the electorate. Therefore I think it needs to be tied to a period after a holyrood election.

Recognising there can be big events such as brexit, there should be a lower time barrier of let’s say seven years but could be five and again the next holyrood election after the major event same criteria as above. There would need to be some detail on what a major event is. I new Westminster government isn’t one, but a major policy shift could be.

Thoughts?

I am very much a Yes voter and although I have voted SNP once I wouldn't again unless they move much further to the left. I would say what you propose is pretty fair and I would support similar. The most important point is that there must be a legal way for Scotland to leave and join Unions with other Nations. There also needs to be a good period inbetween so the narrative can change and agility if major events take place. Basically what the SNP are looking for imo. A major event did take place and I doubt Yes votes want a vote every election cycle.

[He's here!]

Just about every point they make there to show the SNP is failing is actually an area where it is performing better than anywhere else in the UK.
Willing to concede drug deaths. All the rest scream vote for the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Batting away any criticism of the SG with a stock 'at least we're not the worst' response isn't really a ringing endorsement of how well they're doing. Do such comparisons even stack up, especially when the the SG are allocated an additional 30% spending per head of population to the rest of the UK?

[He's here!]

Without checking I'm going with either Alan Cochrane or Simon Johnson.

Camilla Tominay.

[Ozyhibby]

Batting away any criticism of the SG with a stock 'at least we're not the worst' response isn't really a ringing endorsement of how well they're doing. Do such comparisons even stack up, especially when the the SG are allocated an additional 30% spending per head of population to the rest of the UK?

You could always rebut them if you like? Comparing with the rest of the UK is all we have because that is the society we all live in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I used to think the Telegraph was a newspaper of note. The right wing press have created an environment where it's no longer ok to have different views on things, now you have to loathe the opposition and rubbish their views and fire up your supporters to rubbish them too. This country - and I mean the UK as a whole - is severely damaged by the combination of the Mail/Express/Telegraph and the ERG/UKIP politicians. There's no recovering from this, the country is doomed. **** them all.

Dismissing such criticism as 'complete bollocks' is hardly showing it's OK to have a different viewpoint to your own.

How about the highest drugs deaths in Europe? The ferries scandal? The gender recognition bill? Education standards? Are these not valid points for debate/criticism?

[Ozyhibby]

I am very much a Yes voter and although I have voted SNP once I wouldn't again unless they move much further to the left. I would say what you propose is pretty fair and I would support similar. The most important point is that there must be a legal way for Scotland to leave and join Unions with other Nations. There also needs to be a good period inbetween so the narrative can change and agility if major events take place. Basically what the SNP are looking for imo. A major event did take place and I doubt Yes votes want a vote every election cycle.

Most definitely don’t want a referendum every election cycle. I think without Brexit there would not be enough support there to have one now. If the next one were to be a NO result again then I think it would be another 20 years before there was enough support to go again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Camilla Tominay.
Hahaaaaaaaa! Do you mean "Royal Correspondent" and GB News presenter Camilla Tominay????

Oh I MUST pay attention to what she says!

:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

LOL.

[grunt]

How about the highest drugs deaths in Europe? The ferries scandal? The gender recognition bill? Education standards? Are these not valid points for debate/criticism?
Oh yes the ferries scandal. Ha ****ing ha.

[Skol]

Oh yes the ferries scandal. Ha ****ing ha.

I see we are back to the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach. The snp are far from perfect and acknowledging such isn’t such a bad thing to do.

[Ozyhibby]

I see we are back to the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach. The snp are far from perfect and acknowledging such isn’t such a bad thing to do.

Probably just a reaction to the constant attempts to paint the SNP govt as failing in every area when it is clearly doing the best out of the UK parties within the UK. The media have been recruited into this along with mp’s and media in the rest of the UK. It’s presented as fact on UK media so often that people down south will no doubt believe that our services up here are worse that their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

Probably just a reaction to the constant attempts to paint the SNP govt as failing in every area when it is clearly doing the best out of the UK parties within the UK. The media have been recruited into this along with mp’s and media in the rest of the UK. It’s presented as fact on UK media so often that people down south will no doubt believe that our services up here are worse that their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really don’t see the picture you paint of the media reporting in the Uk.

[Stairway 2 7]

Probably just a reaction to the constant attempts to paint the SNP govt as failing in every area when it is clearly doing the best out of the UK parties within the UK. The media have been recruited into this along with mp’s and media in the rest of the UK. It’s presented as fact on UK media so often that people down south will no doubt believe that our services up here are worse that their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They get 30% more per head than England, surely no even the tories would provide worse services with that extra money

[Ozyhibby]

They get 30% more per head than England, surely no even the tories would provide worse services with that extra money

They?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

They?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The hollyrood overlords

[Ozyhibby]

They get 30% more per head than England, surely no even the tories would provide worse services with that extra money

From sky high council tax to having to pay for your education or having to pay for prescriptions to the £billions syphoned off shore to their mates, all the evidence points to that not being the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

I really don’t see the picture you paint of the media reporting in the Uk.How about this one?


Telegraph comment piece ....

[Kato]

Telegraph comment piece (so instantly invalid for some on here :wink:):

This is the beginning of the end of Nicola Sturgeon


Self-indulgence to the fore for First Minister while public services fall apart

When the Supreme Court ruled that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was “unlawful” in 2019, Nicola Sturgeon was the first in line for bragging rights. Calling on the former prime minister to quit after spider brooch-wearing Baroness Hale read out the verdict, Scotland’s First Minister hailed the decision as one of “truly historic proportions”.
“We often hear hyperbole at moments like this but it’s no exaggeration today to say this is the most significant and historic constitutional court ruling that we’ve had in all of our lifetimes,” crowed Sturgeon. “In terms of the health of our democracy we cannot allow a Prime Minister who has been the subject of that extraordinary ruling to remain in office with impunity – that would be the wrong decision.”
Yet when it came to Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a second independence referendum (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/23/supreme-court-rules-scots-not-oppressed-people-scotland-isnt/), Sturgeon wasn’t quite so reverential.
In response to the UK’s highest court unanimously deciding that another vote could not be held without Westminster’s approval, she could barely hide her fury. “This ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality,” she said.
Seemingly unaware of the irony of championing the democratic will of a minority of Scots, while campaigning to reverse a majority decision by the British people to leave the EU, she accused the UK Government of “democracy denial”. The SNP will launch and mobilise a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy, she declared, in arguably one of the most self-indulgent displays by a politician in recent memory.
Speaking in front of a bright yellow “Stronger for Scotland” banner, she railed: “The mandate and parliamentary majority for a referendum is undeniable ... Achieving independence is not just desirable, it is essential ... The case for Scotland becoming independent is more compelling and urgent than ever.”
Except, of course, it isn’t. The case for Scotland going it alone isn’t becoming more compelling – it’s collapsing.
In August, an Ipsos poll found that just 29 per cent of Scots wanted another independence referendum next year, down from 32 per cent in May.
And I wouldn’t imagine that many more Scots are going to be persuaded by Sturgeon’s Trumpian rhetoric that those opposed to her fanatical, nationalist dream are somehow anti-democratic.
Sturgeon purports to be a “progressive”. But what exactly is “progressive” about peddling divisive arguments that will only inflame opinion among an activist base that already tends too much towards anger and vitriol? There is nothing remotely “progressive” about foaming-at-the-mouth nationalism, which is why large numbers of Scots now see this zealotry for what it really is: a one-woman survival strategy.
In a desperate bid to remain relevant, Sturgeon has declared that she wants to make the next general election a de facto independence referendum. According to her deluded and disingenuous line of thinking, Scotland can only escape the current economic crisis, and the fall in living standards it has wrought, by relinquishing its Westminster shackles.
“The Westminster system has shown that it is not capable of securing stability,” she opined. “The people relying on food banks are not being offered stability. Those across our country afraid to switch on their heating are not being offered stability. The businesses struggling with Brexit are not being offered stability. The young people denied the rights and opportunities of EU membership are not being offered stability. A UK economic model which delivers low growth and low productivity coupled with sky-high rates of poverty and inequality does not, and never will offer stability. Scotland can do so much better.”
But leaving aside the fact that Sturgeon’s answer to the supposed “instability” of the Union is to launch Scotland into the unknown of independence, the country has been given more than a decade under SNP majority rule to do “much better”. And it has actually done a great deal worse – despite funding per person for public services in Scotland being 30 per cent higher than in England, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Far from giving a fig about independence, the two issues that really matter to the people of Scotland, according to the latest YouGov research, are the economy (71 per cent), and health (48 per cent). Under Sturgeon’s disastrous watch, however, both the prosperity and the well-being of the average Scot appear to have declined dramatically.
Having been the dominant party in Scotland’s devolved legislature since 2007, there is a list of SNP failings as long as Hadrian’s Wall, but here are just a few of them, courtesy of the Scottish Conservatives.
The SNP has presided over the worst A&E waiting times on record. Diagnoses of early-stage cancer in Scotland have fallen to the lowest level in a decade. Drug deaths have tripled under the SNP’s watch (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/30/drug-deaths-soar-scotland-shameful-scar-nicola-sturgeons-conscience/). Figures published by Ucas show just 14.4 per cent of students will come from the poorest backgrounds – the lowest since 2016. Scotland has recorded its lowest scores on record for maths and science in the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings.
Though Sturgeon styles herself as the environment’s own Braveheart, less than half of Scottish waste is recycled. The SNP has repeatedly missed its emissions and renewable heat targets and despite pledging to deliver 130,000 green jobs, by 2020 it had only created 20,000. To please her radical green coalition partners, Sturgeon has seemingly turned her back on the Scottish oil and gas industry, and the thousands of jobs it creates, in favour of foreign imports.
Police numbers have also been cut, with 12 out of 13 local divisions having fewer officers since Police Scotland was first created in 2013. Since the nationalisation of ScotRail, hundreds of services have been cut while the SNP also missed its target to build more affordable homes across the last parliament. Its superfast broadband rollout will not be finished until 2027, five years later than originally planned, while Scotland’s lochs and rivers are in the worst state on record.
I could go on (ferries fiasco anyone?), but you catch my drift. Scotland has become a basket-case under Sturgeon, plagued by broken public finances and a toxic nationalistic debate, and still she has the temerity to suggest that independence should be the number one concern.
And to think I haven’t even mentioned the SNP’s ludicrous stand on trans rights – another of virtue-signalling Sturgeon’s misplaced obsessions. Last week we learnt that, as well as proposing to allow Scots to change their legal gender simply by signing a declaration, Scotland’s NHS is now planning to fast-track irreversible surgeries for transgender patients. An NHS Scotland report is calling for “barriers” to gender reassignment surgery to be removed and proposes radical measures to make operations more widely available.
You’d have thought the health authorities might want to make fast-tracking diagnoses of early-stage cancer their main focus, seeing as they have fallen to the lowest level in a decade. For people with breast, colorectal or lung cancer, just 24.1 per cent were diagnosed at the earliest stage (stage 1).
But it’s all par for the course for SNP-run Scotland. By selfishly taking the high road rather than prioritising what really matters to the people of her country, Sturgeon has lost a once great nation.The British press was full of similar tubthumping all through the 19th century. The establishment in this country are expert at throwing dubious shade, constitutional contortion and prevarication - always have been. When all else fails and they push too far along come the troops and the false flags. The article is just expressing a tone because they smell blood, which they enjoy very, very much.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Oh yes the ferries scandal. Ha ****ing ha.

Is a £200 million (and counting) overspend and a five-year (and counting) delay something to laugh off?

[marinello59]

Is a £200 million (and counting) overspend and a five-year (and counting) delay something to laugh off?

Not for the islanders who have had to put up with a third rate ferry service for far too long. Not that anybody really seems to care about the people actually affected by this ongoing saga, they never get acknowledged.
Perhaps the Isle of Wight service is worse though so that will make it all OK.

[Ozyhibby]

Is a £200 million (and counting) overspend and a five-year (and counting) delay something to laugh off?

It’s about the same amount of money the Tories shovelled into Michelle Mone’s company and received zero in return. At least there is a small chance we end up with a couple of boats out of it and a viable functioning shipyard.
I never see you bring that up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Not for the islanders who have had to put up with a third rate ferry service for far too long. Not that anybody really seems to care about the people actually affected by this ongoing saga, they never get acknowledged.
Perhaps the Isle of Wight service is worse though so that will make it all OK.

I promise if we ever become independent I’ll never compare ourselves with the rest of the UK again. Our ability to become more ambitious mean I never have to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

I promise if we ever become independent I’ll never compare ourselves with the rest of the UK again. Our ability to become more ambitious mean I never have to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The comment you have replied to was a throwaway line, not meant to be taken too seriously.

My first point was the serious one. Peoples lives are being materially affected by this but they never get mentioned on here.

[grunt]

Is a £200 million (and counting) overspend and a five-year (and counting) delay something to laugh off?
HS2.

Initial estimate between £15bn and £17bn.

Current estimate £98bn.

So spare me the fuss over the ferries "scandal".

[Stairway 2 7]

HS2.

Initial estimate between £15bn and £17bn.

Current estimate £98bn.

So spare me the fuss over the ferries "scandal".

If it is 98 billion we'll get about 10 billion due to barnett, brilliant. Plenty to pay public sector workers what we used to pay them

[Ozyhibby]

The comment you have replied to was a throwaway line, not meant to be taken too seriously.

My first point was the serious one. Peoples lives are being materially affected by this but they never get mentioned on here.

Of course. The situation with the ferries is crap and the fact that this delay is causing so much disruption points to a sever lack of planning by the ferry operator. I think that these problems will be being fixed quick sharp just now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

If it is 98 billion we'll get about 10 billion due to barnett, brilliant. Plenty to pay public sector workers what we used to pay themI thought the Barnett calculation was originally deemed not applicable as HS2 helps speed up the journeys to Edinburgh & Glasgow?


Mind you.i do also seem to remember there was something agreed later but was going to be a much lower % .... not sure whatever came of it.

[marinello59]

Of course. The situation with the ferries is crap and the fact that this delay is causing so much disruption points to a sever lack of planning by the ferry operator. I think that these problems will be being fixed quick sharp just now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope you are right but I’d like to see evidence of this quick sharp fix. The problems being caused by an ageing fleet have been years in the making, it ain’t going to be cured overnight. There have been more new ferries announced recently but they were needed a long time ago.

[Stairway 2 7]

I thought the Barnett calculation was originally deemed not applicable as HS2 helps speed up the journeys to Edinburgh & Glasgow?


Mind you.i do also seem to remember there was something agreed later but was going to be a much lower % .... not sure whatever came of it.

No we get 9.2% of every pound spent. I hope it goes over by 100 billion so we get even more dosh.

[James310]

Andy Wightman is generally a well respected ex Green MSP and pro Indy supporter, his thoughts.

*I have never supported an indyref in 2023 and I don’t support one at all until there is sustained support for it (referendums should be about affirming popular opinion not taking a divided electorate marginally over the 50% threshold)

I am thus genuinely shocked to be told by the First Minister of Scotland that I am (by implication) not part of “Scotland’s democracy movement”. I have been arguing for better (especially local) democracy all my adult life."

[wookie70]

I thought the Barnett calculation was originally deemed not applicable as HS2 helps speed up the journeys to Edinburgh & Glasgow?


Mind you.i do also seem to remember there was something agreed later but was going to be a much lower % .... not sure whatever came of it.

I just posted similar and thought we would get nothing as it would be described as a UK benefit. I found this though (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/712139/response/1703896/attach/html/3/FOI2020%2045427%20Response.pdf.html)so Stairway is right and I hope they crank up teh spending. It will pay for umpteen ferry overspends

[Just Alf]

I just posted similar and thought we would get nothing as it would be described as a UK benefit. I found this though (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/712139/response/1703896/attach/html/3/FOI2020%2045427%20Response.pdf.html)so Stairway is right and I hope they crank up teh spending. It will pay for umpteen ferry overspendsThanks for that, I agree with Stairway then, let the spending continue!


Thinking about it, I think the chat at the time was that Scotland would be getting 10% of it added to our deficit which I think was proved not to be the case.

[He's here!]

HS2.

Initial estimate between £15bn and £17bn.

Current estimate £98bn.

So spare me the fuss over the ferries "scandal".

Reaching for the Westminster whataboutery button doesn't really cut it with the ferries fiasco tho. Sturgeon & co are always whining about not having enough powers and this was an opportunity to show what they could do with a large-scale project all of their own. The result? An out of control and ongoing spending shambles.

[cabbageandribs1875]

oh ffs it's still Ferrie Ferries Ferries


is that it ffs jesus wept

[wookie70]

Reaching for the Westminster whataboutery button doesn't really cut it with the ferries fiasco tho. Sturgeon & co are always whining about not having enough powers and this was an opportunity to show what they could do with a large-scale project all of their own. The result? An out of control and ongoing spending shambles.
The Queensferry Crossing went pretty well.

[He's here!]

Andy Wightman is generally a well respected ex Green MSP and pro Indy supporter, his thoughts.

*I have never supported an indyref in 2023 and I don’t support one at all until there is sustained support for it (referendums should be about affirming popular opinion not taking a divided electorate marginally over the 50% threshold)

I am thus genuinely shocked to be told by the First Minister of Scotland that I am (by implication) not part of “Scotland’s democracy movement”. I have been arguing for better (especially local) democracy all my adult life."

He's spot on. His opinion is invalidated in Sturgeon's world
tho because he found her guilty of misleading parliament.

[Bostonhibby]

It’s about the same amount of money the Tories shovelled into Michelle Mone’s company and received zero in return. At least there is a small chance we end up with a couple of boats out of it and a viable functioning shipyard.
I never see you bring that up?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkExactly and it's fair to say it was a bad mistake rather than deceitful fraud where the cash filter off shore after a deliberately hidden "process". The object being to enrich connected people.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Exactly and it's fair to say it was a bad mistake rather than deceitful fraud where the cash filter off shore after a deliberately hidden "process". The object being to enrich connected people.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using TapatalkIt was also the route to market that the unionist parties demanded.

[Bostonhibby]

It was also the route to market that the unionist parties demanded.Quelle surprise

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

The Queensferry Crossing went pretty well.

It did. Fair play to those who built it

(a private sector consortium of English, American, German and Spanish companies :greengrin)

[grunt]

Reaching for the Westminster whataboutery button doesn't really cut it with the ferries fiasco tho. Sturgeon & co are always whining about not having enough powers and this was an opportunity to show what they could do with a large-scale project all of their own. The result? An out of control and ongoing spending shambles.

Of course it's comparable. Both are public sector procurement projects, but you can't see beyond your blinkered dislike of the SNP and Sturgeon.

And as stated above, do they not get credit for their procurement of the Queensferry Crossing? Oh no, that would be whataboutery.

[ronaldo7]

The Scottish Fabians were set up to fight against independence for Scotland.

26299

Impartial then. 😂

[Mibbes Aye]

Impartial then. 😂

Interestingly, if you know your history....

The Fabian Society existed before the Labour Party. And although the Fabians have always had strong links with Labour, the general secretary wrote only a few years ago about the benefits of a super-pact between Labour, Lib Dems, PC and SNP, and the Greens to try and wipe the Tories off the map.

The Fabians aren't nationalist though, more about international democratic socialism. The aforementioned gen sec was particularly scathing about the Indy fiscal plan in 2014, IIRC.

You can join here (https://fabians.org.uk/membership/join/) :greengrin

[marinello59]

Interestingly, if you know your history....

The Fabian Society existed before the Labour Party. And although the Fabians have always had strong links with Labour, the general secretary wrote only a few years ago about the benefits of a super-pact between Labour, Lib Dems, PC and SNP, and the Greens to try and wipe the Tories off the map.

The Fabians aren't nationalist though, more about international democratic socialism. The aforementioned gen sec was particularly scathing about the Indy fiscal plan in 2014, IIRC.

You can join here (https://fabians.org.uk/membership/join/) :greengrin

Yeap, a long and honourable history of left wing thinking. Seeing them dismissed so inaccurately surprised me a bit. Maybe it shouldn’t. :greengrin

[He's here!]

Of course it's comparable. Both are public sector procurement projects, but you can't see beyond your blinkered dislike of the SNP and Sturgeon.

And as stated above, do they not get credit for their procurement of the Queensferry Crossing? Oh no, that would be whataboutery.

It might also be argued that your hatred for Westminster/the Tories blinds you to any valid criticism of the SNP?

What's your own take on the ferries scandal? Or the cock-ups over construction of the new Sick Kids in Edinburgh and the QEUH in Glasgow? The former finally opening a decade later than envisaged and the pair of them accruing a £150 million overspend due to botched workmanship.

Yes the Queensferry Crossing is a relative success story. About a year behind schedule IIRC and certainly not the greenest solution, but probably a necessary one and I think it's visually pretty great.

I'm not unaware of the many similar blunders by UK governments down the years but the decidedly mediocre performance in power by the SNP is, I feel, too often smothered by simply throwing the independence blanket over it.

[wookie70]

It might also be argued that your hatred for Westminster/the Tories blinds you to any valid criticism of the SNP?

What's your own take on the ferries scandal? Or the cock-ups over construction of the new Sick Kids in Edinburgh and the QEUH in Glasgow? The former finally opening a decade later than envisaged and the pair of them accruing a £150 million overspend due to botched workmanship.

Yes the Queensferry Crossing is a relative success story. About a year behind schedule IIRC and certainly not the greenest solution, but probably a necessary one and I think it's visually pretty great.

I'm not unaware of the many similar blunders by UK governments down the years but the decidedly mediocre performance in power by the SNP is, I feel, too often smothered by simply throwing the independence blanket over it.

Crossrail, HS2, PPE, The Ferry Company without any ships was it Seaborn or something at around £50M, NHS IT system is billions for zero benefit to taxpayers. The UK government pees money up the wall at alarming rate. The last PM managed to lose Billions from a financial statement that was nearly all reversed, Bulb bailout etc etc. What about cladding of buildings causing deaths when the main reason was so the view wasn't ruined for Tories in a Tory council, reports of large numbers of NHS England hospitals unsafe.

The Ferries scandal up here is an example of the government not managing a project properly. However, give me a government that tries to save jobs every day and there is mitigation in terms of pandemics and the global supply chain. We will also end up with a couple of ferries and many of teh UK Governments improvements see Billions spent with absolutely nothing in return

[Ozyhibby]

Any unionist can feel free to answer.
Who wastes more Scottish tax payers money? The Tory govt in London or the SNP govt in London? I’m happy for this to be prorata if that helps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

We got £500 million from the £5+ billion crossrail cost. I'm not sure if it went on the overall budget or infrastructure projects. The more England spends the better for us. Although I like large infrastructure projects personally. Would love high speed rail to Glasgow and Aberdeen

[danhibees1875]

Any unionist can feel free to answer.
Who wastes more Scottish tax payers money? The Tory govt in London or the SNP govt in London? I’m happy for this to be prorata if that helps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The SNP government in London wastes £0. :greengrin

[Just Alf]

We got £500 million from the £5+ billion crossrail cost. I'm not sure if it went on the overall budget or infrastructure projects. The more England spends the better for us. Although I like large infrastructure projects personally. Would love high speed rail to Glasgow and AberdeenAgree with that, in fact it would be good to see the whole Scottish network fully modernised.

Re the funds, I suspect its probably one of the areas that's getting squeezed to help with the child payments and higher NHS spending etc.

[Hibrandenburg]

We got £500 million from the £5+ billion crossrail cost. I'm not sure if it went on the overall budget or infrastructure projects. The more England spends the better for us. Although I like large infrastructure projects personally. Would love high speed rail to Glasgow and Aberdeen

What would you prefer most, High speed rail travel or a pay rise for NHS staff?

[marinello59]

Any unionist can feel free to answer.
Who wastes more Scottish tax payers money? The Tory govt in London or the SNP govt in London? I’m happy for this to be prorata if that helps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Criticising the performance of the Scottish Government doesn’t automatically mean you are a Unionist. Just saying. :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Agree with that, in fact it would be good to see the whole Scottish network fully modernised.

Re the funds, I suspect its probably one of the areas that's getting squeezed to help with the child payments and higher NHS spending etc.

Isn’t network rail a UK govt body?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

What would you prefer most, High speed rail travel or a pay rise for NHS staff?

Definitely the pay rise obviously. But we afforded a higher pay 10 years ago with the same budget, the 10 billion is over and above that.

[ronaldo7]

Interestingly, if you know your history....

The Fabian Society existed before the Labour Party. And although the Fabians have always had strong links with Labour, the general secretary wrote only a few years ago about the benefits of a super-pact between Labour, Lib Dems, PC and SNP, and the Greens to try and wipe the Tories off the map.

The Fabians aren't nationalist though, more about international democratic socialism. The aforementioned gen sec was particularly scathing about the Indy fiscal plan in 2014, IIRC.

You can join here (https://fabians.org.uk/membership/join/) :greengrin

No thanks. 😆

I don't need to waste my money on affiliated groups to the labour party in order to hear what they're doing.

Cat Headley, and Martin McCluskey tell me all I need to know about the Scottish Fabians.

[J-C]

It might also be argued that your hatred for Westminster/the Tories blinds you to any valid criticism of the SNP?

What's your own take on the ferries scandal? Or the cock-ups over construction of the new Sick Kids in Edinburgh and the QEUH in Glasgow? The former finally opening a decade later than envisaged and the pair of them accruing a £150 million overspend due to botched workmanship.

Yes the Queensferry Crossing is a relative success story. About a year behind schedule IIRC and certainly not the greenest solution, but probably a necessary one and I think it's visually pretty great.

I'm not unaware of the many similar blunders by UK governments down the years but the decidedly mediocre performance in power by the SNP is, I feel, too often smothered by simply throwing the independence blanket over it.
I notice you didn't mention the fact that the crossing was delayed twice due to weather conditions and not by bad planning etc, just a pity the SNP couldn't organise better weather to get it done on time eh? Oh and it was done under budget saving £245m, you handily omitted that fact also.

[grunt]

I notice you didn't mention the fact that the crossing was delayed twice due to weather conditions and not by bad planning etc, just a pity the SNP couldn't organise better weather to get it done on time eh? Oh and it was done under budget saving £245m, you handily omitted that fact also.
:agree:

Can't even mention it without getting a couple of digs in. It must be so tiring constantly criticising your own nation.

[Moulin Yarns]

Agree with that, in fact it would be good to see the whole Scottish network fully modernised.

Re the funds, I suspect its probably one of the areas that's getting squeezed to help with the child payments and higher NHS spending etc.

Network rail is a UK responsibility, I doubt electrifying any lines north of Perth are a priority.

[James310]

:agree:

Can't even mention it without getting a couple of digs in. It must be so tiring constantly criticising your own nation.

Does he need to stop talking the country down?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/stop-talking-the-country-down-nigel-farage-message/

“Stop Talking The Country Down” - Nigel Farage’s Strong Message To Justin Welby

[degenerated]

Crossrail, HS2, PPE, The Ferry Company without any ships was it Seaborn or something at around £50M, NHS IT system is billions for zero benefit to taxpayers. The UK government pees money up the wall at alarming rate. The last PM managed to lose Billions from a financial statement that was nearly all reversed, Bulb bailout etc etc. What about cladding of buildings causing deaths when the main reason was so the view wasn't ruined for Tories in a Tory council, reports of large numbers of NHS England hospitals unsafe.

The Ferries scandal up here is an example of the government not managing a project properly. However, give me a government that tries to save jobs every day and there is mitigation in terms of pandemics and the global supply chain. We will also end up with a couple of ferries and many of teh UK Governments improvements see Billions spent with absolutely nothing in returnAircraft carriers, Ajax tanks, astute class submarines, Elizabeth line, crossrail, thameslink, the channel tunnel, great western railway modernisation, the millennium dome, priority schools building programme.........the list is endless

[Berwickhibby]

It’s behind a paywall so unable to read all …but this could be an interesting twist https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spending-public-money-building-case-for-independence-may-be-illegal-s93x5ndf5?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1sP9fUwEnhnsKe7WXhLL1-VkpxdckJHGvSwBMC-tGvuPCnNFv9defyfr4#Echobox=1669544054

[degenerated]

It’s behind a paywall so unable to read all …but this could be an interesting twist https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spending-public-money-building-case-for-independence-may-be-illegal-s93x5ndf5?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1sP9fUwEnhnsKe7WXhLL1-VkpxdckJHGvSwBMC-tGvuPCnNFv9defyfr4#Echobox=1669544054We're in a bit of a state if the government enacting the manifesto commitment that it was elected upon is deemed to be breaking the law.

I do hope the unionist/loyalists keep this up though as it's only going to help the cause for Scotland to become a normal country.

[grunt]

It’s behind a paywall so unable to read all …but this could be an interesting twist https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spending-public-money-building-case-for-independence-may-be-illegal-s93x5ndf5?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1sP9fUwEnhnsKe7WXhLL1-VkpxdckJHGvSwBMC-tGvuPCnNFv9defyfr4#Echobox=1669544054
It could be an interesting twist ... if you were a gibbering idiot, which I'm sure you're not.

Otherwise look at Lord Offord (Tory Parliamentary Under Secretary for State for Scotland) in the HoL replying to a bellyache on the Times article from "Lord" Foulkes:


The noble Lord will be aware that under the devolution settlement the UK Government do not prescribe to the Scottish Government how to spend the money sent north of the border. That allows the Scottish Government to make grown-up decisions on their own behalf and on behalf of the people of Scotland.

[He's here!]

:agree:

Can't even mention it without getting a couple of digs in. It must be so tiring constantly criticising your own nation.

The implication that you're somehow less Scottish if you don't vote for or criticise the SNP is one that riles the many Scots who don't. That may not be your intention, but it's the way things are headed with Sturgeon squeezing her new 'Scotland's democracy movement' buzzwords into every conversation.

[grunt]

The implication that you're somehow less Scottish if you don't vote for or criticise the SNP is one that riles the many Scots who don't. That may not be your intention, but it's the way things are headed with Sturgeon squeezing her new 'Scotland's democracy movement' buzzwords into every conversation.
My comment was directed at your response, when shown a Scottish success story, which was to reply, "ah, but ..."

[Just Alf]

Isn’t network rail a UK govt body?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThink it is, maybe if the 2 governments to act like.grown ups and actually talk properly to each other some.of that 500 million could have been spread around the network.

Of course, negative there from a SNP/Scottish Government perspective would be they wouldn't have it in the pot to spend on other priorities.

[J-C]

The implication that you're somehow less Scottish if you don't vote for or criticise the SNP is one that riles the many Scots who don't. That may not be your intention, but it's the way things are headed with Sturgeon squeezing her new 'Scotland's democracy movement' buzzwords into every conversation.

You are the one that criticised the SNP re the Queensferry crossing without mentioning the fact that the bridge was delayed twice due to severe weather and it was many millions under budget, so basically you just made up stuff to criticise the SNP.

[Just Alf]

My comment was directed at your response, when shown a Scottish success story, which was to reply, "ah, but ..."Then saying no one can say anything bad about the SNP despite many of the indy, and I assume they are mostly SNP voters, regularly agreeing things like the Ferries could and should have been done better.

[Ozyhibby]

Think it is, maybe if the 2 governments to act like.grown ups and actually talk properly to each other some.of that 500 million could have been spread around the network.

Of course, negative there from a SNP/Scottish Government perspective would be they wouldn't have it in the pot to spend on other priorities.

I think if the UK govt want to improve Scotlands rail network there is nothing stopping them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

The implication that you're somehow less Scottish if you don't vote for or criticise the SNP is one that riles the many Scots who don't. That may not be your intention, but it's the way things are headed with Sturgeon squeezing her new 'Scotland's democracy movement' buzzwords into every conversation.


If if anyone has been denying Scottish democracy it’s the SNP.

The 2014 referendum gave a clear result which the SNP never accepted as the nation’s decision on the matter and continually bickered for a re-run before the ink was dry on the voting papers.

[Just Alf]

If if anyone has been denying Scottish democracy it’s the SNP.

The 2014 referendum gave a clear result which the SNP never accepted as the nation’s decision on the matter and continually bickered for a re-run before the ink was dry on the voting papers.Not according to this very thread... things quietened for a period (apart from.the odd died in the wool campaigner) and the thread only really picked up again when the Brexit referendum pitched up on the horizon then became a regular 1st pager once Leave won.

[Callum_62]

If if anyone has been denying Scottish democracy it’s the SNP.

The 2014 referendum gave a clear result which the SNP never accepted as the nation’s decision on the matter and continually bickered for a re-run before the ink was dry on the voting papers.That take always astounds me to be honest

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

I
That take always astounds me to be honest

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk


You are astounded that not accepting the result of a referendum could be considered denying democracy and the denial of a re-Run is somehow anti democratic.

[grunt]

If if anyone has been denying Scottish democracy it’s the SNP.

The 2014 referendum gave a clear result which the SNP never accepted as the nation’s decision on the matter and continually bickered for a re-run before the ink was dry on the voting papers.
Haha! What do you expect them to do?

The SNP is the party of independence. If you want the Scottish Govt to "accept the nation's decision" you will need to elect a Govt that is happy being governed by Westminster. But the country keeps electing the SNP! What can you do?

[grunt]

You are astounded that not accepting the result of a referendum could be considered denying democracy and the denial of a re-Run is somehow anti democratic.What do you mean the referendum was not accepted? We're still part of the UK aren't we? If the Scot Gov had "not accepted" the 2014 referendum result we'd be independent, no?

[Kato]

If if anyone has been denying Scottish democracy it’s the SNP.

The 2014 referendum gave a clear result which the SNP never accepted as the nation’s decision on the matter and continually bickered for a re-run before the ink was dry on the voting papers.Do you accept or at least think it's feasible that Brexit brought about a material change to Scotland, given that it was a main plank of Better Togethers campaign?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

If if anyone has been denying Scottish democracy it’s the SNP.

The 2014 referendum gave a clear result which the SNP never accepted as the nation’s decision on the matter and continually bickered for a re-run before the ink was dry on the voting papers.
That is absolute rubbish. If the Scottish government hadn't respected democracy they would have just declared UDI. It is exactly because of democracy that the Scottish government keep being elected on a manifesto that includes the holding if a new indyref. Why is it that it us only the indy side that have to explain their position. At least 50% of the country want independence. A move from 25% approx 10 years ago. So why dobt the unionists ever have to explain why they have lost at least a third of the support they used to have?

[cabbageandribs1875]

some really do have a problem understanding how Democracy works :greengrin


baffling why they think the result in 2014 must be set in stone and never again spoken of :rolleyes:

[degenerated]

If if anyone has been denying Scottish democracy it’s the SNP.

The 2014 referendum gave a clear result which the SNP never accepted as the nation’s decision on the matter and continually bickered for a re-run before the ink was dry on the voting papers.Last I looked we are still not a normal independent country so not sure how you can say democracy has been denied?

[Just Alf]

I'm assuming I must be on 'ignore'....

Either that or facts don't suit the narrative.

[J-C]

I


You are astounded that not accepting the result of a referendum could be considered denying democracy and the denial of a re-Run is somehow anti democratic.


The SNP did accept it but as you well know Brexit and all the lies that came out about the referendum changed all that, is there a time limit when a next referendum has to take place, or is it when the people of that country decide enough is enough.

[Callum_62]

I


You are astounded that not accepting the result of a referendum could be considered denying democracy and the denial of a re-Run is somehow anti democratic.I just think that take is utter waffle

Firstly we are still part of the UK, secondly it was literally written in the SNPs manifesto about Scotland voting remain while UK voting leave

It would be denying Scottish democracy to not pursue another referendum [emoji106]

"MAY 5 2016, HOLYROOD ELECTION

THE SNP manifesto for the Scottish*Parliament*says: “We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is*clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed*in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”*"



Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I just think that take is utter waffle

Firstly we are still part of the UK, secondly it was literally written in the SNPs manifesto about Scotland voting remain while UK voting leave

It would be denying Scottish democracy to not pursue another referendum [emoji106]

"MAY 5 2016, HOLYROOD ELECTION

THE SNP manifesto for the Scottish*Parliament*says: “We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is*clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed*in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”*"


Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Said it before, but the constant refrain that Brexit was a game-changer glosses over the fact Sturgeon effectively launched a new referendum campaign the morning after the Brexit result, doubtless assuming Scotland would be up in arms about being 'dragged out of Europe'. Rather than the SNP sweeping the boards at the next general election they lost about a third of their seats (including Salmond's), while the Tories enjoyed their biggest success in Scotland since Thatcher.

General election 2017: SNP lose a third of seats amid Tory surge - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40192707)

[James310]

Said it before, but the constant refrain that Brexit was a game-changer glosses over the fact Sturgeon effectively launched a new referendum campaign the morning after the Brexit result, doubtless assuming Scotland would be up in arms about being 'dragged out of Europe'. Rather than the SNP sweeping the boards at the next general election they lost about a third of their seats (including Salmond's), while the Tories enjoyed their biggest success in Scotland since Thatcher.

General election 2017: SNP lose a third of seats amid Tory surge - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40192707)

Robin McAlpine from Common Weal writes a brutal takedown of Sturgeon and references her mistake of immediately launching IndyRef2 the day after Brexit but no actual plan to deliver it.

https://robinmcalpine.org/when-lost-stop-following-what-led-you-here/

[Mibbes Aye]

Not according to this very thread... things quietened for a period (apart from.the odd died in the wool campaigner) and the thread only really picked up again when the Brexit referendum pitched up on the horizon then became a regular 1st pager once Leave won.

They really didn't quiten down on here. I posted a lot moe on here in those days and there were some posters, foreign-based but bprn in Scotland, who were posting some very dark, very angry stuff, to the extent that I called out the style of their posts not the content.

Add to that, there was an abundance of really vitriolic stuff aimed at the older generation blaming them for being selfish for voting 'no' and some stuff that was really crass about essentially hoping they died off soon.

I'm told that's called progressive civic nationalism :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Do you accept or at least think it's feasible that Brexit brought about a material change to Scotland, given that it was a main plank of Better Togethers campaign?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Side point this but it illuminates what for the purposes of this question I will call the 'Nationalist Logical Fallacy'. That's only a working title mind.

So, nationalists want an independent Scotland right? One of the main reasons proferred is that nationalists don't want to be subject to laws made elsewhere (Westminster) in a chamber where they only feel partially represented.

One of the nationalist arguments, a key argument even, is that their rights were breached because Westminster delivered legislation in line with the Brexit referendum, taking the UK out of the EU. Nationalists feel that this typifies how Westminster, a 'foreign' assembly', acted against the wishes of a majority of Scottish voters.

But, being part of he EU means signing up to EU law. Which meant Scottish people were subject to a lot of laws and directives made elsewhere (Brussels and Strasbourg) where 'Scottish' representation is more diluted than it is at Westminster.

It doesn't make sense, does it? Unless, and I'm not saying I agree with his, just putting it out there - that this whole grievance about Brexit isn't about self-determination (because that would be illogical) and is really just an example of ABE (which again is illogical but I can be forgiven for giving up on finding logic in many of the nationalist arguments :greengrin)

[degenerated]

Said it before, but the constant refrain that Brexit was a game-changer glosses over the fact Sturgeon effectively launched a new referendum campaign the morning after the Brexit result, doubtless assuming Scotland would be up in arms about being 'dragged out of Europe'. Rather than the SNP sweeping the boards at the next general election they lost about a third of their seats (including Salmond's), while the Tories enjoyed their biggest success in Scotland since Thatcher.

General election 2017: SNP lose a third of seats amid Tory surge - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40192707)And what's happened since?

[Mibbes Aye]

That is absolute rubbish. If the Scottish government hadn't respected democracy they would have just declared UDI. It is exactly because of democracy that the Scottish government keep being elected on a manifesto that includes the holding if a new indyref. Why is it that it us only the indy side that have to explain their position. At least 50% of the country want independence. A move from 25% approx 10 years ago. So why dobt the unionists ever have to explain why they have lost at least a third of the support they used to have?

Actually it wouldn't have been UDI, it would have been an attempted coup d'etat by an angry minority.

Of course normally coup plotters try and have the state security apparatus on their side, but given the armed forces and the police swear allegiance to the crown then that might have been tricky.

Coup plotters also usually seize the main communication centres. I suspect, and I confess this calaculation isn't based on the use of a measuring tape or a trundle wheel, that angry aeparatists may have struggled getting those big twirly flags through the doors at Pacific Quay (let alone squeexing through the comically huge sense of grievance some of them seem to bear :greengrin)

[Mibbes Aye]

Last I looked we are still not a normal independent country so not sure how you can say democracy has been denied?

It's just that more people considered that independent country to be the UK than considered it to be Scotland.

So your 'we' is a qualified 'we', it's a minority of 'we'. Less than half a 'we'.

On the plus side for you, there will probably be another chance to go later and then you might find yourself having a big 'we' :greengrin

[Callum_62]

Side point this but it illuminates what for the purposes of this question I will call the 'Nationalist Logical Fallacy'. That's only a working title mind.

So, nationalists want an independent Scotland right? One of the main reasons proferred is that nationalists don't want to be subject to laws made elsewhere (Westminster) in a chamber where they only feel partially represented.

One of the nationalist arguments, a key argument even, is that their rights were breached because Westminster delivered legislation in line with the Brexit referendum, taking the UK out of the EU. Nationalists feel that this typifies how Westminster, a 'foreign' assembly', acted against the wishes of a majority of Scottish voters.

But, being part of he EU means signing up to EU law. Which meant Scottish people were subject to a lot of laws and directives made elsewhere (Brussels and Strasbourg) where 'Scottish' representation is more diluted than it is at Westminster.

It doesn't make sense, does it? Unless, and I'm not saying I agree with his, just putting it out there - that this whole grievance about Brexit isn't about self-determination (because that would be illogical) and is really just an example of ABE (which again is illogical but I can be forgiven for giving up on finding logic in many of the nationalist arguments :greengrin)I guess you make a good point if you think one union is the exact replica of another

I think the UKs stance with the smaller devolved nations during the Brexit negotiations and the EUs stance with one of there smallest counties during the same talks put to bed that take

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

And what's happened since?

What has happened since is that a relatively competent PM (Cameron) was followed by a succession of three PMs who proved woefully incapable of running the country while the opposition collapsed in on itself under Corbyn. Little wonder the SNP's fortunes revived without actually having to display any notable competence themselves, especially as Ruth Davidson's departure left Holyrood without any opposition leaders with the substance to unsettle Sturgeon. Just whinging relentlessly about independence was enough to keep them ticking along. I saw the funereal Keith Brown on TV earlier and when you consider he's the deputy SNP leader you realise how low the quality bar is below Sturgeon, yet the independence cure-all mantra continues to mask such concerns.

The point I'm making is that when Brexit was front and centre as an election issue it didn't yield the result the SNP expected and in fact left them with a bit of a bloody nose.

[degenerated]

What has happened since is that a relatively competent PM (Cameron) was followed by a succession of three PMs who proved woefully incapable of running the country while the opposition collapsed in on itself under Corbyn. Little wonder the SNP's fortunes revived without actually having to display any notable competence themselves, especially as Ruth Davidson's departure left Holyrood without any opposition leaders with the substance to unsettle Sturgeon. Just whinging relentlessly about independence was enough to keep them ticking along. I saw the funereal Keith Brown on TV earlier and when you consider he's the deputy SNP leader you realise how low the quality bar is below Sturgeon, yet the independence cure-all mantra continues to mask such concerns.

The point I'm making is that when Brexit was front and centre as an election issue it didn't yield the result the SNP expected and in fact left them with a bit of a bloody nose.Brexit hadn't happened at that point.

[Just Alf]

They really didn't quiten down on here. I posted a lot moe on here in those days and there were some posters, foreign-based but bprn in Scotland, who were posting some very dark, very angry stuff, to the extent that I called out the style of their posts not the content.

Add to that, there was an abundance of really vitriolic stuff aimed at the older generation blaming them for being selfish for voting 'no' and some stuff that was really crass about essentially hoping they died off soon.

I'm told that's called progressive civic nationalism :greengrinHa ha... yup , the deid can't vote right enough!

:greengrin


I know what you're saying but in the period after the indy vote and approaching the Brexit one this thread dropped off the front pages.

That's NOT to say there weren't flurries of discussions between times of course :agree:

[WeeRussell]

What has happened since is that a relatively competent PM (Cameron) was followed by a succession of three PMs who proved woefully incapable of running the country while the opposition collapsed in on itself under Corbyn. Little wonder the SNP's fortunes revived without actually having to display any notable competence themselves, especially as Ruth Davidson's departure left Holyrood without any opposition leaders with the substance to unsettle Sturgeon. Just whinging relentlessly about independence was enough to keep them ticking along. I saw the funereal Keith Brown on TV earlier and when you consider he's the deputy SNP leader you realise how low the quality bar is below Sturgeon, yet the independence cure-all mantra continues to mask such concerns.

The point I'm making is that when Brexit was front and centre as an election issue it didn't yield the result the SNP expected and in fact left them with a bit of a bloody nose.

The same David Cameron that gambled his country’s future by triggering a Brexit referendum on the assumption he’d win no bother.

I suppose the term ‘relatively competent’ is probably correct given what’s followed though.

[The Tubs]

What has happened since is that a relatively competent PM (Cameron) was followed by a succession of three PMs who proved woefully incapable of running the country while the opposition collapsed in on itself under Corbyn. Little wonder the SNP's fortunes revived without actually having to display any notable competence themselves, especially as Ruth Davidson's departure left Holyrood without any opposition leaders with the substance to unsettle Sturgeon. Just whinging relentlessly about independence was enough to keep them ticking along. I saw the funereal Keith Brown on TV earlier and when you consider he's the deputy SNP leader you realise how low the quality bar is below Sturgeon, yet the independence cure-all mantra continues to mask such concerns.

The point I'm making is that when Brexit was front and centre as an election issue it didn't yield the result the SNP expected and in fact left them with a bit of a bloody nose.

My assessment of recent history would be very different. Crisis after crisis in the UK has lead to the Scots becoming more cautious which has in turn meant fewer people than one would reasonably expect support independence. Remember that the SNP first achieved a parliamentary majority in 2007, back when the UK had a future as a functioning nation.

The Scots are the equivalent of boiling frogs.

[Mibbes Aye]

I guess you make a good point if you think one union is the exact replica of another

I think the UKs stance with the smaller devolved nations during the Brexit negotiations and the EUs stance with one of there smallest counties during the same talks put to bed that take

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Thanks :greengrin.

My point is simpler I think. Some people say they want to be sovereign, to shape their destiny etc etc not governed by a 'foreign assembly' passing laws outwith but applicable to Scotland.

But it's okay if Brussels and Strasbourg do it? These malcontents obviously aren't that fussed about sovereignty and shaping their own destiny then :greengrin

I described it as a logical fallacy but others would potentially call it hypocrisy. Or even plain old but deeply flawed, ABE.

[Bristolhibby]

Thanks :greengrin.

My point is simpler I think. Some people say they want to be sovereign, to shape their destiny etc etc not governed by a 'foreign assembly' passing laws outwith but applicable to Scotland.

But it's okay if Brussels and Strasbourg do it? These malcontents obviously aren't that fussed about sovereignty and shaping their own destiny then :greengrin

I described it as a logical fallacy but others would potentially call it hypocrisy. Or even plain old but deeply flawed, ABE.

Surely it’s about the decision to chose to ceed sovereignty? At the moment there is KO choice. England want to leave the EU, Scotland has to leave. Scotland wants a vote on Independence, Westminster (English majority) says no.

It would then be up to the Scottish people to ratify an ascension to the EU. It would be our choice. Not Englands, nor Westminsters.

That’s the difference.

Also, see how the EU fights for countries like Ireland. There’s collective clout being in the EU. Something that little England was to blinded by immigrants to see.

J

[He's here!]

Robin McAlpine from Common Weal writes a brutal takedown of Sturgeon and references her mistake of immediately launching IndyRef2 the day after Brexit but no actual plan to deliver it.

https://robinmcalpine.org/when-lost-stop-following-what-led-you-here/

That's a well put-together piece. Be interesting to hear what those who think Sturgeon walks on water make of it.

I posted the below on the trans rights thread this morning so apologies if folk have already read it but it dovetails quite well with McAlpine's analysis of Sturgeon's tone-deaf approach:

Sturgeon’s plans to reform gender law could leave Tories as the champions of women’s rights | Sonia Sodha | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/27/nicola-sturgeon-will-endanger-women-if-she-opens-single-sex-spaces-almost-everone)

[Mibbes Aye]

No thanks. 😆

I don't need to waste my money on affiliated groups to the labour party in order to hear what they're doing.

Cat Headley, and Martin McCluskey tell me all I need to know about the Scottish Fabians.

The Fabians welcome affiliate members from most parties, as I say they preceded the Labour Party by a good few years. I think the Labour links arise from the Fabian philosophy that is gradualist. inclusive and social democratic, which means it's been a natural home for centrist Labour figures throughout its time.

One of the most revered Fabians is Beatrice Webb, a real reformist, who is credited with creating the phrase and concept of 'collective bargaining'. Wouldn't have thought you had an issue with that?

I guess the Fabians do tend to the internationalist, more about what unites us than what divides us. Maybe best you don't sign up then :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Surely it’s about the decision to chose to ceed sovereignty? At the moment there is KO choice. England want to leave the EU, Scotland has to leave. Scotland wants a vote on Independence, Westminster (English majority) says no.

It would then be up to the Scottish people to ratify an ascension to the EU. It would be our choice. Not Englands, nor Westminsters.

That’s the difference.

Also, see how the EU fights for countries like Ireland. There’s collective clout being in the EU. Something that little England was to blinded by immigrants to see.

J

Always good to hear from those outwith Scotland :greengrin

The referendum was a UK referendum. As simple as that. You don't need to like it (in my experience separatists don't seem to like refenda at all, or at least they don't like the results, which makes me wonder why they keep asking for more!) but in democratic terms, you and me have to lump it as UK citizens.

This is the third time I will have made this point though and you didn't answer it in your post - if Scotland governing 'ourselves' to 'shape our own destiny' is such a good reason to make Holyrood, not Westminster, our sovereign parliament, why would you object to Brexit?

As I say I am lost as to how full self-determination means anything other than full self-determination.

But of course, there is a school of thought that it isn't about self-determination as such. It's about petty grievance and anti-English sentiment, because some in the SNP like to portray Westminster as 'English rule' and the source of everyone's woes.

Maybe the one-third or whatever it was of SNP supporters who voted for Brexit are the only genuine nationalists, the truebreeds if you like? :greengrin

Mind you I'm not sure what that makes the rest!

[Kato]

Side point this but it illuminates what for the purposes of this question I will call the 'Nationalist Logical Fallacy'. That's only a working title mind.

So, nationalists want an independent Scotland right? One of the main reasons proferred is that nationalists don't want to be subject to laws made elsewhere (Westminster) in a chamber where they only feel partially represented.

One of the nationalist arguments, a key argument even, is that their rights were breached because Westminster delivered legislation in line with the Brexit referendum, taking the UK out of the EU. Nationalists feel that this typifies how Westminster, a 'foreign' assembly', acted against the wishes of a majority of Scottish voters.

But, being part of he EU means signing up to EU law. Which meant Scottish people were subject to a lot of laws and directives made elsewhere (Brussels and Strasbourg) where 'Scottish' representation is more diluted than it is at Westminster.

It doesn't make sense, does it? Unless, and I'm not saying I agree with his, just putting it out there - that this whole grievance about Brexit isn't about self-determination (because that would be illogical) and is really just an example of ABE (which again is illogical but I can be forgiven for giving up on finding logic in many of the nationalist arguments :greengrin)I don't mind being part of a Union of nations or a small part of larger conglomeration. The sovereignty aspect of the independence debate isn't one I'm bothered about, I'm not a narrow "nationalist".

I'd rather take my chances with the EU than Westminster any day of the week.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

The Fabians welcome affiliate members from most parties, as I say they preceded the Labour Party by a good few years. I think the Labour links arise from the Fabian philosophy that is gradualist. inclusive and social democratic, which means it's been a natural home for centrist Labour figures throughout its time.

One of the most revered Fabians is Beatrice Webb, a real reformist, who is credited with creating the phrase and concept of 'collective bargaining'. Wouldn't have thought you had an issue with that?

I guess the Fabians do tend to the internationalist, more about what unites us than what divides us. Maybe best you don't sign up then :greengrin

Ah, back to the underhanded personal digs. I wondered why you've been out of commission for a while.

Nothing like a unionist win to get you running back again. 😆

[Moulin Yarns]

Always good to hear from those outwith Scotland :greengrin

The referendum was a UK referendum. As simple as that. You don't need to like it (in my experience separatists don't seem to like refenda at all, or at least they don't like the results, which makes me wonder why they keep asking for more!) but in democratic terms, you and me have to lump it as UK citizens.

This is the third time I will have made this point though and you didn't answer it in your post - if Scotland governing 'ourselves' to 'shape our own destiny' is such a good reason to make Holyrood, not Westminster, our sovereign parliament, why would you object to Brexit?

As I say I am lost as to how full self-determination means anything other than full self-determination.

But of course, there is a school of thought that it isn't about self-determination as such. It's about petty grievance and anti-English sentiment, because some in the SNP like to portray Westminster as 'English rule' and the source of everyone's woes.

Maybe the one-third or whatever it was of SNP supporters who voted for Brexit are the only genuine nationalists, the truebreeds if you like? :greengrin

Mind you I'm not sure what that makes the rest!

Having worked the final 10 years of my working life applying EU environmental and wildlife law I appreciate the benefits of wider legislation to uphold rather than the approach of the UK government to disregard and override the environmental legislation to the detriment of our natural world.

Not everything that the EU does is bad. I'd rather a wide ranging legislation than the isolationist laws being put in place by the tories in Westminster

[Mibbes Aye]

Having worked the final 10 years of my working life applying EU environmental and wildlife law I appreciate the benefits of wider legislation to uphold rather than the approach of the UK government to disregard and override the environmental legislation to the detriment of our natural world.

Not everything that the EU does is bad. I'd rather a wide ranging legislation than the isolationist laws being put in place by the tories in Westminster

I quite agree, more than that even. I think that an eventual shift towards an ECB that genuinely controls monetary policy, can act as a lender of last resort etc etc would encourage further harmonisation around fiscal policy and maybe eventually allow for an approach that doesn't inflict austerity on smaller, vulnerable members (cf Greece). That would be some size of co-operative and present a real challenge to the bond markets and their apparently untrammeled capacity to dictate fiscal policy to whomever they see fit.

What I would add, in the interest of balance is that not everything the EU or EEC has done has always been good. It's not been plain sailing (excuse the pun) for the fishing industry all the time, likewise the agricultural sector (pun warning again) hasn't always reaped benefits. And overall, there have been times when any and all of the big states have ensured naked self-interest is proected and promoted. But on the whole I wss a very happy Remainer.

And likewise, the UK parliament is far from perfect, but you can't just write off all that it has legislated for - in my parents' lifetime that's included the NHS and welfare state, the decriminalistion of homosexuality, the legalisation of abortion, the abolition of capital punishment, the criminalisation of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, disability and a host of other things, equal pay for women, the creation of the Open University, the Human Rights Act, the minimum wage etc etc.

Now I now what you will say. "Mibbes Aye, you're mostly talking about Labour stuff". It's a fair cop. But an uncomfortable truth for those who burn with self-righteous hatred of the Tories and most especially of Thatcher was that even they did some popular stuff in their time, when they weren't trying to dismantle the public sector obviously.

Given the age profile on here I suspect a lot of posters' parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, maybe even some posters themselves benefitted from the subsidised sell-off of housing through 'Right to Buy', and a good few became shareholders too, when the utilities were privatised. Doesn't make it right but let's be honest, a lot of people took full advantage.

Your main point was around he environment however. It saddens, angers and baffles me in equal measure why any administration in this sorry time and place - Holyrood, Westminster, Brussels - lack the spine, the courage, the vision, to make policy choices that might be electorally frightening but pale into insignificance compared to the self-inflicted tragedy that unremitting environmental degradation will bring.

[Mibbes Aye]

Ah, back to the underhanded personal digs. I wondered why you've been out of commission for a while.

Nothing like a unionist win to get you running back again. ��

That's shabby. Anyway I've explained enough times on here why I don't think the current system of government is the best way of doing things so I don't see how you can make a link between me and unionists. I'm not even sure what it is they were meant to have won?

I've also explained enough times on here why I find nationalism pretty distasteful, unsophisticated and all about grievance and division. You might not like that but it's my view and I've lost count of the number of times I've asked someone, anyone, to make a rational case for the relevance and desirability of nationalism in the 21st century (note - not Scottish nationalism, just nationalism, as an ideology). Needless to say, the lack of response speaks volumes about what really underpins a lot of people's supposedly 'progressive' nationalist stances.

I made two references to you - one based on my assumption that you were a union man (a trades union man) and so 'collective bargaining' was something you would identify with. Beatrice and Sydney Webb are probably the two names one identifies most with the Fabians, it wasn't me who brought the Fabians into discussion, but once someone did I thought it might be constructive to talk about what it actually means, rather than the yah-boo discourse that had preceded it.

The second comment was a valid criticism - you can't have it both ways. You support something intrinsically yet artificially divisive, so fundamentally you choose to reject democratic socialism. I don't see how anyone can call themself a true nationalist and claim to be a true socialist. People didn't believe it in the 1770s and 1780s, damn straight they don't believe it now.

[wookie70]

Given the age profile on here I suspect a lot of posters' parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, maybe even some posters themselves benefitted from the subsidised sell-off of housing through 'Right to Buy', and a good few became shareholders too, when the utilities were privatised. Doesn't make it right but let's be honest, a lot of people took full advantage.



The "Right to Buy" has been an absolute disaster for UK housing. It also meant there wasn't a safe place to rent who wouldn't chuck you out for a missed payment. Imo that was part of the plan to crush Unions as now pretty much every Union member had to consider their next mortgage or rent payment when considering strike action. Westminster Labour have certainly benefitted Scotland over the years but Blair and Brown at best undid some of the damage that was done during the previous Tory administration. England, who basically are Westminster, are moving further and further right and now the Labour party aren't a million miles from where Thatcher was. There isn't any light on the Westminster horizon and if anyone sees any it is a train coming to crush you rather than hope.

[wookie70]

I've also explained enough times on here why I find nationalism pretty distasteful, unsophisticated and all about grievance and division.

I made two references to you - one based on my assumption that you were a union man (a trades union man) and so 'collective bargaining' was something you would identify with. Beatrice and Sydney Webb are probably the two names one identifies most with the Fabians, it wasn't me who brought the Fabians into discussion, but once someone did I thought it might be constructive to talk about what it actually means, rather than the yah-boo discourse that had preceded it.



I'm not the poster you are talking too but those points ring a bell with me. I'm a trade unionist so believe in collective bargaining and I dare say Internationalism too. I do have priorities in my principles though and a fairer society is number one for me. I think that is best achieved with a worldwide outlook but my pragmatism is just ahead of my idealism. I find it quite easy to square wanting to be in the EU but not wanting to be in a UK Union as I feel the UK version is only going one way and that is to the right if not the far right. My vote has no way of changing that so I am being dragged to the right without a way of defending myself. If I use Unions as an example then my Union PCS is currently in dispute. The Scottish part of that dispute is hamstrung already as it was organised on a Westminster timeline. My vote cannot change that as the Westminster controlled members will never take cognisance of Scotland. Another Union example would be when my Union voted to join Unite. That would mean our votes were too small in number to change anything and the other parts of that Union had very different Industrial issues and employers. We chose not to join with them despite an obvious advantage in terms of finance.

The EU is the same for me. Most of what it does is fine and there have been some excellent changes brought about like freedom of movement and working time directive. Yes they don't get everything right and my vote also won't be big enough to change an outcome. However there are vetos and the direction of travel is much better than Westminster.

It is a debate I have with myself as I do not agree with teh EU on many things and they are far too interested in Capitalism for my politics but I would just see the positives outweighing thye negatives. It is fairly close though. In terms of teh UK it is the opposite. The negatives far outweigh the positives and the good the Union has produced like the NHS is being systematically destroyed by the votes of the English who think they are voting to save it. Those votes are also easily bought with a bit of xenophobia if the lies about the NHS are eventually seen through. The UK is a New Tory Nation and that isn't the case for Scotland. The EU may be going that way too but at least there is hope it won't

[grunt]

Welcome back to Mibbes Aye to the discussion. You've posted a lot and I have little time today, so here's a couple of comments.
But, being part of he EU means signing up to EU law. Which meant Scottish people were subject to a lot of laws and directives made elsewhere (Brussels and Strasbourg) where 'Scottish' representation is more diluted than it is at Westminster.

It doesn't make sense, does it? Unless, and I'm not saying I agree with his, just putting it out there - that this whole grievance about Brexit isn't about self-determination (because that would be illogical) and is really just an example of ABE (which again is illogical but I can be forgiven for giving up on finding logic in many of the nationalist arguments :greengrin)I simply cannot believe that here we are in 2022 and otherwise intelligent people can't see the difference between being in the UK under English rule is TOTALLY different from being an EU member. They may both be described as "unions" but they are worlds apart in how they affect our government. You must be able to see this, surely.


It saddens, angers and baffles me in equal measure why any administration in this sorry time and place - Holyrood, Westminster, Brussels - lack the spine, the courage, the vision, to make policy choices that might be electorally frightening but pale into insignificance compared to the self-inflicted tragedy that unremitting environmental degradation will bring.And yet out of the three you mention, it is Holyrood under Sturgeon's leadership who is plainly doing the most. And could do a lot more if we were independent. So if this is your key concern (and why not), then giving greater authority and power to Scotland under her leadership would be a good way to address it.


I've also explained enough times on here why I find nationalism pretty distasteful, unsophisticated and all about grievance and division. You might not like that but it's my view and I've lost count of the number of times I've asked someone, anyone, to make a rational case for the relevance and desirability of nationalism in the 21st century (note - not Scottish nationalism, just nationalism, as an ideology). Needless to say, the lack of response speaks volumes about what really underpins a lot of people's supposedly 'progressive' nationalist stances.
"I don't like nationalism" is an easy complaint. Nor do I in most circumstances. But here we have one part of the UK who wants to do things in accordance with how I want my country to be run, but we can't because the bigger neighbour has a completely different view on how to run the country. So I need nationalism to get me out from under Westminster control. And before you say, "put Labour in instead", it seems that Labour under Starmer is a whisker away from having the same Tory policies. I don't want the "we hate the English" nationalism, but I do want the "Scotland can do better" nationalism.

[Mibbes Aye]

The "Right to Buy" has been an absolute disaster for UK housing. It also meant there wasn't a safe place to rent who wouldn't chuck you out for a missed payment. Imo that was part of the plan to crush Unions as now pretty much every Union member had to consider their next mortgage or rent payment when considering strike action. Westminster Labour have certainly benefitted Scotland over the years but Blair and Brown at best undid some of the damage that was done during the previous Tory administration. England, who basically are Westminster, are moving further and further right and now the Labour party aren't a million miles from where Thatcher was. There isn't any light on the Westminster horizon and if anyone sees any it is a train coming to crush you rather than hope.

Disaster suggests it was potentially accidental. I agree that Right to Buy was far more deliberate in its execution than that, real ‘rolling back the state’ wrapped up in a shiny bribe. From that perspective it was far more strategic. Trying to cripple the unions was tactical.

I think it is a tad unfair to make a generalisation about England moving right, it is a more complex picture than that. It is also interesting, to bring the thread back closer to its title that a greater % of English voters chose Remain in 2016 than Scottish voters who voted Yes in 2014.

[Smartie]

The problem I think most of us have with England is that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum there and the direction of travel isn't good.

Personally I feel that there is a large silent majority there who we probably still have a fair bit of common with but they've lost control and I have totally lost faith in them to ever really regain it.

No small country (well, no country) can exist in isolation and Scotland has to choose who it forms relationships with, the benefits it derives from those relationships and what it is prepared to give up to have those relationships.


This is an argument where folk like to paint themselves as being on the virtuous side with the others "the baddies" - either we're the magnanimous relations builders with our besties next door who are against narrow minded nationalism or pro-European internationalists against right wing English bampottery but as ever, it's a wee bit more nuanced than that.

[wookie70]

Disaster suggests it was potentially accidental. I agree that Right to Buy was far more deliberate in its execution than that, real ‘rolling back the state’ wrapped up in a shiny bribe. From that perspective it was far more strategic. Trying to cripple the unions was tactical.

I think it is a tad unfair to make a generalisation about England moving right, it is a more complex picture than that. It is also interesting, to bring the thread back closer to its title that a greater % of English voters chose Remain in 2016 than Scottish voters who voted Yes in 2014.

And if the polls are to be believed a greater number of votes would now choose Yes in Scotland than would choose leave in England. Brexit has changed everything. I would not want a second referendum in Scotland at this time but Brexit changed that. It changed the integrity of the initial vote, increased the feeling of the democratic deficit and completely rewrote any fiscal arguments for and against independence.

Right to buy was all about tying Union members up in mortgages and opening up a nice shiny rental market for the rich with the social and cheaper portion largely taken out the market. It had zero to do with benefitting Council Home letters but the Tories knew a house owner is more likely to vote for them that a Council Tenant so that worked too.

I think England is demonstrably moving to teh right. You only have to look at the Labour Party to see that. I think Scotland is more firmly in favour of social fairness and even many Tories in Scotland would probably mistakenly think they vote blue because wealth will trickle down and a better economy will benefit all. My brother has similar politics to me. We are both old Labour and he lives just outside Leeds and his partner and mother to his kids is black. Racism and xenophobia are far bigger problems in England as is the way voters see the Tories as the best route for a successful economy. England is very different to Scotland though and is much more effected by immigration. However, Scots know that and still want more immigrants to join us her. I think that shows a big difference in the way we think. To be fair too most voters in England do want a fairer society. They however are outvoted in the FPTP system which means a centre left electorate usually finds itself governed by a right wing and in the case of recent Tories nearly Far Right wing government. I can't see FPTP changing in teh UK and that is another reason to get out.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not the poster you are talking too but those points ring a bell with me. I'm a trade unionist so believe in collective bargaining and I dare say Internationalism too. I do have priorities in my principles though and a fairer society is number one for me. I think that is best achieved with a worldwide outlook but my pragmatism is just ahead of my idealism. I find it quite easy to square wanting to be in the EU but not wanting to be in a UK Union as I feel the UK version is only going one way and that is to the right if not the far right. My vote has no way of changing that so I am being dragged to the right without a way of defending myself. If I use Unions as an example then my Union PCS is currently in dispute. The Scottish part of that dispute is hamstrung already as it was organised on a Westminster timeline. My vote cannot change that as the Westminster controlled members will never take cognisance of Scotland. Another Union example would be when my Union voted to join Unite. That would mean our votes were too small in number to change anything and the other parts of that Union had very different Industrial issues and employers. We chose not to join with them despite an obvious advantage in terms of finance.

The EU is the same for me. Most of what it does is fine and there have been some excellent changes brought about like freedom of movement and working time directive. Yes they don't get everything right and my vote also won't be big enough to change an outcome. However there are vetos and the direction of travel is much better than Westminster.

It is a debate I have with myself as I do not agree with teh EU on many things and they are far too interested in Capitalism for my politics but I would just see the positives outweighing thye negatives. It is fairly close though. In terms of teh UK it is the opposite. The negatives far outweigh the positives and the good the Union has produced like the NHS is being systematically destroyed by the votes of the English who think they are voting to save it. Those votes are also easily bought with a bit of xenophobia if the lies about the NHS are eventually seen through. The UK is a New Tory Nation and that isn't the case for Scotland. The EU may be going that way too but at least there is hope it won't

That was a good read, thanks for taking the time.

It's funny how perceptions change over the years. A lot of people on the left, especially the older and very older, completely rejected EEC/EU membership and although I understand their rationale why it seems ridiculously out-of-date in 2022. The world left their arguments behind, regardless of whether they were right or wrong, or as is usually the case, somewhere in-between!

[Mibbes Aye]

The "Right to Buy" has been an absolute disaster for UK housing. It also meant there wasn't a safe place to rent who wouldn't chuck you out for a missed payment. Imo that was part of the plan to crush Unions as now pretty much every Union member had to consider their next mortgage or rent payment when considering strike action. Westminster Labour have certainly benefitted Scotland over the years but Blair and Brown at best undid some of the damage that was done during the previous Tory administration. England, who basically are Westminster, are moving further and further right and now the Labour party aren't a million miles from where Thatcher was. There isn't any light on the Westminster horizon and if anyone sees any it is a train coming to crush you rather than hope.

Oh I agree with you about the emasculation of the unions, no doubt. I think I see them more as being treated as one of the barriers the neo-libs sought to remove on their puruit of the bigger prize for them - recasting society in a way that burned mutualism and the precious ties and links that made for interdependency and community. Bascially one great big sacrifice at the alter of individualism. Selfishness not selflessness.

Having said all that I have occasionally wondered how peak union, 1970s-style, would have continued in the decades since had the Tories not had solid woring PArliamentary majorities for so many years. The world was changing around Britain in the 1980s and the union movement would have had to have been nimble-footed to adapt to stay healthy and relevant, while not losing sight of its core values.

[Mibbes Aye]

Welcome back to Mibbes Aye to the discussion. You've posted a lot and I have little time today, so here's a couple of comments. I simply cannot believe that here we are in 2022 and otherwise intelligent people can't see the difference between being in the UK under English rule is TOTALLY different from being an EU member. They may both be described as "unions" but they are worlds apart in how they affect our government. You must be able to see this, surely.

Of course. I agree with you. They are two different entities :greengrin

But that wasn't my point. My point was if someone says "Westminster doesn't speak for us, we demand self-determination" then surely that means they want freedom from laws created in continental Europe, where Scottish representation is far less than it is at Westminster. Otherwise it's not full self-determination, it is simply ABW, which for many smacks of ABE.


And yet out of the three you mention, it is Holyrood under Sturgeon's leadership who is plainly doing the most. And could do a lot more if we were independent. So if this is your key concern (and why not), then giving greater authority and power to Scotland under her leadership would be a good way to address it.

I don't think the Holyrood system offers good government in theory and certainly not in practice. I don't particularly think Westminster does either. I have however posted in the past about good legislation that has come out of Holyrood and I've posted about good legislation that has come out of Westminster. The two can co-exist!

But I won't pretend that the SNP's track record on devolved policies has been anything other than pretty poor. We deserve better and what really depresses me is when people respond with "Oh but, our performance measures are better than England" as if the fact that performance is **** there and here and marginally less **** in some regards here, is something to celebrate. FFS, where's the aspiration?!



I don't like nationalism" is an easy complaint.

Trust me, not on here it's not :greengrin


Nor do I in most circumstances. But here we have one part of the UK who wants to do things in accordance with how I want my country to be run, but we can't because the bigger neighbour has a completely different view on how to run the country. So I need nationalism to get me out from under Westminster control. And before you say, "put Labour in instead", it seems that Labour under Starmer is a whisker away from having the same Tory policies. I don't want the "we hate the English" nationalism, but I do want the "Scotland can do better" nationalism.

This isn't really directed at you, I've heard enough of it elsewhere from other independence supporters. When Starmer wasn't saying much about policy, he wss accused of not having policy. That betrayed a certain naivety on the part of his critics. There is no point in expending energy on promoting policy at this point in the electoral cycle and certainly no point in distracting the public from seeing the Tory party in all its magnificent true form - the corruption, the misogyny, the racism, the entitlement, greed, the selfishness and in all that the utter self-obsession that has them more interested in their petty but acrimonious internal squabbles than actually giving a **** about people in general, and most especially the vulnerable, the marginalised and the dispossessed.

Of course now that we have seen all that and Labour has started posting ridiculously high leads in the polls, it has spooked Nat strategists. They feel they need the Tories in power (which I genuinely think is an error - my analysis is that the independence-seeers would have more joy during say, the middle of a second-term Labour government, all things being equal). But anyway, they are spooked by the polls so they roll out the 'just like the Tories' card.

I must have missed the Tory annnouncements about a nationalised energy utility prompting green growth (that's right peoples, none of this gambling on oil prices, where the only guaranteed outcome is another nail in the planet's coffin) and I must have missed the Tories pledging to scrap non-dom tax status. As we get nearer to an election then obviously it becomes easier to make promises that are within your control to eep. I fully expect more, would be very disappointed if there weren't.

[Ozyhibby]

Of course. I agree with you. They are two different entities :greengrin

But that wasn't my point. My point was if someone says "Westminster doesn't speak for us, we demand self-determination" then surely that means they want freedom from laws created in continental Europe, where Scottish representation is far less than it is at Westminster. Otherwise it's not full self-determination, it is simply ABW, which for many smacks of ABE.



I don't think the Holyrood system offers good government in theory and certainly not in practice. I don't particularly think Westminster does either. I have however posted in the past about good legislation that has come out of Holyrood and I've posted about good legislation that has come out of Westminster. The two can co-exist!

But I won't pretend that the SNP's track record on devolved policies has been anything other than pretty poor. We deserve better and what really depresses me is when people respond with "Oh but, our performance measures are better than England" as if the fact that performance is **** there and here and marginally less **** in some regards here, is something to celebrate. FFS, where's the aspiration?!




Trust me, not on here it's not :greengrin



This isn't really directed at you, I've heard enough of it elsewhere from other independence supporters. When Starmer wasn't saying much about policy, he wss accused of not having policy. That betrayed a certain naivety on the part of his critics. There is no point in expending energy on promoting policy at this point in the electoral cycle and certainly no point in distracting the public from seeing the Tory party in all its magnificent true form - the corruption, the misogyny, the racism, the entitlement, greed, the selfishness and in all that the utter self-obsession that has them more interested in their petty but acrimonious internal squabbles than actually giving a **** about people in general, and most especially the vulnerable, the marginalised and the dispossessed.

Of course now that we have seen all that and Labour has started posting ridiculously high leads in the polls, it has spooked Nat strategists. They feel they need the Tories in power (which I genuinely think is an error - my analysis is that the independence-seeers would have more joy during say, the middle of a second-term Labour government, all things being equal). But anyway, they are spooked by the polls so they roll out the 'just like the Tories' card.

I must have missed the Tory annnouncements about a nationalised energy utility prompting green growth (that's right peoples, none of this gambling on oil prices, where the only guaranteed outcome is another nail in the planet's coffin) and I must have missed the Tories pledging to scrap non-dom tax status. As we get nearer to an election then obviously it becomes easier to make promises that are within your control to eep. I fully expect more, would be very disappointed if there weren't.

From what I’ve seen on here, isn’t it mostly Labour folk who are complaining about Keir Starmer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

That's shabby. Anyway I've explained enough times on here why I don't think the current system of government is the best way of doing things so I don't see how you can make a link between me and unionists. I'm not even sure what it is they were meant to have won?

I've also explained enough times on here why I find nationalism pretty distasteful, unsophisticated and all about grievance and division. You might not like that but it's my view and I've lost count of the number of times I've asked someone, anyone, to make a rational case for the relevance and desirability of nationalism in the 21st century (note - not Scottish nationalism, just nationalism, as an ideology). Needless to say, the lack of response speaks volumes about what really underpins a lot of people's supposedly 'progressive' nationalist stances.

I made two references to you - one based on my assumption that you were a union man (a trades union man) and so 'collective bargaining' was something you would identify with. Beatrice and Sydney Webb are probably the two names one identifies most with the Fabians, it wasn't me who brought the Fabians into discussion, but once someone did I thought it might be constructive to talk about what it actually means, rather than the yah-boo discourse that had preceded it.

The second comment was a valid criticism - you can't have it both ways. You support something intrinsically yet artificially divisive, so fundamentally you choose to reject democratic socialism. I don't see how anyone can call themself a true nationalist and claim to be a true socialist. People didn't believe it in the 1770s and 1780s, damn straight they don't believe it now.


Hey, maybe I was a bit harsh.

It started with me responding to a poster regarding the Scottish Fabians being set up to fight against Independence for Scotland.

I mentioned that they were Impartial with a smiley emoji. They're affiliated to the Labour party. Jackie Baillie was speaking to a few of them the other week. Such a classy speaker.

The rest of your posts seem to be trying to give me a lesson in the Fabians. I don't need it thanks. Having been in a Union since I was 21 I've heard all the history lessons on the left in politics, some good, some bad. Always trying to lift people out of poverty, and that's the bit that grinds with the set up in 2012 of the Scottish Fabians. What were they really trying to do? I look at them now, and they're not really getting a message across.

Your last point on me somehow attaching myself to Nationalism. I haven't. Others on here have put people in boxes for their own means. Happens all the time. I do it too.

My politics is to have an Independent Scotland, working closely with partner nations around the world. I then become a Nationalist.

Others in the political spectrum class themselves as Internationalist, but they have borders at Dover, but because they call themselves socialists it's somehow ok.

To class me as artificially divisive whilst the party that the Scottish Fabians are affiliated to are denying mandates and colluding with Tories all over Scotland is a new low IMO.

[He's here!]

That's shabby. Anyway I've explained enough times on here why I don't think the current system of government is the best way of doing things so I don't see how you can make a link between me and unionists. I'm not even sure what it is they were meant to have won?

I've also explained enough times on here why I find nationalism pretty distasteful, unsophisticated and all about grievance and division. You might not like that but it's my view and I've lost count of the number of times I've asked someone, anyone, to make a rational case for the relevance and desirability of nationalism in the 21st century (note - not Scottish nationalism, just nationalism, as an ideology). Needless to say, the lack of response speaks volumes about what really underpins a lot of people's supposedly 'progressive' nationalist stances.

I made two references to you - one based on my assumption that you were a union man (a trades union man) and so 'collective bargaining' was something you would identify with. Beatrice and Sydney Webb are probably the two names one identifies most with the Fabians, it wasn't me who brought the Fabians into discussion, but once someone did I thought it might be constructive to talk about what it actually means, rather than the yah-boo discourse that had preceded it.

The second comment was a valid criticism - you can't have it both ways. You support something intrinsically yet artificially divisive, so fundamentally you choose to reject democratic socialism. I don't see how anyone can call themself a true nationalist and claim to be a true socialist. People didn't believe it in the 1770s and 1780s, damn straight they don't believe it now.

I'm unclear about that too.

[Mibbes Aye]

From what I’ve seen on here, isn’t it mostly Labour folk who are complaining about Keir Starmer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On here? You know it isn't.

Out there? Once you get shot of the entryists (and they are disappearing), not really.

That just leaves the small kernel of regressives. 'Labour folk' who wish Tony Blair was still leader so they could hate Labour even more.

(This post is for illustrative purposes only. Actual numbers may vary from those advertised) :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

On here? You know it isn't.

Out there? Once you get shot of the entryists (and they are disappearing), not really.

That just leaves the small kernel of regressives. 'Labour folk' who wish Tony Blair was still leader so they could hate Labour even more.

(This post is for illustrative purposes only. Actual numbers may vary from those advertised) :greengrin

If it wasn’t for Iraq I’d still be wishing he was there.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

That's shabby. Anyway I've explained enough times on here why I don't think the current system of government is the best way of doing things so I don't see how you can make a link between me and unionists. I'm not even sure what it is they were meant to have won?

I've also explained enough times on here why I find nationalism pretty distasteful, unsophisticated and all about grievance and division. You might not like that but it's my view and I've lost count of the number of times I've asked someone, anyone, to make a rational case for the relevance and desirability of nationalism in the 21st century (note - not Scottish nationalism, just nationalism, as an ideology). Needless to say, the lack of response speaks volumes about what really underpins a lot of people's supposedly 'progressive' nationalist stances.

I made two references to you - one based on my assumption that you were a union man (a trades union man) and so 'collective bargaining' was something you would identify with. Beatrice and Sydney Webb are probably the two names one identifies most with the Fabians, it wasn't me who brought the Fabians into discussion, but once someone did I thought it might be constructive to talk about what it actually means, rather than the yah-boo discourse that had preceded it.

The second comment was a valid criticism - you can't have it both ways. You support something intrinsically yet artificially divisive, so fundamentally you choose to reject democratic socialism. I don't see how anyone can call themself a true nationalist and claim to be a true socialist. People didn't believe it in the 1770s and 1780s, damn straight they don't believe it now.

I find your fairly constant insinuation, that those of us on here that are ardent independence supporters have an inherent hate of English people, distasteful and unsophisticated.

[greenlex]

I find your fairly constant insinuation, that those of us on here that are ardent independence supporters have an inherent hate of English people, distasteful and unsophisticated.

Yup. Being pro Scottish is obviously a nationalistic point of view. Doesn’t mean you have to be anti every one else. It’s bordering on lazy stereotypical assumption. It’s fairly easy to want the best for your country and still have a semblance of empathy with every other human being and therefore their country too. Being shackled to a class ridden self serving establishment with no route out is something every citizen of every country should be against. If that’s now classed as nationalism and bad then give it to me every time. Are Ukrainians wrong to be nationalists?

[Skol]

I find your fairly constant insinuation, that those of us on here that are ardent independence supporters have an inherent hate of English people, distasteful and unsophisticated.

There was a post earlier on this page, not by you, that spoke of Scotland being under englands rule.

[grunt]

I find your fairly constant insinuation, that those of us on here that are ardent independence supporters have an inherent hate of English people, distasteful and unsophisticated.


There was a post earlier on this page, not by you, that spoke of Scotland being under englands rule.Both of these things can be true at the same time.