Scottish Independence

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63785301

Is Cameron right to call this allocation of taxpayer cash into question?

[grunt]

There was a post earlier on this page, not by you, that spoke of Scotland being under englands rule.:nanawave:That would be me.


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. In that same post I also said this, which I stand by. Am I wrong? And isn't this a description of being "under England's rule"?


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.

[Smartie]

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

The point you make here isn't really all that relevant to the post you quote - there's a long way from "hating English people" to "suggesting that Scotland is under England's rule".

And is it all that offensive or inaccurate to suggest that "Scotland is under England's rule" acknowledging for a second that this quote is a vague statement? We've just established that it's not really within our control whether we exist as an independent nation or not, that would suggest an element of being under the rule of another nation. We do not control fiscal policy, immigration policy or foreign policy, those powers being reserved at Westminster albeit we get a budget to spend on a decent set of devolved powers. So if we have limited say in tax matters, who comes to the country or what we get up to overseas then does that not suggest an element of "being under England's rule"?

Much of this is done with the implied consent of a majority of us, but it is still rule of sorts from somewhere else.

Language such as "England's rule" is a bit inflammatory and probably designed to get backs up but it's not entirely inaccurate.

I'd have thought that this part is almost a statement of fact rather than opinion.

Whether or not it should be case is the matter of opinion and the bit most worthy of debate.

But not one helped by suggesting that anyone who believes that it should not be the case necessarily hates people from the country who effectively rule them?

[grunt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63785301

Is Cameron right to call this allocation of taxpayer cash into question?
He can question it, he's an MSP. But he can't change it unless he has a majority in Holyrood. Does he have a majority in Holyrood?

That's democracy for you.

[Skol]

Both of these things can be true at the same time.

Scotland is not subject to English rule and to claim this is just wrong. Language like this in my opinion is not helpful, but sadly that’s what we get.

[ronaldo7]

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

Context is everything.

Are you saying the poster hates English people, or is it just the insinuation that matters to you?

Edit, I see the poster has explained quite clearly what he meant.

[Skol]

Context is everything.

Are you saying the poster hates English people, or is it just the insinuation that matters to you?

Edit, I see the poster has explained quite clearly what he meant.

I don’t, or didn’t, know what the poster meant. Either way though, that kind of statement is not helpful

[grunt]

Scotland is not subject to English rule and to claim this is just wrong. Language like this in my opinion is not helpful, but sadly that’s what we get.


I don’t, or didn’t, know what the poster meant. Either way though, that kind of statement is not helpfulEngland has 533 MPs in the House of Commons. Scotland has 59. What England wants to do, it does. Scotland is (effectively) under England's rule.

Helpful or not, it's true.

[grunt]

Can we in Scotland do the following:


go to war - or refuse to go to war if the UK takes us into war?
enter into international agreements?
make our own trade agreements?
make decisions on energy spending?
make decisions on defence spending?
hold an independence referendum when we want to?

No?

Can English MPs do this on our behalf?

Yes they can.

Ergo, we are effectively ruled by England.

[grunt]

"So we have loser's consent".

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1597309356663394304?s=20&t=gJ1terg5r3u_UYuJfgX1Yg

[Skol]

Can we in Scotland do the following:


go to war - or refuse to go to war if the UK takes us into war?
enter into international agreements?
make our own trade agreements?
make decisions on energy spending?
make decisions on defence spending?
hold an independence referendum when we want to?

No?

Can English MPs do this on our behalf?

Yes they can.

Ergo, we are effectively ruled by England.

Ok, that’s it then.

[James310]

Can we in Scotland do the following:


go to war - or refuse to go to war if the UK takes us into war?
enter into international agreements?
make our own trade agreements?
make decisions on energy spending?
make decisions on defence spending?
hold an independence referendum when we want to?

No?

Can English MPs do this on our behalf?

Yes they can.

Ergo, we are effectively ruled by England.

England has a population of 56M so wouldn't it be undemocratic to suggest they should have same number of MPs as Scotland with 5.5M people. Should Scotland have the same number of MPs as England or England the same as Scotland? How would 1 or 2 MPs manage with a constituency the size of London? It's based on population share, how else would you decide how many MPs there are?

[grunt]

Ok, that’s it then.


England has a population of 56M so wouldn't it be undemocratic to suggest they should have same number of MPs as Scotland with 5.5M people. Should Scotland have the same number of MPs as England or England the same as Scotland? How would 1 or 2 MPs manage with a constituency the size of London? It's based on population share, how else would you decide how many MPs there are?
So, we're agreed? Scotland gets the decisions that England makes.

[ronaldo7]

"So we have loser's consent".

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1597309356663394304?s=20&t=gJ1terg5r3u_UYuJfgX1Yg

Lord Offord, who failed to get elected in the last election, then given his ermine to rule over the elected representative from Scotland. Only after he'd filled the tory coffers though.

If it looks like a duck in ermine, it's a duck in ermine

[James310]

So, we're agreed? Scotland gets the decisions that England makes.

No, the UK Parliament does. We get 1 vote and 1 MP like everyone else. Sure that means there are less from Scotland, but it's based on population share as I said. The people of Scotland voted for that arrangement to remain in place in 2014, that's democracy for you. Until it changes we should respect their democratic wishes.

[Skol]

So, we're agreed? Scotland gets the decisions that England makes.

No. It means your mind is made up and there is nothing to be gained discussing it any further.

[Stairway 2 7]

So, we're agreed? Scotland gets the decisions that England makes.

Scotland voted to stay a union. We vote mps who get votes on decisions. If Labour win the next election, many of their decisions including wars ect, might not pass without Scottish mps voting it.

[grunt]

No. It means your mind is made up and there is nothing to be gained discussing it any further.

That's it? So we just close the thread?

[grunt]

Scotland voted to stay a union. We vote mps who get votes on decisions. If Labour win the next election, many of their decisions including wars ect, might not pass without Scottish mps voting it.

But now we've voted for a party who made it their mandate to have another vote.

But oh! We can't have another vote, because England says we can't.

Still, I guess that's democracy eh? According to you, the decision we made in 2014 lasts forever. **** that.

[Stairway 2 7]

But now we've voted for a party who made it their mandate to have another vote.

But oh! We can't have another vote, because England says we can't.

Still, I guess that's democracy eh? According to you, the decision we made in 2014 lasts forever. **** that.

If we voted in a referendum say next year and Scotland voted to stay. Should an snp majority in the following general election mean a third referendum and if so when.

I agree there needs to be a process to leave. But we aren't being forced into a union the majority wanted it

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63785301

Is Cameron right to call this allocation of taxpayer cash into question?

What’s the point? There isn’t going to be a referendum now so the money won’t be spent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

But now we've voted for a party who made it their mandate to have another vote.

But oh! We can't have another vote, because England says we can't.

Still, I guess that's democracy eh? According to you, the decision we made in 2014 lasts forever. **** that.

It was the Supreme Court that ruled on the law, not "England" saying anything. Unless I imagined the Scottish judge reading out the verdict of the Supreme Court ruling last week, which I don't think I did. (England this and England that isn't really convincing people it's nothing to do with England)

[Callum_62]

I wonder if the UK government has spent any tax monies of anything that promotes the benefit of the union

I can't remember but didn't they appoint someone to do that a few years back?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The problem in the UK is that one of the four nations dwarves the other three nations by population size. It means that whatever it votes for, it gets.
In America when they designed their constitution, they foresaw this problem and designed their senate so that small states would have the same representation as large populous states. Maybe Gordon Browns Lords replacement (never happen) could have 25% representation for each of the four nations? Spoiler alert, it won’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

It was the Supreme Court that ruled on the law, not "England" saying anything. Unless I imagined the Scottish judge reading out the verdict of the Supreme Court ruling last week, which I don't think I did. (England this and England that isn't really convincing people it's nothing to do with England)

Supreme Court only interpret the Scotland act which was written by the UK parliament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Supreme Court only interpret the Scotland act which was written by the UK parliament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes and the SNP voted for it at the time along with the other parties.

[James310]

The problem in the UK is that one of the four nations dwarves the other three nations by population size. It means that whatever it votes for, it gets.
In America when they designed their constitution, they foresaw this problem and designed their senate so that small states would have the same representation as large populous states. Maybe Gordon Browns Lords replacement (never happen) could have 25% representation for each of the four nations? Spoiler alert, it won’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that's not true all the time is it. If we have a hung Parliament then the SNP and "Scotland" could in theory hold the balance of power and you are in the situation of a population of 5.5M holding power over a population of 56M.

Or in 2014 about 5% of people in the UK had the power to basically end the UK for the other 95%.

It cuts all ways.

[He's here!]

Can we in Scotland do the following:


go to war - or refuse to go to war if the UK takes us into war?
enter into international agreements?
make our own trade agreements?
make decisions on energy spending?
make decisions on defence spending?
hold an independence referendum when we want to?

No?

Can English MPs do this on our behalf?

Yes they can.

Ergo, we are effectively ruled by England.

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can, however, vote on matters which relate exclusively to England. Pretty sure that's been crucial in the past. I certainly recall Blair having to rely on those votes on at least one occasion, from memory relating to NHS trusts.

[Ozyhibby]

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can, however, vote on matters which relate exclusively to England. Pretty sure that's been crucial in the past. I certainly recall Blair having to rely on those votes on at least one occasion, from memory relating to NHS trusts.

The SNP never has though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

But now we've voted for a party who made it their mandate to have another vote.

But oh! We can't have another vote, because England says we can't.

Still, I guess that's democracy eh? According to you, the decision we made in 2014 lasts forever. **** that.

A party who put in their manifesto a promise to do something they couldn’t control

It’s not England who have the decision. It’s the U.K.

The 2014 referendum could be re run if there was support. There isn’t enough of that

Here is a thought drop the anti English rhetoric and try to build 55% plus support

[James310]

Here is a thought drop the anti English rhetoric and try to build 55% plus support

Never going to happen as long as the nationalists keep talking to themselves. This article has many points you have raised in the past.

"All politicians are odd. It goes with the territory. Few humble folk ascend to the top of the greasy pole and even fewer manage to stay there.

But familiarity blunts a proper appreciation of just how strange they are. Nicola Sturgeon has been a part of Scottish public life for a quarter of a century. She has spent 15 years in government and eight as first minister. She has proven to be an election-winning phenomenon and yet, in certain respects, her time as first minister has been a considerable failure.

One explanation for this, I suggest, is the first minister’s blinkered and unimaginative world-view. She is a conviction politician with all the strengths and weaknesses that entails.

Sturgeon is a better person than her predecessor but Alex Salmond had political strengths that Sturgeon lacks. Chief of these was a sense of imagination and even, on occasion, empathy. Salmond could understand that people might disagree with him and accept that they were capable of doing so for honourable reasons.

More than that, in fact, Salmond enjoyed arguing with people who did not share his political preferences. The cut and thrust of debate was enjoyed for its own sake but it was also a means by which he might over time strengthen his own arguments while also discovering more about his opponents’ beliefs.

His successor operates in a different manner. Opposing views are axiomatically suspect: she has no interest in hearing them, let alone engaging with them. Once formed, her beliefs are unshakeable and incapable of amendment. She is right and her opponents wrong and since this is the case there is no need to waste time listening to what they might have to say.

This dogmatism is stubborn but it is also a sign of weakness, not strength. The first minister may make a show of listening but she only rarely hears. This is not limited to her deafness on the national question. On other issues too, opposing views are dismissed as “not valid”.

Last week offered a case in point. The UN special rapporteur on violence against women published a withering critique of Sturgeon’s gender recognition reforms. Asked about this in parliament, the first minister simply pretended the criticisms, emanating from an authority that Sturgeon would customarily be expected to respect, had not been issued. By such closing of eyes and ears are problems denied.
In those eight years that Sturgeon has held Scotland’s top job she has almost never bothered herself to address those voters — the majority of voters, it should be pointed out — who voted No in 2014. It is difficult to defeat an opponent you make no attempt to understand and this may help explain why, despite Brexit, despite Boris Johnson, despite everything else, Sturgeon has made very little progress.

It turns out that assuming people will eventually come to their senses is not a compelling strategy. The first minister’scontempt — not, I think, too strong a word — for No voters is her great weakness. Granted, it might be difficult to persuade unionists whose votes were cast because they felt British as well as Scottish, but a third of No voters in 2014 voted that way because they were unconvinced by the Yes campaign’s too-good-to-be-entirely-true prospectus for life after independence.

If I were an SNP voter I would consider the failure to address obvious and important concerns — on questions such as currency, the border, pensions, EU membership and much else besides — an act of startling political negligence. Time and again the pattern repeats itself: Sturgeon allows that there are “challenges” but these exist only as abstract concerns. When pressed on specifics, these challenges mysteriously melt away. There is nothing to be worried about and only folk determined to “talk Scotland down” would dare to raise such matters. This is risible.

And if I were a member of the wider nationalist movement I think I should wonder why Scotland has been six months away from a referendum every six months for at least six years. All these promises, all these fresh “campaigns”, all these tactical improvisations and yet, despite it all, the movement is no closer to achieving its goal than it was when Sturgeon took up residence in Bute House. What, to be blunt, has it all been for?

Sometimes the first minister drops her guard. During her press conference on Wednesday she suggested her opponents should be concerned by the ruling by Lord Reed of Allermuir that the Scottish parliament lacked the legal authority to hold an independence referendum. Unionist triumphalism would be misplaced or, as Sturgeon put it, “unionists of a more thoughtful position — and yes, I do believe they exist — will know that to be misguided”. That “yes, I do believe they exist” is what in poker circles you call a “tell”. Because, really, it suggested quite the opposite.

How many No-voting friends does Sturgeon have? Precious few, I suspect. It seems worth noting that the most successful Labour leaders — Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Blair — all had close family who voted Conservative. That must have helped them realise that their opponents were neither alien nor intrinsically wicked. Sturgeon, by contrast, shows no sign of realising this. And that imaginative deficit is a significant handicap.

Then again, if she doesn’t understand her opponents, she doesn’t trust her own party either. This is her late imperial phase and her inner circle consists of, at most, six people. Cabinet secretaries are held in low regard and few are trusted to do their jobs without significant first ministerial interference. Some quietly chafe against this; others wearily accept it is the way of the world and get on with the job the best they can. No wonder the first minister is simultaneously a controlling and isolated figure.

If you believe your opponents are guilty of Wrongthink and if you believe, as many nationalists do, that unionists have been hoodwinked into voting against their own best interests, you will struggle to understand them. If you cannot understand them you are unlikely to persuade them. At some level, Sturgeon really does believe her people are better Scots than their opponents. That dogmatic arrogance is her downfall. It helps explain why she is such a polarising figure and why, in the end, she is just a shouter, not a persuader."

[Hibrandenburg]

Great opinion piece almost completely empty of any facts and full of ifs, I suspects and reads like amateur psychology hour.

[degenerated]

I wonder if the UK government has spent any tax monies of anything that promotes the benefit of the union

I can't remember but didn't they appoint someone to do that a few years back?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using TapatalkDidn't they spend money allocated for Covid on a poll on independence and then refused to publish the results, despite twice being ordered to by then courts.

[grunt]

It was the Supreme Court that ruled on the law, not "England" saying anything. Unless I imagined the Scottish judge reading out the verdict of the Supreme Court ruling last week, which I don't think I did. (England this and England that isn't really convincing people it's nothing to do with England)
"...unless I imagined ..." Very sarky reply. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that the SC only got involved because the English parliament wouldn't grant a s30 referendum. So yes, I'll stick with England denying us a referendum.

[grunt]

A party who put in their manifesto a promise to do something they couldn’t controlYou don't seem to appreciate that my point is this is something we should be able to control. Did the UK have to ask the EU for the right to run the Brexit referendum?


It’s not England who have the decision. It’s the U.K.Semantics. For the sake of this argument, there is no difference. This is my whole point.


The 2014 referendum could be re run if there was support. There isn’t enough of thatHow? Where's the evidence that the "UK" parliament would allow a s30 referendum if there was support? And how do we show that support without a referendum? Are you suggesting that UK Govt policy should be driven by opinion polls?


Here is a thought drop the anti English rhetoric and try to build 55% plus supportThis isn't anti English rhetoric. I love the English. I'm trying to explain that Scotland has no effective control over its own future, and that control is in the hands of the English (or UK if you prefer) parliament. We are consequently ruled by England.

[James310]

"...unless I imagined ..." Very sarky reply. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that the SC only got involved because the English parliament wouldn't grant a s30 referendum. So yes, I'll stick with England denying us a referendum.

No such thing as an English Parliament. It might exist in your head but the facts which do matter say different. If it was the English Parliament why would the SNP keep sending MPs to it?

And the SC got involved because Nicola Sturgeon asked them to.

[grunt]

For all these comments about "make your case better", I've never heard anyone make the case for the union, other than "I feel British".

[Santa Cruz]

For all these comments about "make your case better", I've never heard anyone make the case for the union, other than "I feel British".

Out of interest, why would anyone need to make a case for something they're not asking to change?

[grunt]

No such thing as an English Parliament. It might exist in your head but the facts which do matter say different. If it was the English Parliament why would the SNP keep sending MPs to it?

And the SC got involved because Nicola Sturgeon asked them to.A reply which ignores my central point. If you don't like my calling it the English parliament, perhaps I should describe it as the English-dominated UK parliament. Is that better? 533 English votes to 59 Scottish votes.

And why did Nicola ask the SC to rule? All together now, "because the English-dominated UK parliament would not grant a s30".

#RuledByEngland

[Zambernardi1875]

No such thing as an English Parliament. It might exist in your head but the facts which do matter say different. If it was the English Parliament why would the SNP keep sending MPs to it?

And the SC got involved because Nicola Sturgeon asked them to.

Which is one of the major issues with the “union” every other country has a separate parliament that get given pocket money and scrutinised relentlessly but England own the purse and the bank cards.

[grunt]

Out of interest, why would anyone need to make a case for something they're not asking to change?In order to counter the arguments of those calling for change? In order to take part in the debate? In order to persuade the Yes camp that there is something of value by staying in the UK? In order to improve on the argument which is basically, "no you can't have independence because we say so".

[Santa Cruz]

Which is one of the major issues with the “union” every other country has a separate parliament that get given pocket money and scrutinised relentlessly but England own the purse and the bank cards.

Public spending in Scotland gets scrutinised by Audit Scotland.

[degenerated]

Out of interest, why would anyone need to make a case for something they're not asking to change?If you want half the population to stop wanting Scotland being a normal country and voting for a party who want to have a referendum then perhaps you should give it a try.

[James310]

A reply which ignores my central point. If you don't like my calling it the English parliament, perhaps I should describe it as the English-dominated UK parliament. Is that better? 533 English votes to 59 Scottish votes.

And why did Nicola ask the SC to rule? All together now, "because the English-dominated UK parliament would not grant a s30".

#RuledByEngland

If you think this England obsession is going to win over people you need to convince then crack on, I can't imagine many will look at that argument and think it's a winning one. It's not really worked the last 8 years.

[Santa Cruz]

If you want half the population to stop wanting Scotland being a normal country and voting for a party who want to have a referendum then perhaps you should give it a try.

It's not half the population who vote SNP. It's half the electorate who turn out on the day. Think over 30% of the electorate have given up caring tbh.

[Zambernardi1875]

Public spending in Scotland gets scrutinised by Audit Scotland.

Who scrutinises English spending

[Moulin Yarns]

It was the Supreme Court that ruled on the law, not "England" saying anything. Unless I imagined the Scottish judge reading out the verdict of the Supreme Court ruling last week, which I don't think I did. (England this and England that isn't really convincing people it's nothing to do with England)

That's all true, but how do you argue against the point of the prime minister refusing to agree to a referendum in the first place?

[archie]

The SNP never has though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not quite https://constitution-unit.com/2016/03/10/sunday-trading-and-the-limits-of-evel/

[archie]

Who scrutinises English spending

https://www.nao.org.uk/

[James310]

That's all true, but how do you argue against the point of the prime minister refusing to agree to a referendum in the first place?

Why would I argue against that?

[Zambernardi1875]

https://www.nao.org.uk/

Have you ever dug deep and taken England to task and scrutinised there continual overspending ?

[archie]

The problem in the UK is that one of the four nations dwarves the other three nations by population size. It means that whatever it votes for, it gets.
In America when they designed their constitution, they foresaw this problem and designed their senate so that small states would have the same representation as large populous states. Maybe Gordon Browns Lords replacement (never happen) could have 25% representation for each of the four nations? Spoiler alert, it won’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Firstly, the each of the four nations language is loaded. Britain is a unitary state with levels of devolved power within it. Also, is it democratic that, in the US Senate, Calfifornia has the same number of senators as Wyoming, with over 70 times the population?

[Santa Cruz]

Who scrutinises English spending

I don't know, was just pointing out we here in Scotland have an independent body that scrutinises how our Parliament spend public money and public services performance. Thought your post was a bit misleading that's all.

[Moulin Yarns]

Why would I argue against that?

Because that's why we are where we are in the debate on independence.

The supreme Court was involved because of the refusal by successive prime ministers to engage with the Scottish government on the subject.

Even last week the prime minister refused to answer the questions.

[archie]

Have you ever dug deep and taken England to task and scrutinised there continual overspending ?What does that even mean? I don't have any authority to take any government to task beyond the ballot box.I do think governments should be accountable for overspending and bad decisions. Do you?

[James310]

Because that's why we are where we are in the debate on independence.

The supreme Court was involved because of the refusal by successive prime ministers to engage with the Scottish government on the subject.

Even last week the prime minister refused to answer the questions.

The PMs have engaged, they just don't give the answer you want or like. The SC was involved as Nicola Sturgeon wanted guidance on the legal position, she has that now.

[archie]

Because that's why we are where we are in the debate on independence.
Even last week the prime minister refused to answer the questions. The Supreme Court was involved because the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate would not sign off a referendum bill, because she thought it was out of scope. As the Scottish Government then had nowhere to go they took it to the Supreme Court.

[Zambernardi1875]

What does that even mean? I don't have any authority to take any government to task beyond the ballot box.I do think governments should be accountable for overspending and bad decisions. Do you?

Unionists love criticising Scottish parliaments spending, not so much England’s or “uk”. Would solve a lot of resentment if England had its own separate parliament.

[archie]

Unionists love criticising Scottish parliaments spending, not so much England’s or “uk”. Would solve a lot of resentment if England had its own separate parliament.I think all people in Scotland should feel able to critique the performance of the Scottish Government. The fact that you feel that it's only 'unionists' who do it just shows the corrosive impact of the constitutional question on day to day politics.

[Santa Cruz]

Unionists love criticising Scottish parliaments spending, not so much England’s or “uk”. Would solve a lot of resentment if England had its own separate parliament.

Disagree. Scottish citizens rightfully want to know how their money is spent and how the public services they rely on in order to live their lives perform. Have you even looked at the SP website. It's the job of the opposition to hold any sitting Gov to account on that. Can you not remember when the SNP was in opposition, no? Did they never criticise?

[Zambernardi1875]

I think all people in Scotland should feel able to critique the performance of the Scottish Government. The fact that you feel that it's only 'unionists' who do it just shows the corrosive impact of the constitutional question on day to day politics.

Clearly haven’t read my posts. I’m all for criticism of the Scottish gov I’m just perplexed at the lack of criticism for englands overspending. Do you think England should have a separate gov that gets money per year to spend and not go overdrawn?

[Zambernardi1875]

Disagree. Scottish citizens rightfully want to know how their money is spent and how the public services they rely on in order to live their lives perform. Have you even looked at the SP website. It's the job of the opposition to hold any sitting Gov to account on that. Can you not remember when the SNP was in opposition, no? Did they never criticise?

Should England have a separate government with pocket money and not able to overspend that we can take to task?

[Ozyhibby]

In order to counter the arguments of those calling for change? In order to take part in the debate? In order to persuade the Yes camp that there is something of value by staying in the UK? In order to improve on the argument which is basically, "no you can't have independence because we say so".

The case for the union is that it is now enforced by law. That’s it. No other case is made. You are not allowed to leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Clearly haven’t read my posts. I’m all for criticism of the Scottish gov I’m just perplexed at the lack of criticism for englands overspending. Do you think England should have a separate gov that gets money per year to spend and not go overdrawn?
There's a number of things to unpack there. The almost hysterical reaction that any criticism of the Scottish Government gets suggests that this may not be universal among independence supports. The endless whataboutery and dismissal of serious issues is, in my view, largely due to the endless campaigning mode. I'm less sighted on England's overspending ( did you mean England or UK)? But the idea that there isn't criticism of it is fanciful. And, of course, independence supporters weaponise it. It is 100% correct to criticise UKG on issues like test and trace. I'm sure you will also agree that misrepresentation of the issue for political reasons isn't right either.

[Santa Cruz]

Should England have a separate government with pocket money and not able to overspend that we can take to task?

I don't understand why your referring to our Budget as pocket money. That's our share - we pay into a system which we voted to remain part of. We get more money per head than English citizens who make up the bulk of the population. I'm not looking to change that system. I don't doubt English residents would like more regional powers and control over local spending though.

[archie]

The case for the union is that it is now enforced by law. That’s it. No other case is made. You are not allowed to leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What do you mean is now enforced by law? Do you mean that there are laws that govern the constitutional arrangements of the country? Nothing has changed with the Supreme Court decision. It's a political question, not a legal one.

[archie]

I don't understand why your referring to our Budget as pocket money. That's our share - we pay into a system which we voted to remain part of. We get more money per head than English citizens who make up the bulk of the population. I'm not looking to change that system. I don't doubt English residents would like more regional powers and control over local spending though. Actually the North Eastof England voted against having a regional assembly.

[Zambernardi1875]

I don't understand why your referring to our Budget as pocket money. That's our share - we pay into a system which we voted to remain part of. We get more money per head than English citizens who make up the bulk of the population. I'm not looking to change that system. I don't doubt English residents would like more regional powers and control over local spending though.

Wasting my time with you lot 😂

[grunt]

Firstly, the each of the four nations language is loaded. Britain is a unitary state with levels of devolved power within it. Britain?

[James310]

The case for the union is that it is now enforced by law. That’s it. No other case is made. You are not allowed to leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Believe that if you like as it makes things easier for you, there are plenty of reasons for the Union. One very simple one, we remain in the UK single market with free movement of people and goods. Why would we want borders and trade barriers with our biggest trading partner, we saw what happens when you do that with Brexit. That's nothing about being British, it's basic economic sense.

Nothing has changed since the SC ruling, no laws have changed. It's the same now as it was last week and last year, that's the facts.

[Santa Cruz]

Actually the North Eastof England voted against having a regional assembly.

I stand corrected. Was it another poor turnout out of interest? See, I suspect the most disadvantaged who are the most affected by poorly funded public services don't vote. Politics isn't a priority for them, their main focus is how to survive financially week to week.

[Ozyhibby]

What do you mean is now enforced by law? Do you mean that there are laws that govern the constitutional arrangements of the country? Nothing has changed with the Supreme Court decision. It's a political question, not a legal one.

A political question that the law prevents from being asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

If you think this England obsession is going to win over people you need to convince then crack on, I can't imagine many will look at that argument and think it's a winning one. It's not really worked the last 8 years.It is not an "England obsession". I was asked why I suggested that Scotland was under England's rule, and my posts since have been trying to explain that. So if you think my responding to your posts is an "England obsession" then I can't help that.

I think I said it best here:


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.

[James310]

A political question that the law prevents from being asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your argument would make sense if we never had a referendum in 2014, but we did. So in that instance the question was asked and the law allowed it. The law allows it to be asked again as well.

[Ozyhibby]

Your argument would make sense if we never had a referendum in 2014, but we did. So in that instance the question was asked and the law allowed it. The law allows it to be asked again as well.

Only if a majority of mp’s from England vote for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Believe that if you like as it makes things easier for you, there are plenty of reasons for the Union. One very simple one, we remain in the UK single market with free movement of people and goods. Why would we want borders and trade barriers with our biggest trading partner, we saw what happens when you do that with Brexit. That's nothing about being British, it's basic economic sense.

It's funny to see you using these words, like "single market" and "free movement of people and goods". This is what we want to have with Europe, and it was stolen from us by the Little Englander xenophobic bigoted vote. I'd rather take my chances as an independent country in an outward looking EU than staying with the UKIP/BNP Tory Government.

[James310]

Only if a majority of mp’s from England vote for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you have changed your mind in the space of 2 minutes, you said the law doesn't allow it to be asked now you are saying the law does allow it.

[grunt]

Your argument would make sense if we never had a referendum in 2014, but we did. So in that instance the question was asked and the law allowed it. The law allows it to be asked again as well.
When? Which law is this? When are we allowed another referendum, please sir?

[James310]

It's funny to see you using these words, like "single market" and "free movement of people and goods". This is what we want to have with Europe, and it was stolen from us by the Little Englander xenophobic bigoted vote. I'd rather take my chances as an independent country in an outward looking EU than staying with the UKIP/BNP Tory Government.

That's fair enough, but whether you agree with it or not it's an argument for the Union that's not based on being just British isn't it?

[grunt]

Only if a majority of mp’s from England vote for it.


So you have changed your mind in the space of 2 minutes, you said the law doesn't allow it to be asked now you are saying the law does allow it.No he's not. Notice the use of the conditional tense.

[James310]

When? Which law is this? When are we allowed another referendum, please sir?

S30 of the Scotland Act is the relevant law but I am no lawyer, but it's the same law the last time the question was asked in 2014.

[Ozyhibby]

So you have changed your mind in the space of 2 minutes, you said the law doesn't allow it to be asked now you are saying the law does allow it.

No I’ve not changed my mind. Do you agree that Scotland can only leave the union if English mp’s allow it?
Easy question. Should be able to answer yes or no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

That's fair enough, but whether you agree with it or not it's an argument for the Union that's not based on being just British isn't it?
Can you not see that using the argument about something that the Union has caused us to lose is not a good argument for staying in the Union that caused us to lose it??

[James310]

Can you not see that using the argument about something that the Union has caused us to lose is not a good argument for staying in the Union that caused us to lose it??


If only you saw what I saw you would be convinced...

No, it strengthens the argument to not make the same mistake twice and make it worse.

[grunt]

S30 of the Scotland Act is the relevant law but I am no lawyer, but it's the same law the last time the question was asked in 2014.
Secondary legislation that the English dominated UK parliament will not enact to allow Scotland a second referendum.

We seem to be going round in circles.

[grunt]

If only you saw what I saw you would be convinced...

No, it strengthens the argument to not make the same mistake twice and make it worse.LOL. How can it be any worse? We're governed by a far right fascist xenophobic Government that enriches its friends and donors, disenfranchises the young, and reduces benefits for the poorest in society while defunding the NHS and making enemies of migrants who could help the country to grow. All while reducing the effectiveness of the courts and passing laws to restrict protest.

How can it be any worse than this??

[James310]

No I’ve not changed my mind. Do you agree that Scotland can only leave the union if English mp’s allow it?
Easy question. Should be able to answer yes or no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes the UK Parliament has to vote for it, the UK we voted to remain part of in 2014 (when the question was asked) and with that we accept the rules of engagement or in this case the law of the land. Yes the majority of MPs are from England as they make up the population share of the UK. You want to paint a picture something has changed or the law has changed in the last week, it hasn't changed it's been the same since 1998.

Easy question for you, should be able to answer Yes or No, has the law changed in the last week or year regarding Independence?

[James310]

LOL. How can it be any worse? We're governed by a far right fascist xenophobic Government that enriches its friends and donors, disenfranchises the young, and reduces benefits for the poorest in society while defunding the NHS and making enemies of migrants who could help the country to grow. All while reducing the effectiveness of the courts and passing laws to restrict protest.

How can it be any worse than this??

The LSE who predicted GDP would fall and trade would be damaged by Brexit have said GDP would fall by about 7% if Scotland went Independent and trade would be damaged etc. Does that sound like a positive?

[archie]

Britain?

OK the United Kingdom.

[grunt]

The LSE who predicted GDP would fall and trade would be damaged by Brexit have said GDP would fall by about 7% if Scotland went Independent and trade would be damaged etc. Does that sound like a positive?Just have to believe more.

[James310]

Just have to believe more.

So not a positive?

Another line from the Brexiteers, Believe in Britain was their battlecry.

[Hibs4185]

The LSE who predicted GDP would fall and trade would be damaged by Brexit have said GDP would fall by about 7% if Scotland went Independent and trade would be damaged etc. Does that sound like a positive?

Wonder what the benefit in GDP would be in we joined Europe? Wonder why They’ve failed to analyse that?

7% drop leaving the UK but I’d imagine a bigger increase if we joined a bigger trading zone.

[ronaldo7]

Partnership of equals
Voluntary union
Saltire flown from downing street
Parliamentarians take train from London to Glasgow for a day trip to love bomb Scotland. The march of the imperial masters.
The Vow
2014 vote
EVEL
Smith commission. Some on here need to read point 18 of the agreement
BREXIT-The fundamental change
Election wins with parliamentary majority for a new vote
Request of section 30. 1st PM No
Request of section 30. asked in the Westminster Parliament on numerous occasions
Democracy denied.

[archie]

LOL. How can it be any worse? We're governed by a far right fascist xenophobic Government that enriches its friends and donors, disenfranchises the young, and reduces benefits for the poorest in society while defunding the NHS and making enemies of migrants who could help the country to grow. All while reducing the effectiveness of the courts and passing laws to restrict protest.

How can it be any worse than this??
OK - alot to unpack here. I suspect if we stripped the constitution question out of this we would agree on a lot. But this is such hyperbolic stuff it doesn't help your cause. It's been discussed here before. I don't accept that the UKG is fascist. It's the go to insult these days for anything you don't like. I agree about donors and rewarding friends, but there's been a bit of that here too. Disenfrachising the young- how? Reducing benefits and defending the NHS - really? https://www.nhsconfed.org/publications/autumn-statement-2022-0
Shouting down protest https://netpol.org/2021/09/22/draconian-new-legislation-set-to-shut-down-protest-at-scottish-parliament-ahead-of-cop26/ Now I don't like whataboutery. But in your zeal to criticise Westminster you maybe lose a bit of sight on what's happen here? That's what I mean by the corrosive impact of the constitutional question. The 'wheesht for indy' approach protects the Scottish Government from criticism and doesn't serve the most disadvantaged at all.

[archie]

Wonder what the benefit in GDP would be in we joined Europe? Wonder why They’ve failed to analyse that?

7% drop leaving the UK but I’d imagine a bigger increase if we joined a bigger trading zone.You imagine! What happens in the time it would take to join the EU. Would you care on what
Hat terms we join the EU.

[archie]

Partnership of equals
Voluntary union
Saltire flown from downing street
Parliamentarians take train from London to Glasgow for a day trip to love bomb Scotland. The march of the imperial masters.
The Vow
2014 vote
EVEL
Smith commission. Some on here need to read point 18 of the agreement
BREXIT-The fundamental change
Election wins with parliamentary majority for a new vote
Request of section 30. 1st PM No
Request of section 30. 2nd PM No
Request of section-30. 3rd PM No
Democracy denied.Just out of interest, how many section 30 requests have been made?

[James310]

Wonder what the benefit in GDP would be in we joined Europe? Wonder why They’ve failed to analyse that?

7% drop leaving the UK but I’d imagine a bigger increase if we joined a bigger trading zone.

They modeled various scenarios including that one.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2021/a-Jan-21/Independence-would-hit-Scottish-economy-2-to-3-times-harder-than-Brexit


We won't overnight change our trading partners from.UK to EU, we had many years of free and open trade with the EU and we never saw any significant shift to trading more with the EU.

It's all in that analysis though.

[grunt]

Another line from the Brexiteers, Believe in Britain was their battlecry.
Oh was it? I never realised.

[Moulin Yarns]

Just out of interest, how many section 30 requests have been made?

May
Johnson
Truss? not sure if she was asked because she never engaged with any of the devolved nations

Sunak is still to be asked, I think

[grunt]

OK - alot to unpack here. I suspect if we stripped the constitution question out of this we would agree on a lot. But this is such hyperbolic stuff it doesn't help your cause. It's been discussed here before. I don't accept that the UKG is fascist. It's the go to insult these days for anything you don't like. I agree about donors and rewarding friends, but there's been a bit of that here too. Disenfrachising the young- how? Reducing benefits and defending the NHS - really? https://www.nhsconfed.org/publications/autumn-statement-2022-0
Shouting down protest https://netpol.org/2021/09/22/draconian-new-legislation-set-to-shut-down-protest-at-scottish-parliament-ahead-of-cop26/ Now I don't like whataboutery. But in your zeal to criticise Westminster you maybe lose a bit of sight on what's happen here? That's what I mean by the corrosive impact of the constitutional question. The 'wheesht for indy' approach protects the Scottish Government from criticism and doesn't serve the most disadvantaged at all.:greengrin

[grunt]

I don't accept that the UKG is fascist. It's the go to insult these days for anything you don't like.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is proposing that ministers should have the power to pass policies without MPs’ involvement. He’s also seeking the abolition of 4,000 EU food, workplace safety, health and employment regulations. Align this with reduced policing regulation and where are we headed?

The Times: “He (Rishi Sunak) and Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, want police officers to stop following a lengthy list of steps set out in a “conflict management” model before taking action.”

https://westcountryvoices.co.uk/sewage-questions-to-mp-prompt-police-home-visits/


Two women who raised questions about sewage pollution with West Dorset MP Chris Loder have had police visits to their homes.

[ronaldo7]

Just out of interest, how many section 30 requests have been made?

MY might be correct:dunno:

Aye but how many times have you asked.:greengrin

Once should have been enough.

Then again, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

[Santa Cruz]

Just out of interest, how many section 30 requests have been made?

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200280916/

[Eaststand]

A reply which ignores my central point. If you don't like my calling it the English parliament, perhaps I should describe it as the English-dominated UK parliament. Is that better? 533 English votes to 59 Scottish votes.

And why did Nicola ask the SC to rule? All together now, "because the English-dominated UK parliament would not grant a s30".

#RuledByEngland

You're spot on bud, and the pro union posters know it.

They're just desperately trying to argue against something that any fair minded person can see.

GGTTH

[WhileTheChief..]

In a GE we never used to count how many seats each party got in each country of the union. It was never a thing. Only the total number won mattered.

It’s really only been in the last 10-15 years that folk talk about Scottish or English seats won.

[ronaldo7]

In a GE we never used to count how many seats each party got in each country of the union. It was never a thing. Only the total number won mattered.

It’s really only been in the last 10-15 years that folk talk about Scottish or English seats won.

Not true.

Each party knew exactly how many seats they'd won in each "Nation" within the UK. Particularly in the smaller "Nations".

[ronaldo7]

Oh Anas, where did it all go wrong.

https://twitter.com/RobDunsmore/status/1597294145931919363

[Just Alf]

Firstly, the each of the four nations language is loaded. Britain is a unitary state with levels of devolved power within it. Also, is it democratic that, in the US Senate, Calfifornia has the same number of senators as Wyoming, with over 70 times the population?To be fair, the states have a massive amount of devolved power, its why gun laws, immigration, abortion laws etc varies so much across the different states.
Scotland, Wales and NI can only dream of that autonomy.

If we had similar here along with an English parliament as well and a 'Senate' sitting over the top of it all for defence etc then the indy discussions will greatly evaporate.

It may be too late for that though, the current Westminster government has clearly decided to not allow an S30 for a new referendum despite the SNP/Greens being given a mandate to ask for one so the clamour will continue to build until eventually there is one and the current number of people supporting independence will have risen further making the job of those fighting for the status quo much harder.

[archie]

Jacob Rees-Mogg is proposing that ministers should have the power to pass policies without MPs’ involvement. He’s also seeking the abolition of 4,000 EU food, workplace safety, health and employment regulations. Align this with reduced policing regulation and where are we headed?

The Times: “He (Rishi Sunak) and Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, want police officers to stop following a lengthy list of steps set out in a “conflict management” model before taking action.”

https://westcountryvoices.co.uk/sewage-questions-to-mp-prompt-police-home-visits/
Good thing it never happened here... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61969639 or here https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/gender-critical-feminist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[archie]

To be fair, the states have a massive amount of devolved power, its why gun laws, immigration, abortion laws etc varies so much across the different states.
Scotland, Wales and NI can only dream of that autonomy.

If we had similar here along with an English parliament as well and a 'Senate' sitting over the top of it all for defence etc then the indy discussions will greatly evaporate.

It may be too late for that though, the current Westminster government has clearly decided to not allow an S30 for a new referendum despite the SNP/Greens being given a mandate to ask for one so the clamour will continue to build until eventually there is one and the current number of people supporting independence will have risen further making the job of those fighting for the status quo much harder.

All true re the US. The point was that the way the senate is structured greatly favours small states in term of representation. That may not be a bad thing, but not without its issues.

[archie]

Secondary legislation that the English dominated UK parliament will not enact to allow Scotland a second referendum.

We seem to be going round in circles.

And yet the former FM was able to secure it, on very favourable terms.

[Mon Dieu4]

And yet the former FM was able to secure it, on very favourable terms.

They gave it expecting it to be a walk in the park and a total skoosh, the polling was about 28% in favour at that time, if they'd had know how close it would have gotten then there is no danger we would have been allowed

[grunt]

Good thing it never happened here... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61969639 or here https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/gender-critical-feminist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other


Now I don't like whataboutery.:wink:

[archie]

They gave it expecting it to be a walk in the park and a total skoosh, the polling was about 28% in favour at that time, if they'd had know how close it would have gotten then there is no danger we would have been allowed

It might be true. We'll never know. Cameron appeared to be emboldened by 2014 to have the Brexit referendum. But what giving powers to run it in the way they did has given a strong counter narrative to the 'colony' arguments. Not that the international community would get involved, but the fact there was a referendum gives UKG a lot of moral legitimacy on the issue.

[archie]

:wink:

I really don't like whataboutery. Nor to I like a laser guided focus on other governments failings but a curious blindness to failings closer to home.

[WeeRussell]

OK - alot to unpack here. I suspect if we stripped the constitution question out of this we would agree on a lot. But this is such hyperbolic stuff it doesn't help your cause. It's been discussed here before. I don't accept that the UKG is fascist. It's the go to insult these days for anything you don't like. I agree about donors and rewarding friends, but there's been a bit of that here too. Disenfrachising the young- how? Reducing benefits and defending the NHS - really? https://www.nhsconfed.org/publications/autumn-statement-2022-0
Shouting down protest https://netpol.org/2021/09/22/draconian-new-legislation-set-to-shut-down-protest-at-scottish-parliament-ahead-of-cop26/ Now I don't like whataboutery. But in your zeal to criticise Westminster you maybe lose a bit of sight on what's happen here? That's what I mean by the corrosive impact of the constitutional question. The 'wheesht for indy' approach protects the Scottish Government from criticism and doesn't serve the most disadvantaged at all.

What about the significant amount of voters that are not SNP supporters but think independence is the best/only way for Scotland to elect a competent government and move the country forward from there?

I don’t mind people criticising the SNP when merited. But trying to compare them to the charlatans and lowlives that have held the reigns at Westminster for far too long is pretty desperate.

[He's here!]

Not quite:

Sunday trading and the limits of EVEL | The Constitution Unit Blog (constitution-unit.com) (https://constitution-unit.com/2016/03/10/sunday-trading-and-the-limits-of-evel/)


Indeed. Whether the SNP had or hadn't voted on proposals which don't apply to Scotland isn't necessarily the issue though. The fact is nobody's stopping them doing so.

[JimBHibees]

What about the significant amount of voters that are not SNP supporters but think independence is the best/only way for Scotland to elect a competent government and move the country forward from there?

I don’t mind people criticising the SNP when merited. But trying to compare them to the charlatans and lowlives that have held the reigns at Westminster for far too long is pretty desperate.

Yep blatant whataboutery

[Kato]

They gave it expecting it to be a walk in the park and a total skoosh, the polling was about 28% in favour at that time, if they'd had know how close it would have gotten then there is no danger we would have been allowedIf it wasn't such a big deal in those pre referendum polls you wonder why they allowed it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

What about the significant amount of voters that are not SNP supporters but think independence is the best/only way for Scotland to elect a competent government and move the country forward from there?

I don’t mind people criticising the SNP when merited. But trying to compare them to the charlatans and lowlives that have held the reigns at Westminster for far too long is pretty desperate.
You don't think the criticisms are merited?

[He's here!]

Never going to happen as long as the nationalists keep talking to themselves. This article has many points you have raised in the past.

"All politicians are odd. It goes with the territory. Few humble folk ascend to the top of the greasy pole and even fewer manage to stay there.

But familiarity blunts a proper appreciation of just how strange they are. Nicola Sturgeon has been a part of Scottish public life for a quarter of a century. She has spent 15 years in government and eight as first minister. She has proven to be an election-winning phenomenon and yet, in certain respects, her time as first minister has been a considerable failure.

One explanation for this, I suggest, is the first minister’s blinkered and unimaginative world-view. She is a conviction politician with all the strengths and weaknesses that entails.

Sturgeon is a better person than her predecessor but Alex Salmond had political strengths that Sturgeon lacks. Chief of these was a sense of imagination and even, on occasion, empathy. Salmond could understand that people might disagree with him and accept that they were capable of doing so for honourable reasons.

More than that, in fact, Salmond enjoyed arguing with people who did not share his political preferences. The cut and thrust of debate was enjoyed for its own sake but it was also a means by which he might over time strengthen his own arguments while also discovering more about his opponents’ beliefs.

His successor operates in a different manner. Opposing views are axiomatically suspect: she has no interest in hearing them, let alone engaging with them. Once formed, her beliefs are unshakeable and incapable of amendment. She is right and her opponents wrong and since this is the case there is no need to waste time listening to what they might have to say.

This dogmatism is stubborn but it is also a sign of weakness, not strength. The first minister may make a show of listening but she only rarely hears. This is not limited to her deafness on the national question. On other issues too, opposing views are dismissed as “not valid”.

Last week offered a case in point. The UN special rapporteur on violence against women published a withering critique of Sturgeon’s gender recognition reforms. Asked about this in parliament, the first minister simply pretended the criticisms, emanating from an authority that Sturgeon would customarily be expected to respect, had not been issued. By such closing of eyes and ears are problems denied.
In those eight years that Sturgeon has held Scotland’s top job she has almost never bothered herself to address those voters — the majority of voters, it should be pointed out — who voted No in 2014. It is difficult to defeat an opponent you make no attempt to understand and this may help explain why, despite Brexit, despite Boris Johnson, despite everything else, Sturgeon has made very little progress.

It turns out that assuming people will eventually come to their senses is not a compelling strategy. The first minister’scontempt — not, I think, too strong a word — for No voters is her great weakness. Granted, it might be difficult to persuade unionists whose votes were cast because they felt British as well as Scottish, but a third of No voters in 2014 voted that way because they were unconvinced by the Yes campaign’s too-good-to-be-entirely-true prospectus for life after independence.

If I were an SNP voter I would consider the failure to address obvious and important concerns — on questions such as currency, the border, pensions, EU membership and much else besides — an act of startling political negligence. Time and again the pattern repeats itself: Sturgeon allows that there are “challenges” but these exist only as abstract concerns. When pressed on specifics, these challenges mysteriously melt away. There is nothing to be worried about and only folk determined to “talk Scotland down” would dare to raise such matters. This is risible.

And if I were a member of the wider nationalist movement I think I should wonder why Scotland has been six months away from a referendum every six months for at least six years. All these promises, all these fresh “campaigns”, all these tactical improvisations and yet, despite it all, the movement is no closer to achieving its goal than it was when Sturgeon took up residence in Bute House. What, to be blunt, has it all been for?

Sometimes the first minister drops her guard. During her press conference on Wednesday she suggested her opponents should be concerned by the ruling by Lord Reed of Allermuir that the Scottish parliament lacked the legal authority to hold an independence referendum. Unionist triumphalism would be misplaced or, as Sturgeon put it, “unionists of a more thoughtful position — and yes, I do believe they exist — will know that to be misguided”. That “yes, I do believe they exist” is what in poker circles you call a “tell”. Because, really, it suggested quite the opposite.

How many No-voting friends does Sturgeon have? Precious few, I suspect. It seems worth noting that the most successful Labour leaders — Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Blair — all had close family who voted Conservative. That must have helped them realise that their opponents were neither alien nor intrinsically wicked. Sturgeon, by contrast, shows no sign of realising this. And that imaginative deficit is a significant handicap.

Then again, if she doesn’t understand her opponents, she doesn’t trust her own party either. This is her late imperial phase and her inner circle consists of, at most, six people. Cabinet secretaries are held in low regard and few are trusted to do their jobs without significant first ministerial interference. Some quietly chafe against this; others wearily accept it is the way of the world and get on with the job the best they can. No wonder the first minister is simultaneously a controlling and isolated figure.

If you believe your opponents are guilty of Wrongthink and if you believe, as many nationalists do, that unionists have been hoodwinked into voting against their own best interests, you will struggle to understand them. If you cannot understand them you are unlikely to persuade them. At some level, Sturgeon really does believe her people are better Scots than their opponents. That dogmatic arrogance is her downfall. It helps explain why she is such a polarising figure and why, in the end, she is just a shouter, not a persuader."

These are fair points. IIRC one of Salmond's best friends is David Davis, while from a strategic point of view he had no qualms forming an informal coalition at Holyrood with the Tories from 2007-11. Tin-eared Sturgeon on the other hand just claims to 'despise Tories'.

[Jack]

You don't think the criticisms are merited?

It's all about being proportionate.

If the £200m for the ferries scandal, for example, was set out in seconds it would be little over 3 minutes.

The test and trace scandal down south was put at £37bn, or in seconds a little over 1,172 years! There's plenty other cash scandals to choose from before we could move to the other categories!

[Zambernardi1875]

These are fair points. IIRC one of Salmond's best friends is David Davis, while from a strategic point of view he had no qualms forming an informal coalition at Holyrood with the Tories from 2007-11. Tin-eared Sturgeon on the other hand just claims to 'despise Tories'.

NS may have faults but despising tories ain’t one

[archie]

It's all about being proportionate.

If the £200m for the ferries scandal, for example, was set out in seconds it would be little over 3 minutes.

The test and trace scandal down south was put at £37bn, or in seconds a little over 1,172 years! There's plenty other cash scandals to choose from before we could move to the other categories!Could you spell out the test and trace scandal for me?

[James310]

These are fair points. IIRC one of Salmond's best friends is David Davis, while from a strategic point of view he had no qualms forming an informal coalition at Holyrood with the Tories from 2007-11. Tin-eared Sturgeon on the other hand just claims to 'despise Tories'.

She surrounds herself with people who don't question her, you would hardly know that Scotland has a Cabinet and they meet regularly. At Westminster you often here reports about X or Y being discussed at Cabinet and there was disagreement etc. When do you ever hear about the Scottish cabinet meeting and what was discussed? There is nobody to say to her are you sure about that? Is that really a good idea?

The de facto referendum is a good example, it's something she announced and commited to without by the looks of it talking to anyone else in the party about it. Keith Brown the deputy leader was on TV and being asked about it and he couldn't answer any questions and there has been contradictory statements from Angus Robertson and John Swinney, it's now to be kicked down the road until some conference in 2023. I suspect a u turn is coming.

[WeeRussell]

NS may have faults but despising tories ain’t one

It’s up there with the highest of her redeeming qualities in my opinion.

[grunt]

She surrounds herself with people who don't question her, you would hardly know that Scotland has a Cabinet and they meet regularly. At Westminster you often here reports about X or Y being discussed at Cabinet and there was disagreement etc. When do you ever hear about the Scottish cabinet meeting and what was discussed? There is nobody to say to her are you sure about that? Is that really a good idea?

The de facto referendum is a good example, it's something she announced and commited to without by the looks of it talking to anyone else in the party about it. Keith Brown the deputy leader was on TV and being asked about it and he couldn't answer any questions and there has been contradictory statements from Angus Robertson and John Swinney, it's now to be kicked down the road until some conference in 2023. I suspect a u turn is coming.You're just making stuff up now. The other day in the thread we had posts about a "split within SNP ranks!!" and now we have the opposite.

"... by the looks of it ..." You mean you think this might be the case but you have absolutely no evidence but you're going to make an issue of it anyway. Seems to me you could get a job with BBC Scotland news team - they seem to make up SNPbad stories all the time.

[James310]

You're just making stuff up now. The other day in the thread we had posts about a "split within SNP ranks!!" and now we have the opposite.

"... by the looks of it ..." You mean you think this might be the case but you have absolutely no evidence but you're going to make an issue of it anyway. Seems to me you could get a job with BBC Scotland news team - they seem to make up SNPbad stories all the time.

The 'split' was about the language being used if I remember correctly, some not happy with the colony chat and being "imprisoned" of "shackled" etc.

Nobody knows how the de facto referendum will work, do you? You don't think you would work out some basic details before committing to it?

And remember this plan she is pursuing is the
same plan she and the SNP rejected many times over at their conference. It was the Alba guy that said the SNP needed a Plan B and he was booed off stage, now that's her plan.

[Stairway 2 7]

It's all about being proportionate.

If the £200m for the ferries scandal, for example, was set out in seconds it would be little over 3 minutes.

The test and trace scandal down south was put at £37bn, or in seconds a little over 1,172 years! There's plenty other cash scandals to choose from before we could move to the other categories!

£37 billion wasn't spent, it's a common fact that isnt right. £29 billion of the 37 allocated was spent, the vast majority went on testing. In January alone we spent £2 billion on testing to tackle Omicron. France and Germany were spending around a billion a month then but were doing half the tests so comparable. People including scot gov complained when testing slowed down, but it was a huge cost. I think testing and vaccines are two areas the uk got spot on. Nowt to do with this thread mind

https://fullfact.org/health/test-and-trace-37-billion/

[grunt]

£37 billion wasn't spent, it's a common fact that isnt right. £29 billion of the 37 allocated was spent, the vast majority went on testing. In January alone we spent £2 billion on testing to tackle Omicron. France and Germany were spending around a billion a month then but were doing half the tests so comparable. People including scot gov complained when testing slowed down, but it was a huge cost. I think testing and vaccines are two areas the uk got spot on. Nowt to do with this thread mind

https://fullfact.org/health/test-and-trace-37-billion/
With some obvious exceptions. The UKHSA has just published its review of the Immense scandal. Now that really is a scandal worthy of the name.


Private lab in Wolverhampton, England, that wrongly gave negative Covid test results last year may have led to an estimated 23 deaths, report says


It says as many as 39,000 positive results were wrongly reported as negative in September and October 2021.
The mistakes led to "increased numbers of [hospital] admissions and deaths", the report, published on Tuesday, concluded.


Immensa was founded in May 2020 by Andrea Riposati, a former management consultant and owner of a DNA testing company, just three months before it was awarded a £119m PCR testing contract by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

[WhileTheChief..]

Not true.

Each party knew exactly how many seats they'd won in each "Nation" within the UK. Particularly in the smaller "Nations".

Of course we knew, we just never made a thing of it.

[Stairway 2 7]

With some obvious exceptions. The UKHSA has just published its review of the Immense scandal. Now that really is a scandal worthy of the name.

Of course tories with everything helped their friends. But the £37 billion gets often quoted when the vast majority was on testing. We along with Denmark tested about double any other nation per head, we sequenced about 10 times more. Germany's health minister said, at some point the world will have to thank the uk and Denmark for their sequencing efforts.

There is obviously millions that need accounted for and criminal convictions that should but won't happen. But it's daft to say uk wasn't up there in the top couple of nations for testing. All these systems and companies had to start from nothing with tests that weren't invented at the start.

[grunt]

There is obviously millions that need accounted for and criminal convictions that should but won't happen. But it's daft to say uk wasn't up there in the top couple of nations for testing. All these systems and companies had to start from nothing with tests that weren't invented at the start.
I'm not aware I said this?

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm not aware I said this?

It was a post, not a pm to you. Reiterating test and trace spending can't be compared to ferries. Although both have been done to death

[Zambernardi1875]

Of course tories with everything helped their friends. But the £37 billion gets often quoted when the vast majority was on testing. We along with Denmark tested about double any other nation per head, we sequenced about 10 times more. Germany's health minister said, at some point the world will have to thank the uk and Denmark for their sequencing efforts.

There is obviously millions that need accounted for and criminal convictions that should but won't happen. But it's daft to say uk wasn't up there in the top couple of nations for testing. All these systems and companies had to start from nothing with tests that weren't invented at the start.

So SG should stop comparing itself with how well other countries do yet here we are on “we didn’t waste and siphon off as many billions as other countries” I understand you overly try to defend WM to come across cough impartial cough, but trying to defend them on the billions wasted during covid compared to 200mil on ferries won’t ****ing wash

[ronaldo7]

Of course we knew, we just never made a thing of it.

Probably only did when the party of Scotland sent so many MPs to Westminster.

Previous to that the London parties, just told, Davidson, Bain and co, to keeps the nats at bay, even if it meant bayoneting them. 😉

[Stairway 2 7]

So SG should stop comparing itself with how well other countries do yet here we are on “we didn’t waste and siphon off as many billions as other countries” I understand you overly try to defend WM to come across cough impartial cough, but trying to defend them on the billions wasted during covid compared to 200mil on ferries won’t ****ing wash

What billions were wasted, unless your saying testing was a waste of time, but scot gov wanted large scale testing too. Almost all 29 billion test and trace was spent on testing. Scot gov wanted the testing continued and I probably agreed with them, it would have cost billions more though.

We were spending the same as other European nations on testing but we were doing much much more.

There were multiple f ups during covid. Putin people without tests from hospital to old folks homes, a weak and late firsts lockdown, a weak second lockdown, a useless tracing system that should have been given to the sexual health services.

All of the above costed thousands of deaths. Testing and vaccination was great, the later possibly lucky that AZ worked and we gambled on it

[archie]

So SG should stop comparing itself with how well other countries do yet here we are on “we didn’t waste and siphon off as many billions as other countries” I understand you overly try to defend WM to come across cough impartial cough, but trying to defend them on the billions wasted during covid compared to 200mil on ferries won’t ****ing wash
Don't you have any qualms about the ferries issue at all, or is it OK because something Westminster did might be worse?

[grunt]

It was a post, not a pm to you. It was a post replying to a comment made by me. Your use of the word "but" links your second sentence to the first which was a direct reply to me.

[Hibrandenburg]

Don't you have any qualms about the ferries issue at all, or is it OK because something Westminster did might be worse?

This is a thread about independence. Comparing what Westminster gets wrong to that what the Scottish Government gets wrong is fair enough.

[Zambernardi1875]

What billions were wasted, unless your saying testing was a waste of time, but scot gov wanted large scale testing too. Almost all 29 billion test and trace was spent on testing. Scot gov wanted the testing continued and I probably agreed with them, it would have cost billions more though.

We were spending the same as other European nations on testing but we were doing much much more.

There were multiple f ups during covid. Putin people without tests from hospital to old folks homes, a weak and late firsts lockdown, a weak second lockdown, a useless tracing system that should have been given to the sexual health services.

All of the above costed thousands of deaths. Testing and vaccination was great, the later possibly lucky that AZ worked and we gambled on it

With a speech like that you should be on the joe rogan podcast

[archie]

This is a thread about independence. Comparing what Westminster gets wrong to that what the Scottish Government gets wrong is fair enough.
Really? I could see your point being valid if it was a like for like comparison, but linking it to entirely unrelated cases is just whataboutery.

[Hibrandenburg]

Really? I could see your point being valid if it was a like for like comparison, but linking it to entirely unrelated cases is just whataboutery.

Yes really. It's perfectly reasonable to compare the performance of both governments when weighing up the pros and cons of independence.

[archie]

Yes really. It's perfectly reasonable to compare the performance of both governments when weighing up the pros and cons of independence.

Even when it's used to attempt to minimise failings of SG?

[Hibrandenburg]

Even when it's used to attempt to minimise failings of SG?

If anything, from what I've read on here, the failings of the SG are being used to try and deflect from an outdated, corrupt and incompetent UK government.

[Keith_M]

Could you spell out the test and trace scandal for me?


If you genuinely want to know, then best to go to the source, the UK Parliament Inquiry...


"“Unimaginable” cost of Test & Trace failed to deliver central promise of averting another lockdown "
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/150988/unimaginable-cost-of-test-trace-failed-to-deliver-central-promise-of-averting-another-lockdown/

"In its report Public Accounts Committee says that while NHST&T clearly had to be set up and staffed at incredible speed, it must now "wean itself off its persistent reliance on consultants"; there is still no clear evidence of NHST&T's overall effectiveness; and it’s not clear whether its contribution to reducing infection levels - as opposed to the other measures introduced to tackle the pandemic - can justify its "unimaginable" costs."
.......
"The £22 billion for test and trace is about the annual budget of the Department for Transport. Test and Trace still continues to pay for consultants at £1000 a day."

[archie]

If you genuinely want to know, then best to go to the source, the UK Parliament Inquiry...


"“Unimaginable” cost of Test & Trace failed to deliver central promise of averting another lockdown "
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/150988/unimaginable-cost-of-test-trace-failed-to-deliver-central-promise-of-averting-another-lockdown/

"In its report Public Accounts Committee says that while NHST&T clearly had to be set up and staffed at incredible speed, it must now "wean itself off its persistent reliance on consultants"; there is still no clear evidence of NHST&T's overall effectiveness; and it’s not clear whether its contribution to reducing infection levels - as opposed to the other measures introduced to tackle the pandemic - can justify its "unimaginable" costs."
.......
"The £22 billion for test and trace is about the annual budget of the Department for Transport. Test and Trace still continues to pay for consultants at £1000 a day."

I really wanted to know what was being referred tobecause as well as the obvious failings there are a lot of myths associated with it. My concern is that these issues are being used to divert legitimate criticism of the Scottish Government.

[Stairway 2 7]

With a speech like that you should be on the joe rogan podcast

Good analytical imput. Rogan amplified vaccine deniers which is the opposite of my opinion. Vaccine makers in Frankfurt Massachusetts and Oxford should be treated like war heroes. Vaccines and lockdowns were the only things that stopped 500k uk deaths. We were shocking at applying lockdowns, they were half hearted and weeks too late. Vaccines were rolled out wonderfully, thanks mostly to a gamble on Oxford that worked.

[weecounty hibby]

Really? I could see your point being valid if it was a like for like comparison, but linking it to entirely unrelated cases is just whataboutery.
What about if we link it to infrastructure projects. Ajax tanks, aircraft carriers, HS2, Elizabeth line fir example. How does it stack up now? Let's just focus on one of these. Lets just use Ajax tanks. Billions wasted for zero, nada, zilch tanks delivered. How does that match up to the ferries? I have said many many times the ferries is a poorly run project. It was dine fir all the right reasons, reasons that led to demands from Tories, Labour and lib dems in Parliament that the government should do what the government actually did!! Now though they and the BBC in partitry to make political capital from it

[Stairway 2 7]

If you genuinely want to know, then best to go to the source, the UK Parliament Inquiry...


"“Unimaginable” cost of Test & Trace failed to deliver central promise of averting another lockdown "
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/150988/unimaginable-cost-of-test-trace-failed-to-deliver-central-promise-of-averting-another-lockdown/

"In its report Public Accounts Committee says that while NHST&T clearly had to be set up and staffed at incredible speed, it must now "wean itself off its persistent reliance on consultants"; there is still no clear evidence of NHST&T's overall effectiveness; and it’s not clear whether its contribution to reducing infection levels - as opposed to the other measures introduced to tackle the pandemic - can justify its "unimaginable" costs."
.......
"The £22 billion for test and trace is about the annual budget of the Department for Transport. Test and Trace still continues to pay for consultants at £1000 a day."

That inquiry was a bit right wing anti lockdown and anti test testing for me. They the say the mammoth testing did little to save lives, but what other options were there pre vaccination.

Remember scot gov agreed with all the huge amount of testing and the billions it would cost, rightly imo.

It has become gospel that the 30 billion wasn't needed, the same people bizarrely complained when we stopped free testing. Testing alone cost £2 billion in January. Sunak wanted to end free testing months before. It would have saved billions, but undoubtedly cost lives

[archie]

What about if we link it to infrastructure projects. Ajax tanks, aircraft carriers, HS2, Elizabeth line fir example. How does it stack up now? Let's just focus on one of these. Lets just use Ajax tanks. Billions wasted for zero, nada, zilch tanks delivered. How does that match up to the ferries? I have said many many times the ferries is a poorly run project. It was dine fir all the right reasons, reasons that led to demands from Tories, Labour and lib dems in Parliament that the government should do what the government actually did!! Now though they and the BBC in partitry to make political capital from it

So a)the ferries aren't an issue because of whatever and b) the real villains are politicians making capital out of it and the BBC for reporting on it?

[Stairway 2 7]

What about if we link it to infrastructure projects. Ajax tanks, aircraft carriers, HS2, Elizabeth line fir example. How does it stack up now? Let's just focus on one of these. Lets just use Ajax tanks. Billions wasted for zero, nada, zilch tanks delivered. How does that match up to the ferries? I have said many many times the ferries is a poorly run project. It was dine fir all the right reasons, reasons that led to demands from Tories, Labour and lib dems in Parliament that the government should do what the government actually did!! Now though they and the BBC in partitry to make political capital from it

That's a better example. Ajax tanks and ferries. Both monumental f ups. Outsourced to useless private companies and massive wastes. I'm sure hs2 will have more disasters to come, it's already massively over budget and shafted the north of England. Only bonus with that is the more they overspend the more we get

[weecounty hibby]

So a)the ferries aren't an issue because of whatever and b) the real villains are politicians making capital out of it and the BBC for reporting on it?

It's pointless even discussing that with you. I didn't say the ferries aren't an issue. Just not as big as unionists would have everyone believe. And I never said anyone were villains just that the very things demanded by the unionists are now the very things they are moaning about.

Anyway, zero Ajax tanks and billions wasted versus 200m overspend and two ferries delivered at some point. Discuss

[archie]

It's pointless even discussing that with you. I didn't say the ferries aren't an issue. Just not as big as unionists would have everyone believe. And I never said anyone were villains just that the very things demanded by the unionists are now the very things they are moaning about.

Anyway, zero Ajax tanks and billions wasted versus 200m overspend and two ferries delivered at some point. Discuss

You see that's the problem. Everything is viewed through the unionist nationalist perspective. It's possible to criticise both governments. It really is. The perspective that something is only wrong if the political opponent made the decision is unhealthy. I don't think Ajax is OK because of the ferries. Nor should the ferries be ok because of Ajax

[grunt]

I really wanted to know what was being referred tobecause as well as the obvious failings there are a lot of myths associated with it. My concern is that these issues are being used to divert legitimate criticism of the Scottish Government.
You're the one who doesn't like whataboutery and here you are saying this bad news must be diverting criticism about the SG although you don't know what the criticism is!

[archie]

You're the one who doesn't like whataboutery and here you are saying this bad news must be diverting criticism about the SG although you don't know what the criticism is!I'm surprised at your post as if you read my post you will see I refer to the obvious failings and the myths around it. So I'm actually saying I do know what the criticism is. Other posters have given more detail on the background, so no need for me to do so

[Just Alf]

I really wanted to know what was being referred tobecause as well as the obvious failings there are a lot of myths associated with it. My concern is that these issues are being used to divert legitimate criticism of the Scottish Government.And despite many indy supporters agreeing that there's legitimate issues regarding the Scottish government's performance those supporting the status quo drop into whataboutery mode.

For proof just look at the Tories threads on here and see how many union supporters admit there's issues.
Alternatively on this, and other indy leaning threads there's often an admission that the SG could have done better.

[weecounty hibby]

You see that's the problem. Everything is viewed through the unionist nationalist perspective. It's possible to criticise both governments. It really is. The perspective that something is only wrong if the political opponent made the decision is unhealthy. I don't think Ajax is OK because of the ferries. Nor should the ferries be ok because of Ajax
I have criticised the scot gov about the ferries. Multiple times. This started as a discussion about different spending failures. You said t&t v ferries was an unfair comparison. I suggested ajax v ferries. I also suggested that unionists in Scotland are making a huge deal out of it. Why are Labour not making huge issues out of Ajax? Why do they want to make a big deal of the ferries in Scotland but Ajax at Westminster doesn't seem to be a big deal?

[marinello59]

It's pointless even discussing that with you. I didn't say the ferries aren't an issue. Just not as big as unionists would have everyone believe. And I never said anyone were villains just that the very things demanded by the unionists are now the very things they are moaning about.

Anyway, zero Ajax tanks and billions wasted versus 200m overspend and two ferries delivered at some point. Discuss

I dont care what Unionists or Nationalists think. I do care about what the islanders who have seen their lives affected by this think. No wonder many of them feel that they have been simply forgotten about, they are rarely mentioned. We dont all view things through a constitutional prism.

[archie]

I have criticised the scot gov about the ferries. Multiple times. This started as a discussion about different spending failures. You said t&t v ferries was an unfair comparison. I suggested ajax v ferries. I also suggested that unionists in Scotland are making a huge deal out of it. Why are Labour not making huge issues out of Ajax? Why do they want to make a big deal of the ferries in Scotland but Ajax at Westminster doesn't seem to be a big deal?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59876757

[grunt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59876757

Story was dated 5 January. Which year? And where's the follow up? Whereas the "ferries scandal" is wheeled out every week.

There's my whataboutery for tonight.

[weecounty hibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59876757

Brilliant. 5th January. That this year or last or when? Compare with the Labour/Tory BBC ferries onslaught. You have actually just made the argument for me

[weecounty hibby]

I dont care what Unionists or Nationalists think. I do care about what the islanders who have seen their lives affected by this think. No wonder many of them feel that they have been simply forgotten about, they are rarely mentioned. We dont all view things through a constitutional prism.
I agree. But it is being used by the unionists as a constitutional issue. It is a pretty sorry state and a badly run project. No more no less but we see conspiracy theories and smears thrown about. Your right, the folk who have poor services have actually been sidelined in the debate

[Mibbes Aye]

I have criticised the scot gov about the ferries. Multiple times. This started as a discussion about different spending failures. You said t&t v ferries was an unfair comparison. I suggested ajax v ferries. I also suggested that unionists in Scotland are making a huge deal out of it. Why are Labour not making huge issues out of Ajax? Why do they want to make a big deal of the ferries in Scotland but Ajax at Westminster doesn't seem to be a big deal?

Labour has tabled something like 120 parliamentary questions about Ajax, including Urgent Questions, in the last twelve months, requiring ministers to respond.

[Mibbes Aye]

Story was dated 5 January. Which year? And where's the follow up? Whereas the "ferries scandal" is wheeled out every week.

There's my whataboutery for tonight.


Brilliant. 5th January. That this year or last or when? Compare with the Labour/Tory BBC ferries onslaught. You have actually just made the argument for me

If either of you had read the article you would have read that it covered all of the period Cameron, May and Johnson were in No.10. Which essentially was only a matter of months ago.

Don't stop having an opinion but do your homework, eh? :greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

If either of you had read the article you would have read that it covered all of the period Cameron, May and Johnson were in No.10. Which essentially was only a matter of months ago.

Don't stop having an opinion but do your homework, eh? :greengrin
Almost a year ago now for a project that has spent billions with zero assets delivered. Maybe we should put it on the BBC bias thread instead. 120 questions raised but any public enquiry, any PM quizzed by committee? Dunno to be honest as it just seems like anothe Westminster **** up that is accepted. But aye ferries

[archie]

Story was dated 5 January. Which year? And where's the follow up? Whereas the "ferries scandal" is wheeled out every week.

There's my whataboutery for tonight.

It took me literally 30 seconds to find a pile of stories. But Labour don't say anything apparently.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221129/15918d6fcd263ce1fd63107d9608cfcc.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Almost a year ago now for a project that has spent billions with zero assets delivered. Maybe we should put it on the BBC bias thread instead. 120 questions raised but any public enquiry, any PM quizzed by committee? Dunno to be honest as it just seems like anothe Westminster **** up that is accepted. But aye ferries

What a graceful response :greengrin

If you want to know about committee appearances you could always search yourself? But you would have to uncross your arms to make the typing easier :greengrin

[grunt]

Don't stop having an opinion but do your homework, eh? :greengrin5 January was almost 11 months ago. Ancient history in today's instant news world. So having done my homework (and read the article) I still contend that the coverage of the UK Govt's defence spending is nowhere near as hysterical as the coverage of the ferries.

Am I still allowed my opinion?

[grunt]

Almost a year ago now for a project that has spent billions with zero assets delivered. Maybe we should put it on the BBC bias thread instead. 120 questions raised but any public enquiry, any PM quizzed by committee? Dunno to be honest as it just seems like anothe Westminster **** up that is accepted. But aye ferries
I think perhaps the answer lies here:

Tories own the BBC:


DG Tim Davie - former Tory candidate
CEO News Deborah Turness - wife to John Toker UKGov Comms & Intel
CHAIR Richard Sharp - major donor
BOARD Robbie Gibb - Govt advisor
OFCOM Lord Grade - Tory peer
DIR NEWS John McAndrew - fmr GB News

[Smartie]

Is this not a slightly pointless argument?

Is anyone who favours independence really not bothered about the ferries? Of course they / we are, nobody likes to see money squandered, irrespective of the motivation, the amount of where it fits relative to other money being squandered.

Does anyone who favours dependence really want to see the Westminster government piss money up the wall on PPE contracts etc? Of course not.


Personally, I see the whole “who wastes more money” argument as being a fairly pointless and slightly tedious argument when it comes to the independence debate.

[hibsbollah]

Is this not a slightly pointless argument?

Is anyone who favours independence really not bothered about the ferries? Of course they / we are, nobody likes to see money squandered, irrespective of the motivation, the amount of where it fits relative to other money being squandered.

Does anyone who favours dependence really want to see the Westminster government piss money up the wall on PPE contracts etc? Of course not.


Personally, I see it as being a fairly pointless and slightly tedious argument when it comes to the independence debate.

Of course it is. Tiresome tedious trollery.

[Mibbes Aye]

5 January was almost 11 months ago. Ancient history in today's instant news world. So having done my homework (and read the article) I still contend that the coverage of the UK Govt's defence spending is nowhere near as hysterical as the coverage of the ferries.

Am I still allowed my opinion?

I don't know why you are asking me. You keep telling folk it's Westminster and the English who rule you :greengrin

[archie]

Is this not a slightly pointless argument?

Is anyone who favours independence really not bothered about the ferries? Of course they / we are, nobody likes to see money squandered, irrespective of the motivation, the amount of where it fits relative to other money being squandered.

Does anyone who favours dependence really want to see the Westminster government piss money up the wall on PPE contracts etc? Of course not.


Personally, I see the whole “who wastes more money” argument as being a fairly pointless and slightly tedious argument when it comes to the independence debate.

'Favours dependence'?

[marinello59]

Personally, I see the whole “who wastes more money” argument as being a fairly pointless and slightly tedious argument when it comes to the independence debate.

:agree:

[grunt]

Personally, I see the whole “who wastes more money” argument as being a fairly pointless and slightly tedious argument when it comes to the independence debate.
In that case I'm afraid you're missing a crucial part of the discussion. The Whitehall owned BBC is an intrinsic tool in the anti-independence arsenal, and the fact that they bring up the ferries argument any time there's trouble at Westminster or any time they need to divert attention away from the problems the Tories are causing is vital in understanding the array of forces lined up against the independence movement. They also downplay - or even simply fail to report - similar, albeit significantly larger examples of overspend on the WM side.

So if you think it just comes down to how much, and you don't notice that one side gets criticised WAY more than the other, when the other side is guilty of WAY bigger mistakes, then I'm afraid you're missing out on understanding what's going on here.

[Mibbes Aye]

Personally, I see the whole “who wastes more money” argument as being a fairly pointless and slightly tedious argument

When it comes to defence procurement it actually hides a far greater sin. The levels of corruption, bribery, patronage and off-the-books handouts make the PPE contracts look as beyond reproach as the Stornoway Kirk's petty cash tin.

Sadly I don't think there's a government on the planet that's immune from it, but for a supposed 'liberal democracy', the UK's record stinks.

[He's here!]

You're just making stuff up now. The other day in the thread we had posts about a "split within SNP ranks!!" and now we have the opposite.

"... by the looks of it ..." You mean you think this might be the case but you have absolutely no evidence but you're going to make an issue of it anyway. Seems to me you could get a job with BBC Scotland news team - they seem to make up SNPbad stories all the time.

Is there anything made up about the ferries scandal?

[The Modfather]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221129/15918d6fcd263ce1fd63107d9608cfcc.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would genuinely be interesting to see those not in favour of independence address the elephant in the union. Are we just to accept that in the short, medium and long term the UK’s economy is going to shrink and the best we can hope for is a managed decline?

[archie]

It would genuinely be interesting to see those not in favour of independence address the elephant in the union. Are we just to accept that in the short, medium and long term the UK’s economy is going to shrink and the best we can hope for is a managed decline?No.

[J-C]

Good analytical imput. Rogan amplified vaccine deniers which is the opposite of my opinion. Vaccine makers in Frankfurt Massachusetts and Oxford should be treated like war heroes. Vaccines and lockdowns were the only things that stopped 500k uk deaths. We were shocking at applying lockdowns, they were half hearted and weeks too late. Vaccines were rolled out wonderfully, thanks mostly to a gamble on Oxford that worked.


Lockdowns were far too late because Boris and Sunak et al wanted to keep everything as is and bring in herd immunity, get rid of the weak and elderly while everyone takes their chances. By the time they changed their minds it was far too late and the virus had taken hold, the leadership at WM was disgraceful.

[The Modfather]

No.

Any further elaboration or discussion?

[J-C]

Is there anything made up about the ferries scandal?


The difference between the ferry problems and things done by the UK Government in WM is the Ferries were mismanaged and errors, whilst things like PPE scandals by Hancock etc, could well be seen as corruption, the Michelle Mone one in the news just now is another example of pure deceit and corruption.

[Mibbes Aye]

It would genuinely be interesting to see those not in favour of independence address the elephant in the union. Are we just to accept that in the short, medium and long term the UK’s economy is going to shrink and the best we can hope for is a managed decline?

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, or more accurately Timeo Australis Hibernaos et dona manteia - basically,beware Ozyhibby bearing forecasts. With Ozy's posts it is important to divine what he has left out, more than what he has included. Like the OBR predicting 4.2% growth this year and the European Commission saying GDP growth in the EU in 2023 is actually 0.3%. I'm not saying Ozy plays fast and loose with data to make 'misleading points. Ach, okay, I am saying that :greengrin.

The real economic elephant in the room for the last couple of years has been Brexit. It's positive that the debate is now moving towards a 'managed acceptance' of how awful it was and will be, instead of head-in-the-sand, ignore the-facts denial. David Miliband was certainly very forthright about the negative impact of Brexit in his LBC interview.

[James310]

Lockdowns were far too late because Boris and Sunak et al wanted to keep everything as is and bring in herd immunity, get rid of the weak and elderly while everyone takes their chances. By the time they changed their minds it was far too late and the virus had taken hold, the leadership at WM was disgraceful.

The Scottish Government said days before lockdown they didn't need lockdown. Both governments were awful.

Catherine Calderwood on 18th March "we definitely don't need lockdown measures in Scotland at the moment"

We went into lockdown 5 days later.

Jason Leitch telling us to hug our granny etc.

[Stairway 2 7]

Lockdowns were far too late because Boris and Sunak et al wanted to keep everything as is and bring in herd immunity, get rid of the weak and elderly while everyone takes their chances. By the time they changed their minds it was far too late and the virus had taken hold, the leadership at WM was disgraceful.

Herd immunity is what we have now and what was needed eventually everywhere. Thankfully most nations got herd immunity post vaccination. Scot gov and boris both locked down probably two weeks too late. Sunak opposed pretty much every lockdown.

Our plan was headed by Whitty valance and the rest of the medical officers. Flatten the curve whilst and not overwhelming the health services. If we didn't get vaccines that's what we would have had to be doing still now, thank god we did.

Excess deaths in Scotland, England, France and Germany all ended up very similar. Our first year was disgustingly managed, particularly in care homes. Second year we did better mostly due to massive vaccine uptake

[Ozyhibby]

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, or more accurately Timeo Australis Hibernaos et dona manteia - basically,beware Ozyhibby bearing forecasts. With Ozy's posts it is important to divine what he has left out, more than what he has included. Like the OBR predicting 4.2% growth this year and the European Commission saying GDP growth in the EU in 2023 is actually 0.3%. I'm not saying Ozy plays fast and loose with data to make 'misleading points. Ach, okay, I am saying that :greengrin.

The real economic elephant in the room for the last couple of years has been Brexit. It's positive that the debate is now moving towards a 'managed acceptance' of how awful it was and will be, instead of head-in-the-sand, ignore the-facts denial. David Miliband was certainly very forthright about the negative impact of Brexit in his LBC interview.


There you go, everything is going to be great. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

The Scottish Government said days before lockdown they didn't need lockdown. Both governments were awful.

Catherine Calderwood on 18th March "we definitely don't need lockdown measures in Scotland at the moment"

We went into lockdown 5 days later.

Jason Leitch telling us to hug our granny etc.

There's a fallacy that the UK did worse or had more deaths than the rest of Europe. One reason is we tested about 10 times more than some countries so they had no idea of numbers. Excess deaths is a better way of counting. The uk did similarly to France and Germany, but better than Spain or the Europo average. Scotland had slightly more deaths than England, although not much statistical difference.

https://mobile.twitter.com/drraghibali/status/1502227961084264450

[hibsbollah]

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, or more accurately Timeo Australis Hibernaos et dona manteia - basically,beware Ozyhibby bearing forecasts. With Ozy's posts it is important to divine what he has left out, more than what he has included. Like the OBR predicting 4.2% growth this year and the European Commission saying GDP growth in the EU in 2023 is actually 0.3%. I'm not saying Ozy plays fast and loose with data to make 'misleading points. Ach, okay, I am saying that :greengrin.

The real economic elephant in the room for the last couple of years has been Brexit. It's positive that the debate is now moving towards a 'managed acceptance' of how awful it was and will be, instead of head-in-the-sand, ignore the-facts denial. David Miliband was certainly very forthright about the negative impact of Brexit in his LBC interview.


Can I ask what the purpose is of this bizarre insert of Latin (I assume it’s Latin; I am a languages graduate but I wasn’t allowed to take it in S3, something I always regret), but I tend to associate its use with swollen pomposity; somebody trying to use sophistry and class superiority in a misguided attempt to make their argument seem more seductive? Particularly when you’re, like, on a football forum? :greengrin

And it adds to the central problem here, which is im not sure what the argument you’re making actually is? The U.K. is doing spectacularly well with the neo liberal, neo-fascist race to the bottom regime we are living under, if it wasn’t for that pesky Brexit?

[Mibbes Aye]

There you go, everything is going to be great. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The austerity (some of which was entirely avoidable) that followed the global banking crisis, Brexit, Covid, twelve years of Tory rule and a steady countdown to environmental catastrophe. Things can only get better :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

There you go, everything is going to be great. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tory Brexit bad, Labour Brexit good. 😂

You can see them lining up in the studios repeating the starmer lie that he'll make Brexit work.

[archie]

Any further elaboration or discussion? Well the UK is the sixth largest economy in the world, so that's not a bad starting place. I think you are suggesting that Brexit will lead to inevitable decline. As a remainer who would vote to go back in, I don't think it's inevitable. I do think Brexit was an additional shock to the economy along with COVID and Ukraine. I also think there has been mismanagement of the economy by the current government. And Liz Truss's attempt at shock treatment was catastrophic. It also proved that governments only have so much power - there's a real world out there.

What needs to happen?
- stabilise the economy and get inflation under control
- drive COVID recovery - by which I mean rebuilding services such as the NHS
- I think the energy crisis has strengthened the case for nationalisation and vertical integration (paradoxically that it easier out of the EU)
- I personally would like reform of the House of Lords
- on climate change I think there are some very difficult decisions to be made.
- I would like to see a rapprochement with the EU and the development of bilateral arrangements
- I think we need investment in infrastructure - not just big transport, but in our towns and cities. Particularly public housing. I feel very lucky to live in Edinburgh. But you don't have to travel very far to see urban areas that have effectively collapsed economically. That's corrosive for people who live there and it's corrosive for society as as a whole.

Returning to the point about the UK being the sixth largest economy in the world I think these aims are achievable, but it needs a different UKG to do it.

[Kato]

The perspective that something is only wrong if the political opponent made the decision is unhealthy.

I don't think people on here are uncritical of the Scottish govt.

You mention perspective and mine is that the SNP are pretty mediocre and they've chucked away millions.

My perspective also sees the current Westminster govt, ie the Govt of the country you and I live in, seeking to serve a very narrow band of the population and they are syphoning off billions.

I don't criticise the Consrrvative party because I'm an SNP supporter, I don't particularly like the SNP as a party so don't class myself as an SNP supporter.

Any criticism of the Tory Party from me isn't in aid of boosting someone else. It's because of their obsessive greed and the repulsive rhetoric and idiotic "pageantry" employed trying to disguise it.

The SNP by comparison are a beigey, regional govt not unlike other regions of the UK. They only stand out because Unionists are obsessed about independence.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[The Modfather]

Well the UK is the sixth largest economy in the world, so that's not a bad starting place. I think you are suggesting that Brexit will lead to inevitable decline. As a remainer who would vote to go back in, I don't think it's inevitable. I do think Brexit was an additional shock to the economy along with COVID and Ukraine. I also think there has been mismanagement of the economy by the current government. And Liz Truss's attempt at shock treatment was catastrophic. It also proved that governments only have so much power - there's a real world out there.

What needs to happen?
- stabilise the economy and get inflation under control
- drive COVID recovery - by which I mean rebuilding services such as the NHS
- I think the energy crisis has strengthened the case for nationalisation and vertical integration (paradoxically that it easier out of the EU)
- I personally would like reform of the House of Lords
- on climate change I think there are some very difficult decisions to be made.
- I would like to see a rapprochement with the EU and the development of bilateral arrangements
- I think we need investment in infrastructure - not just big transport, but in our towns and cities. Particularly public housing. I feel very lucky to live in Edinburgh. But you don't have to travel very far to see urban areas that have effectively collapsed economically. That's corrosive for people who live there and it's corrosive for society as as a whole.

Returning to the point about the UK being the sixth largest economy in the world I think these aims are achievable, but it needs a different UKG to do it.

A good reply. A lot of which I agree with.

My concerns are that Labour are simply not going to open a discussion about Brexit being a mistake and having a constructive conversation forward that economically we are much better off being in the EU. That means that anything we do to recover the economy is set against the glass ceiling we have imposed on ourselves through Brexit.

The two areas I’d focus on personally are to heavily invest in renewables and also begin decommissioning our nuclear weapons. I just don’t see a point to them other than vanity and ego. Think what we could do with the money they cost. I’m also not sure what they actually deter when you look at Russia invading Ukraine. In the extremely unlikely event someone uses a nuclear bomb I don’t even agree that a retaliatory nuclear attack is even the answer. If they are needed let NATO have some and we all pay a share of it. Bit of a tangent and neither dependent on the independence question.

[Stairway 2 7]

A good reply. A lot of which I agree with.

My concerns are that Labour are simply not going to open a discussion about Brexit being a mistake and having a constructive conversation forward that economically we are much better off being in the EU. That means that anything we do to recover the economy is set against the glass ceiling we have imposed on ourselves through Brexit.

The two areas I’d focus on personally are to heavily invest in renewables and also begin decommissioning our nuclear weapons. I just don’t see a point to them other than vanity and ego. Think what we could do with the money they cost. I’m also not sure what they actually deter when you look at Russia invading Ukraine. In the extremely unlikely event someone uses a nuclear bomb I don’t even agree that a retaliatory nuclear attack is even the answer. If they are needed let NATO have some and we all pay a share of it. Bit of a tangent and neither dependent on the independence question.

If Ukraine didn't decommission its nuclear bombs, crimea would still be Ukraine and half of Ukraine wouldn't be flattened.

Nato is a nuclear agreement. I'd definitely call for the price to be shared hopefully as part of the new eu army once independent. It is shared partly in nato as Germany, Italy, Belgium have US nuclear weapons, UK definitely needs them also.

Think the last time it was polled 60% of Scots wanted to keep and 20% against. Russia has really changed everything unfortunately.

[Smartie]

If Ukraine didn't decommission its nuclear bombs, crimea would still be Ukraine and half of Ukraine wouldn't be flattened.

Nato is a nuclear agreement. I'd definitely call for the price to be shared hopefully as part of the new eu army once independent. It is shared partly in nato as Germany, Italy, Belgium have US nuclear weapons, UK definitely needs them also.

Think the last time it was polled 60% of Scots wanted to keep and 20% against. Russia has really changed everything unfortunately.

I’ve changed my mind on nuclear weapons since the invasion earlier this year, certainly.

I used to be avowedly against them, now I think it would be madness to get rid of them.

The world has changed. Unfortunately, as you say.

[Stairway 2 7]

I’ve changed my mind on nuclear weapons since the invasion earlier this year, certainly.

I used to be avowedly against them, now I think it would be madness to get rid of them.

The world has changed. Unfortunately, as you say.

Same as me. I would have cut back the army to a fraction pre Ukraine too. Hopefully if the European army gets going and works well we could pool resources in future. This is all not really effected by independence though as I'm sure Scotland and England will have a strong defence pact

[Ozyhibby]

I’ve changed my mind on nuclear weapons since the invasion earlier this year, certainly.

I used to be avowedly against them, now I think it would be madness to get rid of them.

The world has changed. Unfortunately, as you say.

I don’t think the world has changed so much as peoples perceptions of it have. Security has always been important but we have all grown up in relatively peaceful times in Europe. That can change quickly.
I personally have no problem keeping the bases and Trident in Scotland. A large annual fee can be charged to the UK and US as well as keeping jobs locally. Whatever happens after independence I think our defence pact with the UK will remain very strong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Modfather]

I’ve changed my mind on nuclear weapons since the invasion earlier this year, certainly.

I used to be avowedly against them, now I think it would be madness to get rid of them.

The world has changed. Unfortunately, as you say.

Why do you think it would be a bad idea to get rid of them now? It might be that we would be speaking Russian if I were in charge of the country but I still struggle to see what they are deterring.

Ukraine might not have nuclear weapons but its allies do. That made no difference to Russia. I just can’t see any real scenario, short of a Keifer Sutherland plotline, where nuclear weapons will ever be used. I’m not advocating everyone getting rid of them, well I am but that’s not plausible. I don’t see why, we, USA and France all have nuclear weapons. Why can’t we pool resources, share the cost, and put the money saved to much better use. I get with the likes of Russia and North Korea we can’t simply all decommission them, but surely a body like the EU or NATO could have them and everyone contributes to them collectively.

[Santa Cruz]

Why do you think it would be a bad idea to get rid of them now? It might be that we would be speaking Russian if I were in charge of the country but I still struggle to see what they are deterring.

Ukraine might not have nuclear weapons but its allies do. That made no difference to Russia. I just can’t see any real scenario, short of a Keifer Sutherland plotline, where nuclear weapons will ever be used. I’m not advocating everyone getting rid of them, well I am but that’s not plausible. I don’t see why, we, USA and France all have nuclear weapons. Why can’t we pool resources, share the cost, and put the money saved to much better use. I get with the likes of Russia and North Korea we can’t simply all decommission them, but surely a body like the EU or NATO could have them and everyone contributes to them collectively.

Good explanation here on NATO.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/2/pdf/200224-factsheet-nuclear-en.pdf

[archie]

A good reply. A lot of which I agree with.

My concerns are that Labour are simply not going to open a discussion about Brexit being a mistake and having a constructive conversation forward that economically we are much better off being in the EU. That means that anything we do to recover the economy is set against the glass ceiling we have imposed on ourselves through Brexit.

The two areas I’d focus on personally are to heavily invest in renewables and also begin decommissioning our nuclear weapons. I just don’t see a point to them other than vanity and ego. Think what we could do with the money they cost. I’m also not sure what they actually deter when you look at Russia invading Ukraine. In the extremely unlikely event someone uses a nuclear bomb I don’t even agree that a retaliatory nuclear attack is even the answer. If they are needed let NATO have some and we all pay a share of it. Bit of a tangent and neither dependent on the independence question.
Just to pick up a couple of points. I agree with you about renewables. It really is a no brained. But we can't be blind to issues of intermittent supply, energy storage and costs. So we need a plan b. The tricky question is what that is. Also we need to be part of a GB energy system. Something the SG agrees with. On life outside the EU, isn’t there scope for something like Norway's deal? Norwegians have rejected EU membership but participate voluntarily in some parts.
The argument against this is that you get the obligations without direct decision making. But the other side of it is that you choose what you take part in. Maybe in the long term it would be better to rebuild relationships incrementally rather than go for a convulsive big bang EU referendum.

[Ozyhibby]

Just to pick up a couple of points. I agree with you about renewables. It really is a no brained. But we can't be blind to issues of intermittent supply, energy storage and costs. So we need a plan b. The tricky question is what that is. Also we need to be part of a GB energy system. Something the SG agrees with. On life outside the EU, isn’t there scope for something like Norway's deal? Norwegians have rejected EU membership but participate voluntarily in some parts.
The argument against this is that you get the obligations without direct decision making. But the other side of it is that you choose what you take part in. Maybe in the long term it would be better to rebuild relationships incrementally rather than go for a convulsive big bang EU referendum.

I’m almost certain in the next couple of years we won’t be in the single market but we will be following all the rules of it to the point that we might as well be. This will ease the trade barriers between UK and EU. The UK will become rule takers rather than rule makers. Business will be happy. Brexit folk will be able to claim they got Brexit done. And trade will ease up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Why do you think it would be a bad idea to get rid of them now? It might be that we would be speaking Russian if I were in charge of the country but I still struggle to see what they are deterring.

Ukraine might not have nuclear weapons but its allies do. That made no difference to Russia. I just can’t see any real scenario, short of a Keifer Sutherland plotline, where nuclear weapons will ever be used. I’m not advocating everyone getting rid of them, well I am but that’s not plausible. I don’t see why, we, USA and France all have nuclear weapons. Why can’t we pool resources, share the cost, and put the money saved to much better use. I get with the likes of Russia and North Korea we can’t simply all decommission them, but surely a body like the EU or NATO could have them and everyone contributes to them collectively.I read a very interesting article by John Sweeney, the journalist reporting from Kiev. He asserts that the US has done a deal with China, which is apparently really concerned about the impact of the Ukraine invasion on the world e onomy. The deal is, apparently, that China leans on Russia not to use nuclear in return for the US not going full in on arming Ukraine. Is it true? No idea. Is it plausible? I think so.

[Smartie]

I read a very interesting article by John Sweeney, the journalist reporting from Kiev. He asserts that the US has done a deal with China, which is apparently really concerned about the impact of the Ukraine invasion on the world e onomy. The deal is, apparently, that China leans on Russia not to use nuclear in return for the US not going full in on arming Ukraine. Is it true? No idea. Is it plausible? I think so.

Maybe we're best to take this to the Ukraine thread as I think we're getting a bit off the topic of this one, but surely that's a terrible deal?

It appeases Russia and vindicates their decision to make nuclear threats, it weakens Ukraine, will probably allow Russia to get away with their aggression there and will embolden Russia to make further nuclear threats in future as they've got away with it here?

I get that the rest of the world will be keen to minimise the economic impact of the Ukraine war and I also get people's concerns about nutcases making nuclear threats but I also reckon that showing weakness on that front could come back and seriously bite them in future.

It has shades of Chamberlain having in his hand a piece of paper to me.

[WeeRussell]

I don't think people on here are uncritical of the Scottish govt.

You mention perspective and mine is that the SNP are pretty mediocre and they've chucked away millions.

My perspective also sees the current Westminster govt, ie the Govt of the country you and I live in, seeking to serve a very narrow band of the population and they are syphoning off billions.

I don't criticise the Consrrvative party because I'm an SNP supporter, I don't particularly like the SNP as a party so don't class myself as an SNP supporter.

Any criticism of the Tory Party from me isn't in aid of boosting someone else. It's because of their obsessive greed and the repulsive rhetoric and idiotic "pageantry" employed trying to disguise it.

The SNP by comparison are a beigey, regional govt not unlike other regions of the UK. They only stand out because Unionists are obsessed about independence.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Top post 👍

[James310]

New poll out showing Yes in the lead at 49%, not massively surprised considering media attention last week.

But the other poll shows voting intention for Westminster, shows SNP losing 16 seats and Labour gaining 18 seats to be on 19 in Scotland. It also of course shows IndyRef2 is lost as the 50% vote share is not achieved. Great job Nicola Sturgeon.

Prediction - the de facto referendum commitment will be dropped, it will go back to the cycle of vote for SNP for Independence in 2024, 2026 and so on.

[Keith_M]

I see the latest independence poll has 'Yes' 4 points ahead, in spite of the Supreme Court decision.


I've no idea about the political views or background of the pollsters, so I'll leave it to everybody else to decide if they want to believe it or not :wink:


26305

[marinello59]

I see the latest independence poll has 'Yes' 4 points ahead, in spite of the Supreme Court decision.


I've no idea about the political views or background of the pollsters, so I'll leave it to everybody else to decide if they want to believe it or not :wink:


26305

Strange question, asking who you think would win rather than how you would vote .:confused:

[grunt]

Strange question, asking who you think would win rather than how you would vote .:confused:Hadn't noticed that! Very odd.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221130/413c49526d9f48a526255523b66c6545.jpg
Normal question here. 52/48 in favour of Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

New poll out showing Yes in the lead at 49%, not massively surprised considering media attention last week.

But the other poll shows voting intention for Westminster, shows SNP losing 16 seats and Labour gaining 18 seats to be on 19 in Scotland. It also of course shows IndyRef2 is lost as the 50% vote share is not achieved. Great job Nicola Sturgeon.

Prediction - the de facto referendum commitment will be dropped, it will go back to the cycle of vote for SNP for Independence in 2024, 2026 and so on.

So do you think support for Yes rises when there is media attention?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

So do you think support for Yes rises when there is media attention?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it does which is good for a referendum. When will that be minimum 3 years away probably.

[James310]

So do you think support for Yes rises when there is media attention?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I would say so, I am sure you have said the same. The highest ever polling for Yes was when Nicola Sturgeon was on the TV every day.

When things calm down though and people think about jobs and education and pensions etc. it will likely drop back down, although 49% after the Supreme Court ruling isn't exactly the breakthrough I suspect the SNP wanted.

I would say though if there was a No campaign, then it would even it out. There won't be a No campaign anytime soon.

[Ozyhibby]

Yes I would say so, I am sure you have said the same. The highest ever polling for Yes was when Nicola Sturgeon was on the TV every day.

When things calm down though and people think about jobs and education and pensions etc. it will likely drop back down, although 49% after the Supreme Court ruling isn't exactly the breakthrough I suspect the SNP wanted.

I love how you include ‘don’t knows’ when it suits you. [emoji23]

Will be handy for a referendum campaign though as it will be the only thing in the news for months.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

I love how you include ‘don’t knows’ when it suits you. [emoji23]

Will be handy for a referendum campaign though as it will be the only thing in the news for months.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You missed my edit. 👍

Election campaigns only last 6 weeks. 👍

[grunt]

When things calm down though and people think about jobs and education and pensions etc. it will likely drop back down, although 49% after the Supreme Court ruling isn't exactly the breakthrough I suspect the SNP wanted.
I'm thinking about jobs and education and pensions, and that's why I'll vote Yes.

[Zambernardi1875]

Yes I would say so, I am sure you have said the same. The highest ever polling for Yes was when Nicola Sturgeon was on the TV every day.

When things calm down though and people think about jobs and education and pensions etc. it will likely drop back down, although 49% after the Supreme Court ruling isn't exactly the breakthrough I suspect the SNP wanted.

I would say though if there was a No campaign, then it would even it out. There won't be a No campaign anytime soon.

what would a no campaign offer?

[James310]

what would a no campaign offer?

I don't think there will be a no campaign at all, so at this stage it's unclear as it's not going to happen. I assume things like avoiding hard borders and trade barriers with our biggest trading partner, that kind of thing. But it won't happen, we know now there won't be a referendum next year.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't think there will be a no campaign at all, so at this stage it's unclear as it's not going to happen. I assume things like avoiding hard borders and trade barriers with our biggest trading partner, that kind of thing. But it won't happen, we know now there won't be a referendum next year.

They better be quick. The way opposition to brexit is building, those hard borders will be a bit softer by the time Starmer is finished with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Modfather]

I don't think there will be a no campaign at all, so at this stage it's unclear as it's not going to happen. I assume things like avoiding hard borders and trade barriers with our biggest trading partner, that kind of thing. But it won't happen, we know now there won't be a referendum next year.

Hard borders & trade barriers, so project fear 2. That will only take the no side so far. They will need to put a positive case forward as well which is difficult to see what that is post Brexit.

[James310]

They better be quick. The way opposition to brexit is building, those hard borders will be a bit softer by the time Starmer is finished with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And then Brexit as a big grievance disappears as well. I am more than comfortable with the way things things are going, Yes leads in polls of a few percent are pretty meaningless now as there won't be a referendum, sure if the polls surge I would be worried but even using the 52% figure it's still lower than what it's been in the past, and that's after the Supreme Court decision which was supposed to be the big driver in support for "democracy". The trend of Labour increasing support in Scotland is great to see and if it continues then the SNP will be worried (probably already are), the SNP losing quite a number of seats and Labour gains is positive. Good news all round.

[Callum_62]

https://twitter.com/olafdoesstuff/status/1598005441497165824?t=6MWaSHcc1AAGN9Hivd-gBQ&s=19

Is that a 7 percent rise in yes since 2014?

Whats the magic number needed again?



Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://twitter.com/olafdoesstuff/status/1598005441497165824?t=6MWaSHcc1AAGN9Hivd-gBQ&s=19

Is that a 7 percent rise in yes since 2014?

Whats the magic number needed again?



Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

The only polls that really matter at the moment is this one.

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1598000205730807814?t=0wBerMdT4f2Cy24hyF3sQg&s=19


Scotland Westminster Voting Intention (26-27 Nov):

Scottish National Party 41% (-4)
Labour 31% (+12)
Conservative 16% (-9)
Liberal Democrat 8% (-2)
Other 5% (+4)

Remember and thank Nicola Sturgeon for making it a de facto referendum.

[degenerated]

https://twitter.com/olafdoesstuff/status/1598005441497165824?t=6MWaSHcc1AAGN9Hivd-gBQ&s=19

Is that a 7 percent rise in yes since 2014?

Whats the magic number needed again?



Sent from my VOG-L29 using TapatalkTwentington :greengrin

[Callum_62]

The only polls that really matter at the moment is this one.

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1598000205730807814?t=0wBerMdT4f2Cy24hyF3sQg&s=19


Scotland Westminster Voting Intention (26-27 Nov):

Scottish National Party 41% (-4)
Labour 31% (+12)
Conservative 16% (-9)
Liberal Democrat 8% (-2)
Other 5% (+4)

Remember and thank Nicola Sturgeon for making it a de facto referendum.[emoji23][emoji23]

O. K.

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[James310]

[emoji23][emoji23]

O. K.

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Not sure what's so funny, that poll is not funny at all for the SNP, if that was the result it would be a disaster for them.

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://cdn.acidcow.com/pics/20150407/oldschool_phrases_15.gif

[Ozyhibby]

The only polls that really matter at the moment is this one.

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1598000205730807814?t=0wBerMdT4f2Cy24hyF3sQg&s=19


Scotland Westminster Voting Intention (26-27 Nov):

Scottish National Party 41% (-4)
Labour 31% (+12)
Conservative 16% (-9)
Liberal Democrat 8% (-2)
Other 5% (+4)

Remember and thank Nicola Sturgeon for making it a de facto referendum.

I would take all aspects of that poll with a pinch of salt. First of all they don’t poll in Scotland very often and also the supplementary questions were all around Labour and how they were doing. That can affect how people answer.
While the 52% is pleasing I think I’ll wait on one of the regular polling companies who operate up here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zambernardi1875]

I don't think there will be a no campaign at all, so at this stage it's unclear as it's not going to happen. I assume things like avoiding hard borders and trade barriers with our biggest trading partner, that kind of thing. But it won't happen, we know now there won't be a referendum next year.

Well swerved, and if there won’t be a referendum next year I’m perplexed with the fear driven propaganda spouted everyday by unionists on here. Why waste you’re time it’s not going to happens anyway eh!

[James310]

Hard borders & trade barriers, so project fear 2. That will only take the no side so far. They will need to put a positive case forward as well which is difficult to see what that is post Brexit.

Were hard borders and trade barriers being brought up at Brexit also project fear, or did it turn out to be 100% correct?

[The Modfather]

Were hard borders and trade barriers being brought up at Brexit also project fear, or did it turn out to be 100% correct?

They are valid questions in their own right. I just thought it sounded like project fear 2 as that’s the only elements you put forward as what the No campaign would entail. What are the positive elements of the post Brexit UK that will be part of the No campaign? Alongside questions about hard borders, trade barriers and also currency, which are all questions 100% to be answered.

[Stairway 2 7]

When will a referendum be maybe 3/4 years minimum. We are expected to be back in growth in both of those years. I think a labour government will be in and pushing normality. Brexit will be diluted once in power and they will say things are getting better, always pushing uncertainty.

Things will obviously be wild after independence and Scotland will be initially poorer. What it will bring is opportunity. Vast majority of energy being renewable, government with our interests first, free movement in Europe, there unfortunately will be Conservative voters but their scot party won't be as right wing

[archie]

[QUOTE=Stairway 2 7;7179188]When will a referendum be maybe 3/4 years minimum. We are expected to be back in growth in both of those years. I think a labour government will be in and pushing normality. Brexit will be diluted once in power and they will say things are getting better, always pushing uncertainty.

Things will obviously be wild after independence and Scotland will be initially poorer. What it will bring is opportunity. Vast majority of energy being renewable, government with our interests first, free movement in Europe, there unfortunately will be Conservative voters but their scot party won't be as right winQUOTE]

Interesting. I have thoughts on any immediate post independence period, but maybe for later. But if I was a Brexeteer I could argue that what you are saying about independence is exactly exactly the same as Brexit. Time to settle in, initially poorer but opportunities. What's different?

[Ozyhibby]

[QUOTE=Stairway 2 7;7179188]When will a referendum be maybe 3/4 years minimum. We are expected to be back in growth in both of those years. I think a labour government will be in and pushing normality. Brexit will be diluted once in power and they will say things are getting better, always pushing uncertainty.

Things will obviously be wild after independence and Scotland will be initially poorer. What it will bring is opportunity. Vast majority of energy being renewable, government with our interests first, free movement in Europe, there unfortunately will be Conservative voters but their scot party won't be as right winQUOTE]

Interesting. I have thoughts on any immediate post independence period, but maybe for later. But if I was a Brexeteer I could argue that what you are saying about independence is exactly exactly the same as Brexit. Time to settle in, initially poorer but opportunities. What's different?

There is actually a plan for our final destination which is back within the EU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

[QUOTE=Stairway 2 7;7179188]When will a referendum be maybe 3/4 years minimum. We are expected to be back in growth in both of those years. I think a labour government will be in and pushing normality. Brexit will be diluted once in power and they will say things are getting better, always pushing uncertainty.

Things will obviously be wild after independence and Scotland will be initially poorer. What it will bring is opportunity. Vast majority of energy being renewable, government with our interests first, free movement in Europe, there unfortunately will be Conservative voters but their scot party won't be as right winQUOTE]

Interesting. I have thoughts on any immediate post independence period, but maybe for later. But if I was a Brexeteer I could argue that what you are saying about independence is exactly exactly the same as Brexit. Time to settle in, initially poorer but opportunities. What's different?

What are the opportunities that Brexit presents for the UK?

What are we gaining from leaving the EU and what are we giving up to receive that?

I actually agree with the point that with both Brexit and Scottish independence there was/ is always going to be an initial period of adjustment that would be a bit chaotic and unpredictable. With independence I think the eventual benefits would be tangible and worth enduring a bit of hardship for. With Brexit I think the benefits are non-existent, apart from maybe some vague emotional benefits for those of a British nationalist persuasion.

I respect the alternative opinion to mine on Scottish independence that it is not a risk worth taking, even if I disagree. I think the opposite opinion on Brexit to mine isn't worthy of respect as it's utter pish.

[JeMeSouviens]

I would take all aspects of that poll with a pinch of salt. First of all they don’t poll in Scotland very often and also the supplementary questions were all around Labour and how they were doing. That can affect how people answer.
While the 52% is pleasing I think I’ll wait on one of the regular polling companies who operate up here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The question asked is "If a GE were held tomorrow how would you vote?" I would be amazed if more than a handful of respondents would weigh that up and respond on de facto ref lines.

To get a meaningful answer about a de facto ref (and I doubt you actually could just now since hardly anyone outside of political geekery is even much aware of the subject at all yet) you'd have to ask something like - "If there's no agreement to hold a referendum by 2024 and a GE is held where pro-independence parties have a manifesto consisting of just a single commitment to negotiate independence for Scotland, how would you vote?"

[JeMeSouviens]

They are valid questions in their own right. I just thought it sounded like project fear 2 as that’s the only elements you put forward as what the No campaign would entail. What are the positive elements of the post Brexit UK that will be part of the No campaign? Alongside questions about hard borders, trade barriers and also currency, which are all questions 100% to be answered.

Any political strategist looking at how to run a No campaign will inevitably conclude the focus should be entirely negative. In their shoes, that's 100% what I'd do.

[grunt]

What are the opportunities that Brexit presents for the UK?

What are we gaining from leaving the EU and what are we giving up to receive that?

I actually agree with the point that with both Brexit and Scottish independence there was/ is always going to be an initial period of adjustment that would be a bit chaotic and unpredictable. With independence I think the eventual benefits would be tangible and worth enduring a bit of hardship for. With Brexit I think the benefits are non-existent, apart from maybe some vague emotional benefits for those of a British nationalist persuasion.

I respect the alternative opinion to mine that it is not a risk worth taking, even if I disagree. I think the opposite opinion on Brexit to mine isn't worthy of respect as it's utter pish.
:agree::agree::agree::agree:

[Kato]

[QUOTE=Stairway 2 7;7179188]When will a referendum be maybe 3/4 years minimum. We are expected to be back in growth in both of those years. I think a labour government will be in and pushing normality. Brexit will be diluted once in power and they will say things are getting better, always pushing uncertainty.

Things will obviously be wild after independence and Scotland will be initially poorer. What it will bring is opportunity. Vast majority of energy being renewable, government with our interests first, free movement in Europe, there unfortunately will be Conservative voters but their scot party won't be as right winQUOTE]

Interesting. I have thoughts on any immediate post independence period, but maybe for later. But if I was a Brexeteer I could argue that what you are saying about independence is exactly exactly the same as Brexit. Time to settle in, initially poorer but opportunities. What's different?Before the Brexit referendum there was no mention of being poorer for a while. The exact opposite was promised.

"Opportunities" is also mentioned a lot by the current govt but they always fail to be specific. What are they and when will they materialise?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Before the Brexit referendum there was no mention of being poorer for a while. The exact opposite was promised.

"Opportunities" is also mentioned a lot by the current govt but they always fail to be specific. What are they and when will they materialise?

Good points both of them. :agree::agree:

[James310]

[QUOTE=archie;7179282]Before the Brexit referendum there was no mention of being poorer for a while. The exact opposite was promised.

"Opportunities" is also mentioned a lot by the current govt but they always fail to be specific. What are they and when will they materialise?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Only if you listened to one side. The Remain side said we would be poorer if we voted Leave.

Lots of examples of the Remain side saying the things you probably thought they never said.

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:yan515vor

(it's quoting Archie saying this which I know he never)

[archie]

[QUOTE=archie;7179282]

There is actually a plan for our final destination which is back within the EU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd say aspiration rather than plan.

[archie]

Any political strategist looking at how to run a No campaign will inevitably conclude the focus should be entirely negative. In their shoes, that's 100% what I'd do.Sadly I think that's true.

[archie]

[QUOTE=archie;7179282]Before the Brexit referendum there was no mention of being poorer for a while. The exact opposite was promised.

"Opportunities" is also mentioned a lot by the current govt but they always fail to be specific. What are they and when will they materialise?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I think that's true in both cases.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221201/360e0cb4ddf8a70ee3e2b04fd92349a7.jpg
British nationalists struggling to persuade the working age population still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hiber-nation]

Blackford standing down.

[James310]

Blackford standing down.

He said last week he would be the last SNP leader in Westminster. Something must have changed.

[Kato]

[QUOTE=Kato;7179329]

Only if you listened to one side. The Remain side said we would be poorer if we voted Leave.

Lots of examples of the Remain side saying the things you probably thought they never said.

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:yan515vor

(it's quoting Archie saying this which I know he never)

The remain side did say we'd be poorer but were shouted down, those who were on the side that "won" were very clear in the message that we would be richer, no down sides, no rational either and no laying out of the specifics of "opportunities", which is line still being spun.

The victorious brexit side didn't mention being poorer, no one who voted for Brexit thought we would be. Which is different to some in favour of independence who are saying we might be poorer initially.

An opportunity for independence is opening a trade agreement with 27 countries.

What are the opportunities from Brexit? I've heard we'll have a "nimble economy", "sunlit uplands" and that we'll become Europe's Silicon Valley but there is never any bones applied to these meaty catch phrases.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

He said last week he would be the last SNP leader in Westminster. Something must have changed.

His mind. It happens.