The future of the Labour Party

[Ozyhibby]

That's not the full story though. Cameron said there would be a referendum if they won the next election. That was held in 2015. So the line of causality isn't as clear as you suggest. It's also a misframing of the position. It wasn't the UK saying Scotland would need to apply - it was the EU. In addition, you are suggesting that the guarantee was broken. It was a statement of fact at the time. Your argument seems to be that EU membership would continue in perpetuity. That makes no sense.

I don’t care, I want to know how to get back in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

It was a cross party campaign.

Yes I can remember the campaign. Tories cheering hand in hand and hugging with Labour when the result was announced.

The tories as part of that could have guaranteed staying in the EU by not having the brexit referendum. Promises to Scotland meaning nothing again. Or lied to.

[archie]

Yes I can remember the campaign. Tories cheering hand in hand and hugging with Labour when the result was announced.

The tories as part of that could have guaranteed staying in the EU by not having the brexit referendum. Promises to Scotland meaning nothing again. Or lied to.

OK. As we saw from the recent SNP election campaign, binary issues lead to broad coalitions. Only today a party that is part of the Scottish Government was branding a former Cabinet Secretary as a Tory. The breadth of the SNP was shown by Ash Regan and Kate Forbes standing for leader, despite the extraordinary difference in their philosophy.

Again, the only guarantee was that Scotland would be out with a yes vote. So there was no lie. Cameron was rash having the Brexit referendum. The complete failure of the establishment remain campaign has to take its share of responsibility for Brexit. Wouldn't you say?

[WeeRussell]

OK. As we saw from the recent SNP election campaign, binary issues lead to broad coalitions. Only today a party that is part of the Scottish Government was branding a former Cabinet Secretary as a Tory. The breadth of the SNP was shown by Ash Regan and Kate Forbes standing for leader, despite the extraordinary difference in their philosophy.

Again, the only guarantee was that Scotland would be out with a yes vote. So there was no lie. Cameron was rash having the Brexit referendum. The complete failure of the establishment remain campaign has to take its share of responsibility for Brexit. Wouldn't you say?

Yeah the remain side should have lied to the same level as leave.

[archie]

Yeah the remain side should have lied to the same level as leave.

No. But they a) didn't articulate the case well, b) acted like the complacent establishment they were and c) didn't take account of issues that people were facing that would lead them to vote leave, much of which was, in my opinion, an up yours to the establishment.

[weecounty hibby]

I don’t care, I want to know how to get back in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vote for an independent Scotland!!

[Hibrandenburg]

That's not the full story though. Cameron said there would be a referendum if they won the next election. That was held in 2015. So the line of causality isn't as clear as you suggest. It's also a misframing of the position. It wasn't the UK saying Scotland would need to apply - it was the EU. In addition, you are suggesting that the guarantee was broken. It was a statement of fact at the time. Your argument seems to be that EU membership would continue in perpetuity. That makes no sense.

The Tories promised a referendum on the EU prior to the independence referendum and claimed the only guaranteed for Scotland to stay in the EU was to vote no at the same time. Your argument seems to be that they didn't lie because the guarantee was only valid until the Brexit referendum, that's just pure guff and makes you a Tory apologist.

[Hibrandenburg]

No. But they a) didn't articulate the case well, b) acted like the complacent establishment they were and c) didn't take account of issues that people were facing that would lead them to vote leave, much of which was, in my opinion, an up yours to the establishment.

No, WeeRussell is spot on.

[Hibrandenburg]

So guarantees from the UK government are worthless?

This one definitely.

[archie]

The Tories promised a referendum on the EU prior to the independence referendum and claimed the only guaranteed for Scotland to stay in the EU was to vote no at the same time. Your argument seems to be that they didn't lie because the guarantee was only valid until the Brexit referendum, that's just pure guff and makes you a Tory apologist.

This is getting desperate. The EU said Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU. Had we voted yes we would have been out. So logic tells us that if you wanted to stay in the EU in 2014 you should vote no. That's nothing to do with the Tories or anyone else. None of that precludes an independent Scotland applying to join or the UK having a vote to leave. How simple statement of fact leads me to being a Tory apologist is beyond me.

[archie]

No, WeeRussell is spot on.

So you don't agree with my comments on the remain campaign? You thought it was good?

[Glory Lurker]

Who cares about what he said she said? What are Labour doing to get us back in?

[Hibrandenburg]

This is getting desperate. The EU said Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU. Had we voted yes we would have been out. So logic tells us that if you wanted to stay in the EU in 2014 you should vote no. That's nothing to do with the Tories or anyone else. None of that precludes an independent Scotland applying to join or the UK having a vote to leave. How simple statement of fact leads me to being a Tory apologist is beyond me.

We've been over this before. We'll never know what would have happened with Scotland's EU membership, there were opposing opinions within the EU. What is certain is that circumstances have definitely changed in Scotland's favour.

[Hibrandenburg]

So you don't agree with my comments on the remain campaign? You thought it was good?

I agree with WeeRussell, the candidate that got the job was the one that completely over exaggerated in their CV.

[WeeRussell]

No, WeeRussell is spot on.

I don’t hear that very often… kinda like it 😁

[neil7908]

Who cares about what he said she said? What are Labour doing to get us back in?

That's an easy one. Sweet FA.

Starmer will happily keep up the big lie that is Brexit.

Some hope he will change course when he comes into power (that should be change course again actually, given he was previously a hard remainer who pushed for a second referendum when he wasn't in charge) but, some also think the earth is flat and pigs can fly.

[archie]

We've been over this before. We'll never know what would have happened with Scotland's EU membership, there were opposing opinions within the EU. What is certain is that circumstances have definitely changed in Scotland's favour.

How? Scotland would have to apply to get in then and in the future.

[archie]

I agree with WeeRussell, the candidate that got the job was the one that completely over exaggerated in their CV.

So the Remain campaign bears no responsibility whatsoever?

[Hibrandenburg]

How? Scotland would have to apply to get in then and in the future.

We'll never know. There we're differing opinions about what would happen but it was never tested.

[Hibrandenburg]

So the Remain campaign bears no responsibility whatsoever?

How can you apportion blame for being realistic? Are you saying Remain should have told more lies?

[archie]

How can you apportion blame for being realistic? Are you saying Remain should have told more lies?

Don't be silly. You seem fixated on the idea that a good campaign has to be lies. I think the campaign should have connected better with potential leave voters. It was too establishment and a bit elitist.

[archie]

We'll never know. There we're differing opinions about what would happen but it was never tested.

I'll take the President of the EU commission as being a bit of an authority on this. If you are actually interested here's a thoughtful paper on how Scotland might join. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/03/31/scotlands-route-to-eu-membership/

[Hibrandenburg]

Don't be silly. You seem fixated on the idea that a good campaign has to be lies. I think the campaign should have connected better with potential leave voters. It was too establishment and a bit elitist.

That's not what I said at all.

[archie]

That's not what I said at all.

Apologies- have I misunderstood your agreement with Wee Russell the the Remain campaign should have lied more?

[Hibrandenburg]

Apologies- have I misunderstood your agreement with Wee Russell the the Remain campaign should have lied more?

You remind me of another poster who was also blind to irony. And just to clarify, it was WeeRussell that was being ironic in his reply to you. (Please correct me if I'm wrong WR)

[archie]

You remind me of another poster who was also blind to irony. And just to clarify, it was WeeRussell that was being ironic in his reply to you. (Please correct me if I'm wrong WR)

OK - but you have evaded my points about frustration with the Remain campaign. We're you happy with it? As a remain voter I thought it was terrible.

[grunt]

Don't be silly. You seem fixated on the idea that a good campaign has to be lies. I think the campaign should have connected better with potential leave voters. It was too establishment and a bit elitist.
Evidence?

[archie]

Evidence?

Some interesting reflections here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/11/03/framing-risky-choices-how-the-leave-campaign-convinced-britain-to-take-a-leap-into-the-unknown/

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/uk-press-coverage-eu-referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Jack]

Some interesting reflections here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/11/03/framing-risky-choices-how-the-leave-campaign-convinced-britain-to-take-a-leap-into-the-unknown/

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/uk-press-coverage-eu-referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Did you read the full report and the book?

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/kieranpandrews/status/1642213840640147456?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Not sure why this is news? Both being doing it a while now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Did you read the full report and the book?

The research summary and the presentation, along with the Guardian article. I don't have the book. Why?

[Kato]

I'm always sceptical of the word "elite" being used with the Remain side.

Who from the Leave side of things wasn't from an Elite?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

I'm always sceptical of the word "elite" being used with the Remain side.

Who from the Leave side of things wasn't from an Elite?

Sent from my SM-A528B using TapatalkIt's a reasonable point. I don't usually use the term as it's part of the right wing narrative in the States to take the eye of billionaires and on to the 'liberal elite'. There was a lot right wing money behined the leave campaign. But every mainstream political party was lined up behind remain (albiet with the Tories the most split). And whatever you think of Farage he wasn't part of the political elite in the sense that Cameron was. If you don't think the Scottish, Welsh and UK Governments standing together represent a political elite then we will have to disagree.

[Paul1642]

https://twitter.com/ballotboxscot/status/1642240830059552768?s=46&t=QfwAUDYQuecN_TDBpg3wPA

If the latest polling figures came to pass the SNP would be unable to form a coalition even with Green and Alba (total 61 seats)

Labour and Conservative would also be unable to form a Coalition (would they even be willing to do so?) however would come closer (63 seats).

Both sides would therefore need the Lib Dem’s of board and coalitions of 3-4 party’s are never going to be smooth.

I can see the next parliament being a bit of a mess which struggles to get things through.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/ballotboxscot/status/1642240830059552768?s=46&t=QfwAUDYQuecN_TDBpg3wPA

If the latest polling figures came to pass the SNP would be unable to form a coalition even with Green and Alba (total 61 seats)

Labour and Conservative would also be unable to form a Coalition (would they even be willing to do so?) however would come closer (63 seats).

Both sides would therefore need the Lib Dem’s of board and coalitions of 3-4 party’s are never going to be smooth.

I can see the next parliament being a bit of a mess which struggles to get things through.

It’s parliament that is designed to encourage coalitions. If that is the make up then the politicians will just have to get on with it.
And Scottish Labour and the Scottish Tories will have no problem working together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

It's a reasonable point. I don't usually use the term as it's part of the right wing narrative in the States to take the eye of billionaires and on to the 'liberal elite'. There was a lot right wing money behined the leave campaign. But every mainstream political party was lined up behind remain (albiet with the Tories the most split). And whatever you think of Farage he wasn't part of the political elite in the sense that Cameron was. If you don't think the Scottish, Welsh and UK Governments standing together represent a political elite then we will have to disagree.I don't see govts as part of an elite - they are the people democratically elected to represent everyone. I can see why Leave wished to portray them as an elite but it makes no sense to me.

Faradge's connections to the world of finance and the City shows him to be part of an elite. He was also an MEP. Am man of the people he ain't.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

https://twitter.com/ballotboxscot/status/1642240830059552768?s=46&t=QfwAUDYQuecN_TDBpg3wPA

If the latest polling figures came to pass the SNP would be unable to form a coalition even with Green and Alba (total 61 seats)

Labour and Conservative would also be unable to form a Coalition (would they even be willing to do so?) however would come closer (63 seats).

Both sides would therefore need the Lib Dem’s of board and coalitions of 3-4 party’s are never going to be smooth.

I can see the next parliament being a bit of a mess which struggles to get things through.


Looking at the trend in increased support over a longer period of time is more interesting than polls imo.

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1642141324143935488?cxt=HHwWgIC2ia-1h8otAAAA

[WeeRussell]

I'm always sceptical of the word "elite" being used with the Remain side.

Who from the Leave side of things wasn't from an Elite?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I thought the same when ‘establishment’ was being used. As if it was Farage against the world.

[WeeRussell]

You remind me of another poster who was also blind to irony. And just to clarify, it was WeeRussell that was being ironic in his reply to you. (Please correct me if I'm wrong WR)

I can confirm no correction required 👍

[marinello59]

I'm always sceptical of the word "elite" being used with the Remain side.

Who from the Leave side of things wasn't from an Elite?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

The thousands of voters who were struggling to make ends met, who felt left behind and ignored by the mainstream parties and who figured they had nothing to lose by voting for change?

[Kato]

The thousands of voters who were struggling to make ends met, who felt left behind and ignored by the mainstream parties and who figured they had nothing to lose by voting for change?I am speaking of the proponents rather than those who voted.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

I thought the same when ‘establishment’ was being used. As if it was Farage against the world.

So by your logic David Cameron is not part of the establishment/ elite?

[Kato]

So by your logic David Cameron is not part of the establishment/ elite?...and by yours Boris Johnson is not...

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

...and by yours Boris Johnson is not...

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

How do you conclude that? By my thinking Governments are part of the establishment elite? That's not the only criteria, but I can't think how a former PM wouldn't be part of that.

[hibsbollah]

How do you conclude that? By my thinking Governments are part of the establishment elite? That's not the only criteria, but I can't think how a former PM wouldn't be part of that.

Obviously Brexit crossed traditional structural divides in society, so establishment figures like Cameron and (eventually) Johnson took different sides, As it did everywhere, I don’t think that’s news to anyone.

In another ‘splitting hairs’discussion, you asked for a practical example of media spun mistruths a couple of days ago and I gave you a couple, without further comment, but you still doubled down on that in later posts. Why is that?

[Kato]

How do you conclude that? By my thinking Governments are part of the establishment elite? That's not the only criteria, but I can't think how a former PM wouldn't be part of that.Ok. So to your mind both were part of an "elite".


Do you think the Leave side successfully weaponised the word so that Leave voters thought of the Leave side as not part of an elite?

Even though they were financed by billionaires and people in the city with vested interests with some Russian interest in there too?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Ok. So to your mind both were part of an "elite".


Do you think the Leave side successfully weaponised the word so that Leave voters thought of the Leave side as not part of an elite?

Even though they were financed by billionaires and people in the city with vested interests with some Russian interest in there too?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yes. And the Remain side didn't rebut it well enough.

[archie]

Obviously Brexit crossed traditional structural divides in society, so establishment figures like Cameron and (eventually) Johnson took different sides, As it did everywhere, I don’t think that’s news to anyone.

In another ‘splitting hairs’discussion, you asked for a practical example of media spun mistruths a couple of days ago and I gave you a couple, without further comment, but you still doubled down on that in later posts. Why is that?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. You cited a Corbyn story about being a spy from 1998 and a Michael Foot story from the 1990s. I think Labour have been treated disgracefully over the years. I thought it was relevant, but pretty thin gruel TBH.

[Kato]

Yes. And the Remain side didn't rebut it well enough.They were fooled into thinking they were voting against an elite. They were fooled into thinking that they were "left behind" because of our EU membership where in actual fact it was UK capitalists offshoring manufacturing jobs.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. You cited a Corbyn story about being a spy from 1998 and a Michael Foot story from the 1990s. I think Labour have been treated disgracefully over the years. I thought it was relevant, but pretty thin gruel TBH.Harold Wilson was smeared as being the "4th man" by an estaishment who knew it was Anthony Blunt.

The UK establishment will always seek to smear and undermine a Labour Govt.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

So by your logic David Cameron is not part of the establishment/ elite?

It’s not my logic. I wasn’t the one that positioned one side as the elite, and the other not.

[hibsbollah]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. You cited a Corbyn story about being a spy from 1998 and a Michael Foot story from the 1990s. I think Labour have been treated disgracefully over the years. I thought it was relevant, but pretty thin gruel TBH.

Well, you asked for examples of mistruths with the clear implication that you doubted there really were any. I provided a clear example of a recent one (from 2018), and demonstrated this is a systematic pattern of deliberate mistruths, not on minor points, but actually undermining the democratic process!

In the context of what you were asking for, it’s the very opposite of thin gruel, if there is such a thing. A Nero banquet?

[archie]

Well, you asked for examples of mistruths with the clear implication that you doubted there really were any. I provided a clear example of a recent one (from 2018), and demonstrated this is a systematic pattern of deliberate mistruths, not on minor points, but actually undermining the democratic process!

In the context of what you were asking for, it’s the very opposite of thin gruel, if there is such a thing. A Nero banquet?

I don't doubt there are mistruths. I was questioning the lazy assumption that all statements from politicos people don't like are lies.

[hibsbollah]

I don't doubt there are mistruths. I was questioning the lazy assumption that all statements from politicos people don't like are lies.

I’m not sure anyone made that claim at any point.

[archie]

I’m not sure anyone made that claim at any point.

It been a running theme: better together lies etc.

[hibsbollah]

It been a running theme: better together lies etc.

Leave people lied a lot. That’s indisputable. You claimed that unnamed people were claiming the side they didn’t support ALWAYS lied. That’s a mistruth, if you like.

[Glory Lurker]

Let's get back to Labour. I've just read what Nandy said on the BBC this morning, wriggling to avoid blaming Brexit for the Dover queues. She should be ashamed of herself if she believes it's down to Brexit but won't say it. I'm sure she didn't get into politics to avoid stating the obvious.

[Mibbes Aye]

Let's get back to Labour. I've just read what Nandy said on the BBC this morning, wriggling to avoid blaming Brexit for the Dover queues. She should be ashamed of herself if she believes it's down to Brexit but won't say it. I'm sure she didn't get into politics to avoid stating the obvious.

The Brexit vote was seven years ago The point Nandy was making was that the government was failing now, this weekend.

Holding the government to account for the here and now doesn’t mean moaning about a referendum result four prime ministers ago.

People aren’t stupid. Once lockdown finished and travel restarted, most quickly joined the dots as to why many aspects of getting abroad, being abroad and coming back from abroad were a lot worse.

We are already seeing buyers’ remorse reflected in the polling data. Rather than re-entering the poisonous debate we had in 2016 we should focus on building the best, practical relationships we can with the EU and let the momentum of public opinion swell until re-engaging is a slam dunk.

That way, hopefully, we have a better chance of marginalising the bigots, racists, and frankly Anglo-supremacists. Drive them back under the rocks of ignorance they came from, and we can talk about our future in less-polluted air.

[Glory Lurker]

The Brexit vote was seven years ago The point Nandy was making was that the government was failing now, this weekend.

Holding the government to account for the here and now doesn’t mean moaning about a referendum result four prime ministers ago.

People aren’t stupid. Once lockdown finished and travel restarted, most quickly joined the dots as to why many aspects of getting abroad, being abroad and coming back from abroad were a lot worse.

We are already seeing buyers’ remorse reflected in the polling data. Rather than re-entering the poisonous debate we had in 2016 we should focus on building the best, practical relationships we can with the EU and let the momentum of public opinion swell until re-engaging is a slam dunk.

That way, hopefully, we have a better chance of marginalising the bigots, racists, and frankly Anglo-supremacists. Drive them back under the rocks of ignorance they came from, and we can talk about our future in less-polluted air.

What was the question she was replying to? I didn't see the interview, just reading the website article but it read as if she was asked if leaving the EU had contributed.

[archie]

Leave people lied a lot. That’s indisputable. You claimed that unnamed people were claiming the side they didn’t support ALWAYS lied. That’s a mistruth, if you like.

This is what kicked it off 'all the lies about the SNP' but difficult to pin down what all the 'lies about the SNP' are.

Originally Posted by grunt View Post
So you're telling me that the media twist stories to fit their agenda? Now *that's* big news! Maybe you could tell some of your other anti-SNP posters on here, as they seem to think that all the lies they read about the SNP are true. Maybe even you yourself have at times fallen prey to this media deception.

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

[Mibbes Aye]

What was the question she was replying to? I didn't see the interview, just reading the website article but it read as if she was asked if leaving the EU had contributed.

It was a bit convoluted. Ridge cut to her after speaking to Braverman, said the head of Dover ports had said Brexit meant passport checks took longer,,then said Braverman had just told her there werent any adverse efects from Brexit(!) and she asked Nandy who was right.

Most of the interview was about grooming, sex trafficking, online harm and the government's failure to address these.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://twitter.com/ballotboxscot/status/1642240830059552768?s=46&t=QfwAUDYQuecN_TDBpg3wPA

If the latest polling figures came to pass the SNP would be unable to form a coalition even with Green and Alba (total 61 seats)

Labour and Conservative would also be unable to form a Coalition (would they even be willing to do so?) however would come closer (63 seats).

Both sides would therefore need the Lib Dem’s of board and coalitions of 3-4 party’s are never going to be smooth.

I can see the next parliament being a bit of a mess which struggles to get things through.

See 2007 - SNP 47, Lab 46. No coalition possible without at least 3 parties. Actually, the SNP governed in minority and didn't do too badly.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/ballotboxscot/status/1642240830059552768?s=46&t=QfwAUDYQuecN_TDBpg3wPA

If the latest polling figures came to pass the SNP would be unable to form a coalition even with Green and Alba (total 61 seats)

Labour and Conservative would also be unable to form a Coalition (would they even be willing to do so?) however would come closer (63 seats).

Both sides would therefore need the Lib Dem’s of board and coalitions of 3-4 party’s are never going to be smooth.

I can see the next parliament being a bit of a mess which struggles to get things through.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230403/971126c3f7211cb097a42f09c7ade069.jpg

There has been a slight change to those figures. I’m confident the SNP will be polling higher by the time we have to worry about it though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230404/dc46c804f4eb5ea4d438de949c1d9261.jpg

Branch office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230404/dc46c804f4eb5ea4d438de949c1d9261.jpg

Branch office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

‘Butch’ Starmer. Hes so effortlessly manly.

[Jones28]

Heard some clips of Starmer on LBC from his latest appearance.

What is it he stands for again?

I think it's mainly reminding everyone of how good life was 13 years ago while refusing to commit the making the changes required to get back to those standards.

[Ozyhibby]

Heard some clips of Starmer on LBC from his latest appearance.

What is it he stands for again?

I think it's mainly reminding everyone of how good life was 13 years ago while refusing to commit the making the changes required to get back to those standards.

He doesn’t really stand for anything. He just wants power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

‘Butch’ Starmer. Hes so effortlessly manly.

Leonard strikes back.

https://twitter.com/labourrichard/status/1643161489132617729?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

He doesn’t really stand for anything. He just wants power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. We just have to ignore all the stuff he says and wish upon a star that when he gets it he will suddenly turn into a radical reformer.

[ronaldo7]

This. We just have to ignore all the stuff he says and wish upon a star that when he gets it he will suddenly turn into a radical reformer.

Theirs always hope. :greengrin

https://twitter.com/i/status/1640987153936318464

[hibsbollah]

Leonard strikes back.

https://twitter.com/labourrichard/status/1643161489132617729?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He’s so effortlessly unmanly.

Seriously though. What a load of steaming Twittery *****. The snidey comments underneath, the bile inducing horror show of internecine political bitchfights. What was the platform Mandelstarmer was elected on? Uniting the Party wasn’t it?

[Ozyhibby]

Whatever else is said about Yousaf, he is put there by the members of the party here in Scotland. He can’t be sacked by anyone.
We now know that Sarwar serves the interests of Starmer first and foremost. It explains his cowardice in not defending the GRR. He couldn’t because he risked Starmer sacking him. Sarwar needs London’s permission and that is possibly the reason he has been such a let down for Scottish Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

He’s so effortlessly unmanly.

Seriously though. What a load of steaming Twittery *****. The snidey comments underneath, the bile inducing horror show of internecine political bitchfights. What was the platform Mandelstarmer was elected on? Uniting the Party wasn’t it?

You’re not telling me that a party other than the SNP (apparently in free fall) isn’t completely as one? I’m surprised a few on here that like to highlight certain ‘issues’ every day haven’t kept us up-to-date.

[ronaldo7]

Whatever else is said about Yousaf, he is put there by the members of the party here in Scotland. He can’t be sacked by anyone.
We now know that Sarwar serves the interests of Starmer first and foremost. It explains his cowardice in not defending the GRR. He couldn’t because he risked Starmer sacking him. Sarwar needs London’s permission and that is possibly the reason he has been such a let down for Scottish Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That can't be right.

Surely the democratically elected leader of the "Scottish" Labour party can't be removed by anyone other than the members. Was he put to the sword by the Overlord, who then put his lackey in place?

Johann was right all along then...Branch office.

[Ozyhibby]

That can't be right.

Surely the democratically elected leader of the "Scottish" Labour party can't be removed by anyone other than the members. Was he put to the sword by the Overlord, who then put his lackey in place?

Johann was right all along then...Branch office.

Democracy in Scotland doesn’t count.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Democracy in Scotland doesn’t count.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDon't be silly, of course it counts.. we had it in 2014!

No need for any more democracy, we've had it... ... according to Westminster anyways.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/redfieldwilton/status/1643304998292316187?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Sarwar doesn’t get any closer than Ross. Worth undermining Scottish Labour for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Theirs always hope. :greengrin

https://twitter.com/i/status/1640987153936318464

SNP getting a bit worried now,eh! Still, siding with the Tories and attacking Labour is just muscle memory for you guys isn’t it? 😂

[Hibrandenburg]

SNP getting a bit worried now,eh! Still, siding with the Tories and attacking Labour is just muscle memory for you guys isn’t it? 😂

I've obviously missed something, how are they siding with the Tories?

[Mibbes Aye]

I've obviously missed something, how are they siding with the Tories?

They would rather see Tories do well than Labour, hence the increased stream of attacks on Starmer, at the level of the link above through to Black’s mini-tirade today through to Flynn making a right **** of himself in Warrington, on BBC QT.

That’s what happens I guess when you have a party whose raison d’etre is based around manufactured anger and division. It’s actually both the Tories and the SNP. United by grievance and the pathological need to blame a Big Bad Other (in this case the two unions they rave about, with all the intellectual coherence of sleep-deprived toddlers). Siding together, sharing a well of blame, vitriol and self-pity.

Let’s face it, we have had two governments the last dozen or so years facing multiple challenges but only one agenda and at the end of the day, no answers. We deserve better.

[ronaldo7]

SNP getting a bit worried now,eh! Still, siding with the Tories and attacking Labour is just muscle memory for you guys isn’t it? 😂

:faf:

You're just making things up now because we're having a bit of fun with your Knight. All the time your party is in cahoots with the Tories all over Scotland.

[WeeRussell]

They would rather see Tories do well than Labour, hence the increased stream of attacks on Starmer, at the level of the link above through to Black’s mini-tirade today through to Flynn making a right **** of himself in Warrington, on BBC QT.

That’s what happens I guess when you have a party whose raison d’etre is based around manufactured anger and division. It’s actually both the Tories and the SNP. United by grievance and the pathological need to blame a Big Bad Other (in this case the two unions they rave about, with all the intellectual coherence of sleep-deprived toddlers). Siding together, sharing a well of blame, vitriol and self-pity.

Let’s face it, we have had two governments the last dozen or so years facing multiple challenges but only one agenda and at the end of the day, no answers. We deserve better.

You sometimes make the odd, albeit generally long-winded and often pompous, fair point. The above is lash-out-slavering from top to bottom though.

In my opinion…

[Mibbes Aye]

You sometimes make the odd, albeit long-winded and condescending, fair point. The above is lash-out-slavering from top to bottom though.

In my opinion…

Are you sure it’s not because you can’t really counter my points?

We are seeing a substantial increase in SNP personal attacks on Starmer. You can’t deny that. Is it for any reason other than feeling threatened? Why bother otherwise?

Secondly, SNP and Brexit Tories both make the same arguments about some ill-defined sense of ‘freedom’, about ending interference from outsiders. Both blame these outsiders for a ‘raw deal’. True, is it not?

Thirdly, both governments have faced challenges not all of their own making. But when it comes down to it, both have been guilty of looking inward, rather than outward, obsessing about what sort of Brexit deal, or obsessing about when and how to push for another indyref. Haven’t they?

And amidst all that, we face crises across all aspects of public services, Holyrood and Westminster-ran. Are you arguing otherwise?

It’s an uncomfortable cap you are being asked to wear, I will grant you, but it really does fit.

[J-C]

They would rather see Tories do well than Labour, hence the increased stream of attacks on Starmer, at the level of the link above through to Black’s mini-tirade today through to Flynn making a right **** of himself in Warrington, on BBC QT.

That’s what happens I guess when you have a party whose raison d’etre is based around manufactured anger and division. It’s actually both the Tories and the SNP. United by grievance and the pathological need to blame a Big Bad Other (in this case the two unions they rave about, with all the intellectual coherence of sleep-deprived toddlers). Siding together, sharing a well of blame, vitriol and self-pity.

Let’s face it, we have had two governments the last dozen or so years facing multiple challenges but only one agenda and at the end of the day, no answers. We deserve better.


Labour is the SNP's main rival in Scotland, they're on the rise here so of course they're having a go at them.

[Mibbes Aye]

Labour is the SNP's main rival in Scotland, they're on the rise here so of course they're having a go at them.

16 years of almost free rein and no answers, none whatsoever.

[Jack]

SNP getting a bit worried now,eh! Still, siding with the Tories and attacking Labour is just muscle memory for you guys isn’t it? 😂

Everyone knows the Tories are likely to get a good hiding, particularly in Scotland, the SNP see them as the main threat rather than the also rans they are at the moment.

Labour should take it as a compliment they're thought likely to become the official opposition at Holyrood!

[J-C]

16 years of almost free rein and no answers, none whatsoever.

And still Labour nowhere near taking control from the SNP, 13 years of this terrible corrupt Tory Gov and even though you have a massive lead in the polls, Starmer is still getting ripped apart for being a pussycat leader.

What did McConnell do for Scotland when in charge, he signed off on the worst tram scheme ever, double the money and double the cost.

[Ozyhibby]

16 years of almost free rein and no answers, none whatsoever.

And the answer is Sarwar?[emoji102][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

And the answer is Sarwar?[emoji102][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quality riposte but the public deserve accountability for the last 16 years.

[Mibbes Aye]

And still Labour nowhere near taking control from the SNP, 13 years of this terrible corrupt Tory Gov and even though you have a massive lead in the polls, Starmer is still getting ripped apart for being a pussycat leader.

What did McConnell do for Scotland when in charge, he signed off on the worst tram scheme ever, double the money and double the cost.

You could make your same starting point about support for independence.

As for Starmer, his opponents on here flutter like amphetamine-fuelled butterflies between calling him weak to calling him an oppressor. They don’t have a clue what their line is.

[J-C]

Quality riposte but the public deserve accountability for the last 16 years.


Why if it's been sooooo bad under the SNP have Labour been nowhere near ousting them? It's taken a resignation and a new leader to get a few extra points near them and even then, it's only a small percentage.

[Mibbes Aye]

Everyone knows the Tories are likely to get a good hiding, particularly in Scotland, the SNP see them as the main threat rather than the also rans they are at the moment.

Labour should take it as a compliment they're thought likely to become the official opposition at Holyrood!

I just get confused why the SNP go after the Westminster Labour leader. It’s not like the SNP contingent do anything there other than their expenses claims.

[cabbageandribs1875]

lord help us if the two main British right wing parties get any power in Holyrood :agree:

[J-C]

You could make your same starting point about support for independence.

As for Starmer, his opponents on here flutter like amphetamine-fuelled butterflies between calling him weak to calling him an oppressor. They don’t have a clue what their line is.


You do actually realise that the SNP were set up for one main reason and that was to try and gain independence, why are you and many others surprised when it's the main agenda on their manifesto.

As for Starmer, he hasn't a clue what he is either jumps from one viewpoint to another.

[Hibrandenburg]

They would rather see Tories do well than Labour.

I think they might be having trouble differentiating between the Tories and Labour.

[Mibbes Aye]

Why if it's been sooooo bad under the SNP have Labour been nowhere near ousting them? It's taken a resignation and a new leader to get a few extra points near them and even then, it's only a small percentage.

Good question. I suspect in part that voters, on the whole, rejected people like Leonard, rejected people like Corbyn. Can’t blame them for that.

[J-C]

I just get confused why the SNP go after the Westminster Labour leader. It’s not like the SNP contingent do anything there other than their expenses claims.


Aye, come on you 45 MP's get your fingers out, it's not like they're massively out voted by the other MP's in Westminster.

[WeeRussell]

You’ll need to forgive my poor formatting - I’m not the best at working this on my phone. I shouldn’t really have bothered this time but won’t be making the effort a second one.

Are you sure it’s not because you can’t really counter my points? YES

We are seeing a substantial increase in SNP personal attacks on Starmer. EVIDENCE? You can’t deny that. OK, THANKS Is it for any reason other than feeling threatened? Why bother otherwise? I’VE NEVER THOUGHT MUCH OF STARMER FROM DAY 1, BUT I’VE NEVER EVER FELT LABOUR ARE A THREAT TO THE SNP IN SCOTLAND.. I CAN’T ANSWER FOR ALL THESE MEMBERS OF THE SNP THAT ARE SUDDENLY PERSONALLY ATTACKING HIM, AS I DON’T KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

Secondly, SNP and Brexit Tories both make the same arguments about some ill-defined sense of ‘freedom’, about ending interference from outsiders. Both blame these outsiders for a ‘raw deal’. True, is it not? VOTING FOR BREXIT AND WANTING SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTERS AND YOU TRYING TO LINK THEM IS PATHETIC.

Thirdly, both governments have faced challenges not all of their own making. But when it comes down to it, both have been guilty of looking inward, rather than outward, obsessing about what sort of Brexit deal, or obsessing about when and how to push for another indyref. Haven’t they? THE SNP WILL ALWAYS AIM FOR INDEPENDENCE, HOWEVER I HEAR THIS ‘OBSESSION’ MENTIONED BY THE OPPOSITION OR PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF MORE THAN I ACTUALLY DO FROM THE SNP. NICOLA STURGEON DID NOT LET IT GET IN THE WAY OF HER EFFORTS TO STEER US THROUGH COVID, ASSUMING THAT IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES YOU SPEAK OF.

And amidst all that, we face crises across all aspects of public services, Holyrood and Westminster-ran. Are you arguing otherwise? AGAIN, THIS DOESN’T MEAN THE SNP ARE THE SAME AS THE TORIES. PATHETIC TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE. SOME OF US WOULD ARGUE THAT NOT BEING RUN BY WESTMINSTER WOULD IMPROVE THESE CRISES.

It’s an uncomfortable cap you are being asked to wear, I will grant you, but it really does fit. I’M NOT WEARING ANY CAP. I’M NOT A MEMBER OF THE SNP. I SIMPLY POINTED OUT YOU WERE LASHING OUT AND DESPERATELY SLAVERING.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think they might be having trouble differentiating between the Tories and Labour.

That’s rich coming from a party where half the membership just voted for a small government, low tax, anti-gay marriage, anti-single mother leader.

[WeeRussell]

You could make your same starting point about support for independence.

As for Starmer, his opponents on here flutter like amphetamine-fuelled butterflies between calling him weak to calling him an oppressor. They don’t have a clue what their line is.

Maybe they don’t have a clue who he is or what he’s meant to stand for? Maybe he’s shown traits for both of the above.

[Mibbes Aye]

You’ll need to forgive my poor formatting - I’m not the best at working this on my phone. I shouldn’t really have bothered this time but won’t be making the effort a second one.

Are you sure it’s not because you can’t really counter my points? YES

We are seeing a substantial increase in SNP personal attacks on Starmer. EVIDENCE? You can’t deny that. OK, THANKS Is it for any reason other than feeling threatened? Why bother otherwise? I’VE NEVER THOUGHT MUCH OF STARMER FROM DAY 1, BUT I’VE NEVER EVER FELT LABOUR ARE A THREAT TO THE SNP IN SCOTLAND.. I CAN’T ANSWER FOR ALL THESE MEMBERS OF THE SNP THAT ARE SUDDENLY PERSONALLY ATTACKING HIM, AS I DON’T KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

Secondly, SNP and Brexit Tories both make the same arguments about some ill-defined sense of ‘freedom’, about ending interference from outsiders. Both blame these outsiders for a ‘raw deal’. True, is it not? VOTING FOR BREXIT AND WANTING SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTERS AND YOU TRYING TO LINK THEM IS PATHETIC.

Thirdly, both governments have faced challenges not all of their own making. But when it comes down to it, both have been guilty of looking inward, rather than outward, obsessing about what sort of Brexit deal, or obsessing about when and how to push for another indyref. Haven’t they? THE SNP WILL ALWAYS AIM FOR INDEPENDENCE, HOWEVER I HEAR THIS ‘OBSESSION’ MENTIONED BY THE OPPOSITION OR PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF MORE THAN I ACTUALLY DO FROM THE SNP. NICOLA STURGEON DID NOT LET IT GET IN THE WAY OF HER EFFORTS TO STEER US THROUGH COVID, ASSUMING THAT IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES YOU SPEAK OF.

And amidst all that, we face crises across all aspects of public services, Holyrood and Westminster-ran. Are you arguing otherwise? AGAIN, THIS DOESN’T MEAN THE SNP ARE THE SAME AS THE TORIES. PATHETIC TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE. SOME OF US WOULD ARGUE THAT NOT BEING RUN BY WESTMINSTER WOULD IMPROVE THESE CRISES.

It’s an uncomfortable cap you are being asked to wear, I will grant you, but it really does fit. I’M NOT WEARING ANY CAP. I’M NOT A MEMBER OF THE SNP. I SIMPLY POINTED OUT YOU WERE LASHING OUT AND DESPERATELY SLAVERING.

That was a hard read but I did you the courtesy of reading it.

Unfortunately I don’t see any countering, just denial. Or should I say DENIAL 😀

[Mibbes Aye]

Maybe they don’t have a clue who he is or what he’s meant to stand for? Maybe he’s shown traits for both of the above.

Begs the question why they choose to try and label him then. If they know what they are saying is untrue then why are they saying that?

[J-C]

That was a hard read but I did you the courtesy of reading it.

Unfortunately I don’t see any countering, just denial. Or should I say DENIAL 😀


He's on his phone so can't quote other posters, hence the capitals to differentiate.

[weecounty hibby]

Quality riposte but the public deserve accountability for the last 16 years.
I think I may have asked this before when I see that tripe. Does the public get accountability for an illegal war based on lies, lies thatvwere known by those in charge to be lies, that caused countless deaths and still has us no further forward with peace. All done to appease the Americans who were making sure that their elite made millions out if it. Who is accountable for the billions wasted in Scotland due to Labour's PPP? What about the women of Glasgow City Council. And who was accountable for then taking them to court to block their rightful pay. Aye righto Labour are a real worry.

[WeeRussell]

Begs the question why they choose to try and label him then. If they know what they are saying is untrue then why are they saying that?

I still don’t know who ‘they’ are and will refrain from asking you to give examples of these labels that you definitely didn’t just make up, as I find your short posts almost as draining as your 5 paragraphers.

[J-C]

Begs the question why they choose to try and label him then. If they know what they are saying is untrue then why are they saying that?


Like you labelling Humza.

[Mibbes Aye]

Aye, come on you 45 MP's get your fingers out, it's not like they're massively out voted by the other MP's in Westminster.

When they do bother to vote it doesn’t need to be on single-party issues though, does it? Their constituencies voted to have someone represent them at Westminster.

I noticed they even stopped doing the ‘whae’s like us’ stuff quite sharpish. All that clapping and sitting in different seats etc. I guess they just got house-trained if you will excuse the pun 😀

[WeeRussell]

He's on his phone so can't quote other posters, hence the capitals to differentiate.

Cheers, JC. I think MA knows that, and to be fair, I took the last line as purely light-hearted anyway 👍

[Mibbes Aye]

Like you labelling Humza.

What have I ever said about Humza that I don’t believe to be true?

[Mibbes Aye]

I still don’t know who ‘they’ are and will refrain from asking you to give examples of these labels that you definitely didn’t just make up, as I find your short posts almost as draining as your 5 paragraphers.

I was quoting you! I meant the same “they” as you were referring to!

[Mibbes Aye]

Cheers, JC. I think MA knows that, and to be fair, I took the last line as purely light-hearted anyway 👍

It was and I was confident you would know that 👍

[WeeRussell]

I was quoting you! I meant the same “they” as you were referring to!

You said “his opponents on here” called him certain things. I don’t know who these posters (aka “they”) are that you are accusing.

Second half of the football for me now - night y’all.

[J-C]

When they do bother to vote it doesn’t need to be on single-party issues though, does it? Their constituencies voted to have someone represent them at Westminster.

I noticed they even stopped doing the ‘whae’s like us’ stuff quite sharpish. All that clapping and sitting in different seats etc. I guess they just got house-trained if you will excuse the pun 😀


Erm their constituents voted in an SNP MP, why the surprise that they'll vote for what they think Scotland wants, they do have a control of Holyrood and a vast majority on the MP's in Westminster.

[J-C]

What have I ever said about Humza that I don’t believe to be true?


What you believe doesn't make it true though does it, pretty snidey comments of the FM TBH.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think I may have asked this before when I see that tripe. Does the public get accountability for an illegal war based on lies, lies thatvwere known by those in charge to be lies, that caused countless deaths and still has us no further forward with peace. All done to appease the Americans who were making sure that their elite made millions out if it. Who is accountable for the billions wasted in Scotland due to Labour's PPP? What about the women of Glasgow City Council. And who was accountable for then taking them to court to block their rightful pay. Aye righto Labour are a real worry.

So we don’t ask what the SNP has done and not done for the last 16 years because of Iraq.

And you are accusing me of talking tripe?

[Kato]

You could make your same starting point about support for independence.

As for Starmer, his opponents on here flutter like amphetamine-fuelled butterflies between calling him weak to calling him an oppressor. They don’t have a clue what their line is.What is Starmers line these days?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

What you believe doesn't make it true though does it, pretty snidey comments of the FM TBH.

FFS this is hard work 😀

The conversation was about people switching their labels about Starmer, labels that were the opposite of one another. I called that out.

You said I labelled Humza. I said that my views were my beliefs but I’ve been consistent in what I have e said about him, unless you was to show otherwise. If it helps I can remind you. I called him incompetent a few times. Actually, quite a few times.

As to whether my beliefs are true, there have been a fair few voices, SNP supporters, included, saying the same. Half the members voted for someone who trashed his ministerial record.

Calling someone incompetent and explaining why is not snidely, incidentally.

[Mibbes Aye]

What is Starmers line these days?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

That the people have been failed by the governments at Westminster and Holyrood. The Tories and the SNP don’t have answers and we deserve better. And better is now an option.

And Mon the Gooners, obvs

[weecounty hibby]

So we don’t ask what the SNP has done and not done for the last 16 years because of Iraq.

And you are accusing me of talking tripe?

Ask away. But as I said is it only the SNP that are to be held to account? Actually something that is done very regularly in Scotland in elections and time and again they win and Labour lose. Its a crap question asked by folk with nothing else. SNP must be held to account...... but not Labour and certainly not the blessed Tony or Gordon

[Mibbes Aye]

Ask away. But as I said is it only the SNP that are to be held to account? Actually something that is done very regularly in Scotland in elections and time and again they win and Labour lose. Its a crap question asked by folk with nothing else. SNP must be held to account...... but not Labour and certainly not the blessed Tony or Gordon

Last I checked, our hospitals weren’t in meltdown because of Tony Blair.

[Ozyhibby]

Wow this looks like an enlightening conversation tonight. Not. I’ll leave you all to it.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

Last I checked, our hospitals weren’t in meltdown because of Tony Blair.

Pathetic. I'll leave you to it. I thought long and hard about replying to you and now firmly regret it, its just not worth it.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/04/the-guardian-view-on-sir-keir-starmer-his-party-remains-a-mystery-to-voters?CMP=share_btn_tw

Tory press lay onto Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[J-C]

That’s rich coming from a party where half the membership just voted for a small government, low tax, anti-gay marriage, anti-single mother leader.


FFS this is hard work 😀

The conversation was about people switching their labels about Starmer, labels that were the opposite of one another. I called that out.

You said I labelled Humza. I said that my views were my beliefs but I’ve been consistent in what I have e said about him, unless you was to show otherwise. If it helps I can remind you. I called him incompetent a few times. Actually, quite a few times.

As to whether my beliefs are true, there have been a fair few voices, SNP supporters, included, saying the same. Half the members voted for someone who trashed his ministerial record.

Calling someone incompetent and explaining why is not snidely, incidentally.
.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/04/the-guardian-view-on-sir-keir-starmer-his-party-remains-a-mystery-to-voters?CMP=share_btn_tw

Tory press lay onto Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Guardian - hating centrist Labour since forever.

Remember, this is the paper that employed Seamas Milne as a thoughtpiece writer, currently pays Owen Jones and oh yes, told its readers to vote Lib Dem in 2010. In the annals of blame for austerity, they played their small, yet holier-than-thou part.

Their piece essentially makes points we all know - when LAbour has announced policies, the Tories have either copied them as best they could or will spend the next year developing attack lines. Why give ammunition to the Tories?

[archie]

The Guardian - hating centrist Labour since forever.

Remember, this is the party that employed Seamas Milne as a thoughtpiece writer, currently pays Owen Jones and oh yes, told its readers to vote Lib Dem in 2010. In the annals of blame for austerity, they played their small, yet holier-than-thou part.

Their piece essentially makes points we all know - when LAbour has announced policies, the Tories have either copied them as best they could or will spend the next year developing attack lines. Why give ammunition to the Tories?

The commentators here may not have Labour's best interests at heart!

[Mibbes Aye]

Pathetic. I'll leave you to it. I thought long and hard about replying to you and now firmly regret it, its just not worth it.

You are right. It's not worth it if you are going to try and deflect criticism of the SNP by saying "Iraq", "Tony Blair" and so on. Take a bit of responsibility for what you post.

[Mibbes Aye]

.

The first post is about Kate Forbes' supporters :rolleyes:

Did you really think I was talking about Humza there???

[Mibbes Aye]

The commentators here may not have Labour's best interests at heart!

I wasn't sure at first but there might be something in that.

[neil7908]

The Guardian - hating centrist Labour since forever.

Remember, this is the party that employed Seamas Milne as a thoughtpiece writer, currently pays Owen Jones and oh yes, told its readers to vote Lib Dem in 2010. In the annals of blame for austerity, they played their small, yet holier-than-thou part.

Their piece essentially makes points we all know - when LAbour has announced policies, the Tories have either copied them as best they could or will spend the next year developing attack lines. Why give ammunition to the Tories?

I don't understand your last paragraph. How could a party that is hard on the right copy policies of a truly left one? The fact that this is possible suggests to me this version of the Tories are not that far from Labour under Starmer - which is what many of us have been saying.

And the attack line comment is bizzare - maybe Labour shouldn't publish any policies then? Whether they do it now or in a year or in their next election manifesto they will be attacked regardless. It seems a very flimsy excuse to say a party styling themselves as the next government are terrified to make any announcements on policy! How do they expect to govern? Will they not be attacked in power?

[neil7908]

The commentators here may not have Labour's best interests at heart!

I guess it depends on what Labour exist to do. If its purely to win elections then your right, maybe we don't have their interests at heart.

But this shouldn't be a competition. Labour should be looking to win as a means to improving our lives and making real, progressive changes to the country. I would (and have in the past) supported Labour. But it's not like a football team where I support them no matter what.

My grandfather voted Labour all his life but I'm not sure by the end if he knew any of Blairs policies. Personally that's not the way for me.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't understand your last paragraph. How could a party that is hard on the right copy policies of a truly left one? The fact that this is possible suggests to me this version of the Tories are not that far from Labour under Starmer - which is what many of us have been saying.

And the attack line comment is bizzare - maybe Labour shouldn't publish any policies then? Whether they do it now or in a year or in their next election manifesto they will be attacked regardless. It seems a very flimsy excuse to say a party styling themselves as the next government are terrified to make any announcements on policy! How do they expect to govern? Will they not be attacked in power?

You’ve got it all wrong. They have amazing plans for the rebirth of the UK. It’s just that it’s all a big secret.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't understand your last paragraph. How could a party that is hard on the right copy policies of a truly left one? The fact that this is possible suggests to me this version of the Tories are not that far from Labour under Starmer - which is what many of us have been saying.

And the attack line comment is bizzare - maybe Labour shouldn't publish any policies then? Whether they do it now or in a year or in their next election manifesto they will be attacked regardless. It seems a very flimsy excuse to say a party styling themselves as the next government are terrified to make any announcements on policy! How do they expect to govern? Will they not be attacked in power?

I meant not unecessarily giving them attack lines until we get to the GE campaign. I thought it was obvious but I can see how it wasn't, reading back now at a slower pace. I completely agree, parties need to offer policy ideas for government. In his case it won't just be enough to say the Toriess have ran out of ideas, or even that the ideas they do have are cretinous and often obscene. Labour will need to show a fuller hand about change - why, how and to what end.

As for your first paragraph, I know you are a thoughtful poster so I think you know yourself that the Tories have watched Labour push for things like the windfall tax and reform of childcare, seen that they are issues that cut through and mimicked them. Of course their version is half-arsed, deliberately half-arsed and actually delivers very little but it detracts from Labour's policy platform and allows the Tories to claim Labour are copying them.

[Mibbes Aye]

You’ve got it all wrong. They have amazing plans for the rebirth of the UK. It’s just that it’s all a big secret.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your self-imposed exile lasted long I see :greengrin

Your point covered in my previous post.

[Mibbes Aye]

I guess it depends on what Labour exist to do. If its purely to win elections then your right, maybe we don't have their interests at heart.

But this shouldn't be a competition. Labour should be looking to win as a means to improving our lives and making real, progressive changes to the country. I would (and have in the past) supported Labour. But it's not like a football team where I support them no matter what.

My grandfather voted Labour all his life but I'm not sure by the end if he knew any of Blairs policies. Personally that's not the way for me.

He may not have known what pension credits were but there's every chance he or people he knew benefitted from them?

To be honest, and no disrespec to your grandfather, I don't think he should be expected to know wha child poverty levels were like in 1997 and then again in 2010. The important thing was they has improved so much. I will settle for that.

[Kato]

That the people have been failed by the governments at Westminster and Holyrood. The Tories and the SNP don’t have answers and we deserve better. And better is now an option.

And Mon the Gooners, obvsSo blame culture.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Last I checked, our hospitals weren’t in meltdown because of Tony Blair.We are still paying a hell of a lot of PFI off.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

I meant not unecessarily giving them attack lines until we get to the GE campaign. I thought it was obvious but I can see how it wasn't, reading back now at a slower pace. I completely agree, parties need to offer policy ideas for government. In his case it won't just be enough to say the Toriess have ran out of ideas, or even that the ideas they do have are cretinous and often obscene. Labour will need to show a fuller hand about change - why, how and to what end.

As for your first paragraph, I know you are a thoughtful poster so I think you know yourself that the Tories have watched Labour push for things like the windfall tax and reform of childcare, seen that they are issues that cut through and mimicked them. Of course their version is half-arsed, deliberately half-arsed and actually delivers very little but it detracts from Labour's policy platform and allows the Tories to claim Labour are copying them.

Fair enough, point taken, although I feel strongly that they need to start showing this hand sooner rather than later. I know the polls are still looking good but I have a nasty feeling that Sunak is smarter and a more adept politician than many (myself absolutely included) have given him credit for.

As a floating lefty voter I am quite hard on Starmer but that's because I feel there is so much wrong with the UK and he is the one real chance for change. And I don't personally see he gets that urgency I'm feeling.

[He's here!]

They would rather see Tories do well than Labour, hence the increased stream of attacks on Starmer, at the level of the link above through to Black’s mini-tirade today through to Flynn making a right **** of himself in Warrington, on BBC QT.

That’s what happens I guess when you have a party whose raison d’etre is based around manufactured anger and division. It’s actually both the Tories and the SNP. United by grievance and the pathological need to blame a Big Bad Other (in this case the two unions they rave about, with all the intellectual coherence of sleep-deprived toddlers). Siding together, sharing a well of blame, vitriol and self-pity.

Let’s face it, we have had two governments the last dozen or so years facing multiple challenges but only one agenda and at the end of the day, no answers. We deserve better.

Good post. Having the crutch of a Tory government kicked from under them will be a big blow to the SNP.

[archie]

We are still paying a hell of a lot of PFI off.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

And will be with the current Scottish Government model.

[archie]

Good post. Having the crutch of a Tory government kicked from under them will be a big blow to the SNP.

I think losing Johnson did that. Sunak is much harder target to hit.

[archie]

Fair enough, point taken, although I feel strongly that they need to start showing this hand sooner rather than later. I know the polls are still looking good but I have a nasty feeling that Sunak is smarter and a more adept politician than many (myself absolutely included) have given him credit for.

As a floating lefty voter I am quite hard on Starmer but that's because I feel there is so much wrong with the UK and he is the one real chance for change. And I don't personally see he gets that urgency I'm feeling.

I have some sympathy with that view. But I also appreciate that the Tories would love nothing more than to be talking about Labour. Having seen previous Labour leads evaporate extreme care is required.

[Mibbes Aye]

Fair enough, point taken, although I feel strongly that they need to start showing this hand sooner rather than later. I know the polls are still looking good but I have a nasty feeling that Sunak is smarter and a more adept politician than many (myself absolutely included) have given him credit for.

As a floating lefty voter I am quite hard on Starmer but that's because I feel there is so much wrong with the UK and he is the one real chance for change. And I don't personally see he gets that urgency I'm feeling.

I can understand that and I really get the frustration. I also think you are right about the Tory capacity to go as low as they can when it comes to the crunch. The rhetoric from the range of them, from your Bravermans to your Gullises will ramp up and up.

I trust that people have shifted and will continue shifting away from them. I think that when it comes to it, people will see their last fourteen years and want a different path. But Labour will have to articulate what that path looks like more fully. I trust they will but I really get why that’s a hard ask for others. And bear in mind, the path to victory for Labour involves winning back people who didn’t vote last time round or voted Tory last time, without being signed up to what has subsequently unfolded.

[grunt]

Starmer on Dover delays:


Of course Brexit has had an impact. There are more checks to be done. That doesn’t mean that I am advocating a reversal of Brexit, I am not. I have always said there is no case now for going back in

[Hibbyradge]

Starmer[COLOR=#0F1419][FONT=TwitterChirp] on Dover delays:

If he said that we should rejoin the EU, that's all the Tories and the media would talk about and all the divisions would just resurface.

The corruption and incompetence of this government would be forgotten and Labour's lead would shrink almost immediately, particularly in the red wall seats which they must regain.

[Ozyhibby]

If he said that we should rejoin the EU, that's all the Tories and the media would talk about and all the divisions would just resurface.

The corruption and incompetence of this government would be forgotten and Labour's lead would shrink almost immediately, particularly in the red wall seats which they must regain.

So he’s happy to sacrifice it all for power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

So he’s happy to sacrifice it all for power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Said it before, will say it again. Starmer was a Remainer and he is not stupid. Public opinion will create the groundswell and he can be seen to be listening and use that,

Campaigning on a pledge to have another referendum once he’s elected would be toxic. Why would you do something so stupid?

[Hibbyradge]

So he’s happy to sacrifice it all for power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's not sacrificing anything.

[Ozyhibby]

Said it before, will say it again. Starmer was a Remainer and he is not stupid. Public opinion will create the groundswell and he can be seen to be listening and use that,

Campaigning on a pledge to have another referendum once he’s elected would be toxic. Why would you do something so stupid?

He’s a fully paid up brexiteer now.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I think losing Johnson did that. Sunak is much harder target to hit.

True.

[grunt]

Campaigning on a pledge to have another referendum once he’s elected would be toxic. Why would you do something so stupid?
:agree: Much better to lie to your electorate.

[Stairway 2 7]

:agree: Much better to lie to your electorate.

Show me a leading politician that doesn't lie, they are all the same.

[grunt]

Show me a leading politician that doesn't lie, they are all the same.Oh well that's ok then.
Truly we get the politicians we deserve.

[One Day Soon]

Oh well that's ok then.
Truly we get the politicians we deserve.

Scotland says hello...

[Hibbyradge]

Oh well that's ok then.
Truly we get the politicians we deserve.

Sturgeon resigned because she was "tired"...

[archie]

:agree: Much better to lie to your electorate.

The point is he's not lying. There is a fundamental difference between what Labour can commit to and what the SNP can commit to. Labour will make commitments that, rightly, they will be hed to account for if they gain power. The SNP has a unifying vision of independence. But beyond that any commitments have two get out clauses: they don't have the power and that it would be a matter for the government of an independent Scotland. That's why many of the commitments are just noise. Add to that the various stuff put out by the 'yes movement' which, in many cases, isn't grounded in reality, but doesn't have a paper trail back to the SNP. An example. Angus Robertson said that Scotland, in the light of a yes vote, would join the EU without a further referendum. How can he commit to that? The SNP may not be in power and surely you would want people to have a say on the deal? https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,independent-scotland-would-rejoin-eu-without-referendum-angus-robertson

[grunt]

The point is he's not lying. There is a fundamental difference between what Labour can commit to and what the SNP can commit to. Labour will make commitments that, rightly, they will be hed to account for if they gain power. The SNP has a unifying vision of independence. But beyond that any commitments have two get out clauses: they don't have the power and that it would be a matter for the government of an independent Scotland. That's why many of the commitments are just noise. Add to that the various stuff put out by the 'yes movement' which, in many cases, isn't grounded in reality, but doesn't have a paper trail back to the SNP. An example. Angus Robertson said that Scotland, in the light of a yes vote, would join the EU without a further referendum. How can he commit to that? The SNP may not be in power and surely you would want people to have a say on the deal? https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,independent-scotland-would-rejoin-eu-without-referendum-angus-robertson
I don't know what this lengthy discussion about the SNP is for - this is the Labour thread and my post suggested that Starmer was wrong to dismiss rejoining the EU. It was then implied that although he might want to rejoin, it would be madness to campaign on a policy of rejoining. So I then suggested that he was lying to the electorate if he wants one thing but campaigns for the opposite.

So is he lying or not? Does Starmer really believe that the UK should not rejoin the EU? Because if that's the case, he'll never get my vote.

[archie]

I don't know what this lengthy discussion about the SNP is for - this is the Labour thread and my post suggested that Starmer was wrong to dismiss rejoining the EU. It was then implied that although he might want to rejoin, it would be madness to campaign on a policy of rejoining. So I then suggested that he was lying to the electorate if he wants one thing but campaigns for the opposite.

So is he lying or not? Does Starmer really believe that the UK should not rejoin the EU? Because if that's the case, he'll never get my vote.

It was about holding the SNP and Labour to different standards. FWIW I would want to join the EU, but the terms of the deal would be material to a final decision.

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't know what this lengthy discussion about the SNP is for - this is the Labour thread and my post suggested that Starmer was wrong to dismiss rejoining the EU. It was then implied that although he might want to rejoin, it would be madness to campaign on a policy of rejoining. So I then suggested that he was lying to the electorate if he wants one thing but campaigns for the opposite.

So is he lying or not? Does Starmer really believe that the UK should not rejoin the EU? Because if that's the case, he'll never get my vote.

So someone anonymous you've never met before, on a messageboard, implies something, and in your head that equates to Keir Starmer lying?

Anyway, he's not campaigning 'for the opposite', he's campaigning for closer, better links with Europe. The fact he was a Remainer is a matter of public record. The fact he's not campaigning to re-run the referendum just now is a matter of common sense.

And as much as I wanted to Remain, it was the referendum result. I know you have trouble accepting it when referenda don't go the way you want but that is how democracy works, we all have to suck it up to some extent.

[grunt]

So someone anonymous you've never met before, on a messageboard, implies something, and in your head that equates to Keir Starmer lying?
No, my opinion that he's lying is based on my own assessment of what he says and what he does. I think he's an intelligent man. Any intelligent person should realise that our future lies within the EU. If he says it isn't, or he's using mealy-mouthed words ("closer links to the EU") to imply something different, then my conclusion is that he's lying to the people whose votes he desires. And that's not a good thing, regardless of whether "every politician lies".

[JeMeSouviens]

Fwiw, I quite like Starmer. I think he's a decent bloke who will probably do quite well at the job of PM. I hope and desperately want Lab to win the next UK GE and will be cheering them on. I wish he was a bit more ballsy leadership wise though. I think somebody with a bit of basic human decency needs to try and make the weather on immigration/asylum, international co-operation and a host of other things.

[Ozyhibby]

Fwiw, I quite like Starmer. I think he's a decent bloke who will probably do quite well at the job of PM. I hope and desperately want Lab to win the next UK GE and will be cheering them on. I wish he was a bit more ballsy leadership wise though. I think somebody with a bit of basic human decency needs to try and make the weather on immigration/asylum, international co-operation and a host of other things.

I’m sure once he gets some polling data in, he’ll know what he believes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

Fwiw, I quite like Starmer. I think he's a decent bloke who will probably do quite well at the job of PM. I hope and desperately want Lab to win the next UK GE and will be cheering them on. I wish he was a bit more ballsy leadership wise though. I think somebody with a bit of basic human decency needs to try and make the weather on immigration/asylum, international co-operation and a host of other things.

I don’t particularly like him but I agree in as much as I really hope they win the next GE. That’s the ‘anyone but the detestable tories’ in me. I’m in no doubt that a Labour win would be better for the UK, and continue to want Scotland to become independent.

Even if one thing might adversely affect the other.

[Mibbes Aye]

I’m sure once he gets some polling data in, he’ll know what he believes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s funny to read a Yellow Tory talking about polling data.

If you read the data up here you would realise the people want answers about health care, achools, the important day-to-day stuff. Not obsessing about referenda and ‘mandates’ and expensive, pointless trips to the Supreme Court.

Completely out-of-touch, just like the Tories.

[Ozyhibby]

It’s funny to read a Yellow Tory talking about polling data.

If you read the data up here you would realise the people want answers about health care, achools, the important day-to-day stuff. Not obsessing about referenda and ‘mandates’ and expensive, pointless trips to the Supreme Court.

Completely out-of-touch, just like the Tories.

Surely you can do better than that? What about Tartan Tory? I’d hate to be confused with the Lib Dem’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

If you read the data up here you would realise the people want answers about health care, achools, the important day-to-day stuff. Not obsessing about referenda and ‘mandates’ and expensive, pointless trips to the Supreme Court.
I don't think it's Ozy who has the obsession with the Supreme Court! :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

It’s funny to read a Yellow Tory talking about polling data.

If you read the data up here you would realise the people want answers about health care, achools, the important day-to-day stuff. Not obsessing about referenda and ‘mandates’ and expensive, pointless trips to the Supreme Court.

Completely out-of-touch, just like the Tories.

‘Yellow Tory’ :dunno: Pathetic, angry banter. And you have the brass neck to accuse others of facile debating.

A Red Tory calling out a Yellow Tory. Fascinating stuff.

[Mibbes Aye]

‘Yellow Tory’ :dunno: Pathetic, angry banter. And you have the brass neck to accuse others of facile debating.

A Red Tory calling out a Yellow Tory. Fascinating stuff.

Yellow Tory, Snories, whatever.

Half their party just voted to be led by a small government, anti-single mother, anti-gay marriage candidate. I will stick to my description thanks.

As for the name calling towards other posters, crack on. I guess you must have little else in your locker.

[archie]

‘Yellow Tory’ :dunno: Pathetic, angry banter. And you have the brass neck to accuse others of facile debating.

A Red Tory calling out a Yellow Tory. Fascinating stuff.

Red Tory. Do people still use that?

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't think it's Ozy who has the obsession with the Supreme Court! :greengrin

I doubt I’ve mentioned it more than he has if that’s what you meant? I was t even really talking about him anyway.

[hibsbollah]

Yellow Tory, Snories, whatever.

Half their party just voted to be led by a small government, anti-single mother, anti-gay marriage candidate. I will stick to my description thanks.

As for the name calling, crack on. I guess you must have little else in your locker.

If the cap fits, ‘comrade’. Personally I’ve disagreed with Ozy on many issues, but I wouldn’t be so classless as to call him a Tory. Because I’m not like that.

[Ozyhibby]

If the cap fits, ‘comrade’. Personally I’ve disagreed with Ozy on many issues, but I wouldn’t be so classless as to call him a Tory. Because I’m not like that.

Economically I would be happy to be described as only just right of centre and I’m very socially liberal. I do believe in the welfare state and that some things should be run by the state (rail, energy, water etc) and because of current market failure housing as well.
Doubt any party would have me to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Surely you can do better than that? What about Tartan Tory? I’d hate to be confused with the Lib Dem’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair post. Tartan Tories is a bit seventies though.

Snories I could run with. It is actually tricky getting something snappy that covers how both mobs channel anger towards a big ‘Other’. There will be PhDs written about it in the years ahead I guess.

[JeMeSouviens]

Fair post. Tartan Tories is a bit seventies though.

Snories I could run with. It is actually tricky getting something snappy that covers how both mobs channel anger towards a big ‘Other’. There will be PhDs written about it in the years ahead I guess.

You don't seem to be getting much traction, but keep plugging away. :aok:

[hibsbollah]

You don't seem to be getting much traction, but keep plugging away. :aok:

Anything to elevate the debate :agree:

[grunt]

I doubt I’ve mentioned it more than he has if that’s what you meant? I was t even really talking about him anyway.You quoted him?

[ronaldo7]

Deary me.

Mandelson Man has been riled.

Pick a colour, any colour. 😂

[Mibbes Aye]

You don't seem to be getting much traction, but keep plugging away. :aok:

I know. I mean basically the SNP and the Tories are just using a form of projectiion - channelling people's fears, angers and suspicions and steering them onto a faceless 'other', whether that be Brussels or Westminster.

That isn't snappy though. And it takes a while to type. I guess I can copy and paste it but if I'm on my phone its not that easy. And it is still not snappy.

Mind you, maybe that's no bad thing. Being snappy isn't always helpful.

Look at 'Build back better' or 'It's Scotland's Oil'. The benefit of hindsight makes them seem rather foolish.

Pithy slogans and insults are obviously the forte of those who think somewhat differently to me :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

You quoted him?

Top messageboard tip - sometimes, when one person replies showing another person's post, they aren't always talking specifically about that person. Sometimes, they are talking about other people. Sometimes lots of people. Sometimes not any people :agree:

In this case I was talking about what polling said about what people wanted and didn't want. Now I happen to know Ozy is a person, but that doesn't mean I was referring to him. In fact my wording indicated I wasn't :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Deary me.

Mandelson Man has been riled.

Pick a colour, any colour. 😂

Surely any currency, any currency? :greengrin

(But just make sure its used and in small denominations).

[grunt]

I know. I mean basically the SNP and the Tories are just using a form of projectiion - channelling people's fears, angers and suspicions and steering them onto a faceless 'other', whether that be Brussels or Westminster.If you don't mind my saying, that's a somewhat naive and simplistic view as to why 50% of Scots want independence. Also, it's not particularly flattering to those Scots.

And while I'm here, what makes you think that there is anything "faceless" about the fascist Tories in Westminster? We know their faces, they feature on every news programme.


Look at 'Build back better' or 'It's Scotland's Oil'. The benefit of hindsight makes them seem rather foolish.I've heard this alluded to on these boards recently. Are you suggesting that although the oil comes from Scottish waters, it's somehow not part of Scotland's energy assets?

[grunt]

Top messageboard tip - sometimes, when one person replies showing another person's post, they aren't always talking specifically about that person. Sometimes, they are talking about other people. Sometimes lots of people. Sometimes not any people :agree:

In this case I was talking about what polling said about what people wanted and didn't want. Now I happen to know Ozy is a person, but that doesn't mean I was referring to him. In fact my wording indicated I wasn't :wink:That was a long answer that failed to go anywhere near the question. So again, why did you quote him?

[hibsbollah]

Top messageboard tip - sometimes, when one person replies showing another person's post, they aren't always talking specifically about that person. Sometimes, they are talking about other people. Sometimes lots of people. Sometimes not any people :agree:

In this case I was talking about what polling said about what people wanted and didn't want. Now I happen to know Ozy is a person, but that doesn't mean I was referring to him. In fact my wording indicated I wasn't :wink:

Jeezo.
Sometimes it’s best just to say less. You’re having the proverbial nightmare.

[Mibbes Aye]

If you don't mind my saying, that's a somewhat naive and simplistic view as to why 50% of Scots want independence. Also, it's not particularly flattering to those Scots.

Agreed, and I never said that was why 50% (or 45% when we last properly checked) want independence. I said it was a tactic of the SNP (and the Tories when it came to Brussels)


you suggesting that although the oil comes from Scottish waters, it's somehow not part of Scotland's energy assets?

I'm suggesting that basing an economic case for independence on causing as much damage as we are capable of to the planet is foolish.

A better quality of life for my children and their children and their children's children, and the current and future generations around the world being displaced by life-or-death climate change?

That shouldn't be negatively impacted because of some folk with too much interest in woad and what divides us. That offends me.

[Mibbes Aye]

That was a long answer that failed to go anywhere near the question. So again, why did you quote him?

Try reading it properly. I won't say "So again" because that would suggest you read it properly already.

[grunt]

Try reading it properly. I won't say "So again" because that would suggest you read it properly already.
Why did you quote him? A simple enough question, I think.

[Mibbes Aye]

Why did you quote him? A simple enough question, I think.

I would expect nothing more from you :greengrin

His post mentioned polling data. I mentioned polling data and what people said, in response.

If youre going somewhere with this can we do the Apple Maps 'best' route, not the scenic but long-winded one?

[The Modfather]

Good to see posters pitching in and filling the void James310 left.

[JeMeSouviens]

Agreed, and I never said that was why 50% (or 45% when we last properly checked) want independence. I said it was a tactic of the SNP (and the Tories when it came to Brussels)



I'm suggesting that basing an economic case for independence on causing as much damage as we are capable of to the planet is foolish.

A better quality of life for my children and their children and their children's children, and the current and future generations around the world being displaced by life-or-death climate change?

That shouldn't be negatively impacted because of some folk with too much interest in woad and what divides us. That offends me.

The "you only want independence because you hate English people" does make any sort of debate a bit tricky. I mean other than "no, I don't" where is there to go?

Incidentally, laudable as your stance on North Sea oil is, what is the stance of the parties who have actually controlled its extraction since the 70s?


Mr Miliband replied: “We’re going to carry on using the North Sea, including under a Labour Government, for a long time to come, you’re right about that"

[Kato]

Good to see posters pitching in and filling the void James310 left."The dylithium crystals canny take much more, Captain!!"

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

The "you only want independence because you hate English people" does make any sort of debate a bit tricky.

Pathetic really, not to say insulting.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The "you only want independence because you hate English people" does make any sort of debate a bit tricky. I mean other than "no, I don't" where is there to go?

Incidentally, laudable as your stance on North Sea oil is, what is the stance of the parties who have actually controlled its extraction since the 70s?

I’m rubbish at the hating English bit. I think we should be encouraging young people from England to relocate here in order to help our demographic problems. Still, if it makes it easy for people to label then cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

The "you only want independence because you hate English people" does make any sort of debate a bit tricky. I mean other than "no, I don't" where is there to go?

Incidentally, laudable as your stance on North Sea oil is, what is the stance of the parties who have actually controlled its extraction since the 70s?

Taking your points in the wrong order, I remember Miliband’s speeches and statements on energy going back to when he had the brief under Gordon Brown. Your quote is of course far more recent. He is a fundamentally decent man in my book. I actually voted for him in the 2010 leadership election, which took me more thought than any other election I’ve voted in.

But I don’t like it. I don’t slavishly like or defend every single Labour policy. But I do like to go beyond the simple points-scoring when it comes to policy, regardless of which party. If I’m going to say something is bad policy I will say why it is bad, not it is bad because it is the policy of such-and-such.

If I was making excuses for Miliband here I would say he is talking about using North Sea oil and gas as a realistic and plausible stop-gap on the road to this lofty ambition of ‘energy security’. The tone in my words there relates to how ‘energy security’ has become an existential thing. I read it more that if you are going to pull up drawbridges then you need energy :greengrin

Anyway, I think it isn’t ambitious enough. We need change for a future that people can survive, let alone enjoy. And that requires a bit more commitment and probably making harder choices. But it is nevertheless different from what the SNP was proposing, which was a Bonanza! Wealth Fund to make us all rich and progressed!

As to your first point, I didn’t use the word ‘hate’, assuming you meant me? I did and do mean that I think for some of the nationalist brethren, independence trumps anything logical or pragmatic, as was the case with the Brexiteers. And that can spill into intolerance and jingoism and even racism. Whether that stems from hate or ignorance or both probably varies.

And I did and do mean that on the whole I find nationalism offensive, especially when it is to the detriment of important things like destroying the **** out of the planet. But even just common, garden nationalism I struggle with. All that defining yourself by how you are different from someone who lives a mile across an artificially-drawn line on a map.

A good few years back on here I used to ask the question as to whether anyone could make a positive, rational case for nationalism in the 21st century. I asked a few times. Never got an answer. I suspect because there isn’t one.

[grunt]

And I did and do mean that on the whole I find nationalism offensive, especially when it is to the detriment of important things like destroying the **** out of the planet. But even just common, garden nationalism I struggle with. All that defining yourself by how you are different from someone who lives a mile across an artificially-drawn line on a map.

So you're ok with British nationalism, as demonstrated by the Tories and your beloved Starmer, but not Scottish nationalism?

(Note for admin and any others who are upset by my use of the term "British nationalists" - I am using this term specifically to show the weakness of the argument that says "I find nationalism offensive" while at the same time supporting British nationalism.)

[Just Alf]

I’m rubbish at the hating English bit. I think we should be encouraging young people from England to relocate here in order to help our demographic problems. Still, if it makes it easy for people to label then cool.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkMe too.. a little over half my family are English.


A couple of them that stay in Perth are indy supporters and devout Scottish Nationalists!

[hibsbollah]

So you're ok with British nationalism, as demonstrated by the Tories and your beloved Starmer, but not Scottish nationalism?

(Note for admin and any others who are upset by my use of the term "British nationalists" - I am using this term specifically to show the weakness of the argument that says "I find nationalism offensive" while at the same time supporting British nationalism.)

Indeed.

I’m not sure there has even been a Labour leader so fond of public displays of the flag, and most of his pronouncements are peppered with ‘our country’, ‘national pride’, ‘patriotic duty’, and do on. We know WHY, of course, (because analytics say it polls well in key red wall seats, the deeper reason why this might be the case is for a longer debate), but when we are discussing the Labour Party it is bizarre to pretend we arent dealing with something quite new in terms of messaging. Nationalist messaging is nationalist messaging wherever it occurs.

[Stairway 2 7]

My nationalism is good and OK yours is bad

[WeeRussell]

Me too.. a little over half my family are English.


A couple of them that stay in Perth are indy supporters and devout Scottish Nationalists!

Count me in too. There are people I used to call family that I’ll never speak to again (for non-political and very good reasons) but none of them are the English members, who I get on brilliantly with and love dearly.

Along with many close friends. And while I type this it becomes clearer how absolutely mental it is that we feel the need to clarify that we don’t have anything against English people 😂🙈

A very old, lazy, completely incorrect, and offensive argument. I know absolutely nobody that wants independence for this reason and find arguments to the contrary totally pathetic, albeit predictable in some cases.

[Smartie]

Is it possible to have opinions on the nature of the relationships between Scotland, the UK and the EU without it being motivated in any way by "nationalism"?

I'm also one of those nationalists (who is happy to own the title bestowed on me by people who favour the union but don't want to be called unionists) who actually has deep misgivings about nationalism.

[Mibbes Aye]

So you're ok with British nationalism, as demonstrated by the Tories and your beloved Starmer, but not Scottish nationalism?

(Note for admin and any others who are upset by my use of the term "British nationalists" - I am using this term specifically to show the weakness of the argument that says "I find nationalism offensive" while at the same time supporting British nationalism.)

What makes me OK with ‘British Nationalism’ exactly?

If nothing else it seems to be a made-up thing, by desperadoes on the far right trying to pretend they are something less hideous, or by some Scots trying to deflect criticism from their own flag-wrapping.

[Kato]

What makes me OK with ‘British Nationalism’ exactly?

If nothing else it seems to be a made-up thing, by desperadoes on the far right trying to pretend they are something less hideous, or by some Scots trying to deflect criticism from their own flag-wrapping.You dont like looking in the mirror one jot. Is pointing out the various hues and odiousness of specific nationalism a british job for british people?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

You dont like looking in the mirror one jot.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Odd for someone who was giving ME and “uncomfortable hat to wear” on behalf of the SNP last night after pulling them up for equating the SNP to the tories.

[Mibbes Aye]

You dont like looking in the mirror one jot. Is pointing out the various hues and odiousness of specific nationalism a british job for british people?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I don’t understand that one bit. Even if it is meant as a dig it is still a case of WTF are you on about? :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Odd for someone who was giving ME and “uncomfortable hat to wear” on behalf of the SNP last night after pulling them up for equating the SNP to the tories.

I was pointing out the inherent comparisons between one jaded government tilting at windmills in London with another jaded government tilting at windmills in Edinburgh.

How about debating the ball rather than trying to debate the man, to adapt an expression?

[hibsbollah]

I don’t understand that one bit. Even if it is meant as a dig it is still a case of WTF are you on about? :greengrin

He means you appear to be just a big a ‘flag-wrapper’ as those who you criticise for being so. And he’s 100% spot-on, obviously. You appear not to have noticed the logical inconsistencies in your own argument.

[Mibbes Aye]

He means you appear to be just a big a ‘flag-wrapper’ as those who you criticise for being so. And he’s 100% spot-on, obviously. You appear not to have noticed the logical inconsistencies of your own argument.

What flag am I wrapping myself in?

[hibsbollah]

What flag am I wrapping myself in?

I think you’re just generally flagging.

[Glory Lurker]

Is it possible to have opinions on the nature of the relationships between Scotland, the UK and the EU without it being motivated in any way by "nationalism"?

I'm also one of those nationalists (who is happy to own the title bestowed on me by people who favour the union but don't want to be called unionists) who actually has deep misgivings about nationalism.

I like this.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think you’re just generally flagging.

So, you can’t back up your previous. Fair enough. I didn’t expect you to.

FWIW I half-cracked a smile at your wordplay there but that was generous on my part. You can join the list of windmill-tilters too :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

So, you can’t back up your previous. Fair enough. I didn’t expect you to.

FWIW I half-cracked a smile at your wordplay there but that was generous on my part. You can join the list of windmill-tilters too :greengrin

I didn’t think I needed to ‘back it up’. It’s not in any way quixotic, it’s really quite straightforward, there’s just an inherent weakness in your argument; based on your double standards as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable displays of nationalism. You’ve failed to make your case and lots of posters have picked up on it.

But try and remain classy and have a nice Easter. It’s only politics after all.

[archie]

I didn’t think I needed to ‘back it up’. It’s not in any way quixotic, it’s really quite straightforward, there’s just an inherent weakness in your argument; based on your double standards as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable displays of nationalism. You’ve failed to make your case and lots of posters have picked up on it.

But try and remain classy and have a nice Easter. It’s only politics after all.
I hesitate to jump in here, but there you go. Is there not a danger that you are setting up a false dichotomy here? I can only speak for myself, but British nationalism as characterised on this board holds no attraction for me at all. There does seem to be a sense that if you're not an independence supporter you must be a British nationalist. It's almost as if portraying the debate as a clash of nationalisms makes it more palatable for some independence supporters.

[The Harp Awakes]

I hesitate to jump in here, but there you go. Is there not a danger that you are setting up a false dichotomy here? I can only speak for myself, but British nationalism as characterised on this board holds no attraction for me at all. There does seem to be a sense that if you're not an independence supporter you must be a British nationalist. It's almost as if portraying the debate as a clash of nationalisms makes it more palatable for some independence supporters.

Perhaps, but even if you are not a British Nationalist, as a Labour supporter, you must have a preference for the status quo and the UK staying together?

A clash of nationalisms, I don't think so. Most supporters of independence have left wing views and want Scotland to be a more humane and just society. They believe it is the only way to eradicate poverty and improve the health of our population.
I see independence as a means to achieving that goal.

Nothing wrong with true Labour and socialist values. However, Kier Starmer's Labour Party are not far removed from wet tories in Westminster.

They are unrecognisable to the party I used to support for a good part of my life.

[WeeRussell]

I hesitate to jump in here, but there you go. Is there not a danger that you are setting up a false dichotomy here? I can only speak for myself, but British nationalism as characterised on this board holds no attraction for me at all. There does seem to be a sense that if you're not an independence supporter you must be a British nationalist. It's almost as if portraying the debate as a clash of nationalisms makes it more palatable for some independence supporters.

Why, I don’t know but I’m bored and will humour you.

Where does the “nationalist” and “nationalism” labels start during these ‘debates’?

I for one would be happy enough if the terms weren’t used at all and it was accepted possible to want independence from Westminster rule without holding any particular ‘nationalist’ views when it comes to politics.

And I think that’s generally the point people are making..If you’re going to give it out and all that..

In other words, there does seem to be a sense of if you’re an independence supporter you’re a nationalist. Its almost as if your closing sentence is nonsense.

[Mibbes Aye]

I didn’t think I needed to ‘back it up’. It’s not in any way quixotic, it’s really quite straightforward, there’s just an inherent weakness in your argument; based on your double standards as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable displays of nationalism. You’ve failed to make your case and lots of posters have picked up on it.

But try and remain classy and have a nice Easter. It’s only politics after all.

It was a simple question, you said I was a 'flag-wrapper' and I asked what flag? You weren't prepared to back your assertion up. The rest is just you taking potshots without contributing anything and trying to hide behind other posters.

[archie]

Perhaps, but even if you are not a British Nationalist, as a Labour supporter, you must have a preference for the status quo and the UK staying together?

A clash of nationalisms, I don't think so. Most supporters of independence have left wing views and want Scotland to be a more humane and just society. They believe it is the only way to eradicate poverty and improve the health of our population.
I see independence as a means to achieving that goal.

Nothing wrong with true Labour and socialist values. However, Kier Starmer's Labour Party are not far removed from wet tories in Westminster.

They are unrecognisable to the party I used to support for a good part of my life.

The thing is, your vision of independence supporters is a very recent thing. Over it's lifetime the SNP was mostly a party of the agricultural hinterland, had a long standing policy of being ferociously anti EU, and even protested the Pope's visit. They cynically and effectively weaponised the reform of section 28/2a to drive a wedge between Labour and traditional supporters. And before you say that was ages ago it was Nicola Sturgeon who lead the section 28/2a charge in the Parliament. The recent leadership election was illuminating. If it was left wing values then Ash Regan would have been the closest fit.

I don't for a second doubt your sincerity. I understand the frustration with Tory governments. I also understand some of the frustration with Tony Blair. I just don’t accept that a convulsive independence campaign and split up in the UK will make ordinary people better off. I don't say it couldn’t make people better off. But when recent candidates for the SNP leadership say it would be 10 years after independence before people saw a benefit, it begs the question whether it is worth it?

While I don't question your sincerity, that's not always afforded to people who don't support independence. Staunch Tory , Rangers fan, weird and flag ****ger are recent compliments. If a campaign is predicated as being a moral high ground it's very difficult to see people who disagree with as anything other than immoral.

[Smartie]

The thing is, your vision of independence supporters is a very recent thing. Over it's lifetime the SNP was mostly a party of the agricultural hinterland, had a long standing policy of being ferociously anti EU, and even protested the Pope's visit. They cynically and effectively weaponised the reform of section 28/2a to drive a wedge between Labour and traditional supporters. And before you say that was ages ago it was Nicola Sturgeon who lead the section 28/2a charge in the Parliament. The recent leadership election was illuminating. If it was left wing values then Ash Regan would have been the closest fit.

I don't for a second doubt your sincerity. I understand the frustration with Tory governments. I also understand some of the frustration with Tony Blair. I just don’t accept that a convulsive independence campaign and split up in the UK will make ordinary people better off. I don't say it couldn’t make people better off. But when recent candidates for the SNP leadership say it would be 10 years after independence before people saw a benefit, it begs the question whether it is worth it?

While I don't question your sincerity, that's not always afforded to people who don't support independence. Staunch Tory , Rangers fan, weird and flag ****ger are recent compliments. If a campaign is predicated as being a moral high ground it's very difficult to see people who disagree with as anything other than immoral.

This is obviously the way you choose to see it.

But do you not think an argument could be made that by very visibly standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in 2014, Labour drove that wedge in themselves?

I'd say it was more the fact that people who had voted Labour all their lives, mainly lived under a succession of Tory governments of differing degrees of awfulness and who had not seen their lives improve found that alliance distasteful. They chose to made their own move, rather than it being some sort of machiavellian act from the SNP.

[grunt]

But when recent candidates for the SNP leadership say it would be 10 years after independence before people saw a benefit, it begs the question whether it is worth it?
I was going to write a long reply to this sentence, but I think :greengrin will do.

[archie]

This is obviously the way you choose to see it.

But do you not think an argument could be made that by very visibly standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in 2014, Labour drove that wedge in themselves?

I'd say it was more the fact that people who had voted Labour all their lives and mainly lived under a succession of Tory governments of differing degrees of awfulness who had not seen their lives improve found that alliance distasteful chose to made their own move, rather than it being some sort of machiavellian act from the SNP.
Again it was a binary choice. By that logic the SNP stood shoulder to shoulder with David Cameron on the Brexit vote.

[archie]

I was going to write a long reply to this sentence, but I think :greengrin will do.

It's funny?

[Jack]

The thing is, your vision of independence supporters is a very recent thing. Over it's lifetime the SNP was mostly a party of the agricultural hinterland, had a long standing policy of being ferociously anti EU, and even protested the Pope's visit. They cynically and effectively weaponised the reform of section 28/2a to drive a wedge between Labour and traditional supporters. And before you say that was ages ago it was Nicola Sturgeon who lead the section 28/2a charge in the Parliament. The recent leadership election was illuminating. If it was left wing values then Ash Regan would have been the closest fit.

I don't for a second doubt your sincerity. I understand the frustration with Tory governments. I also understand some of the frustration with Tony Blair. I just don’t accept that a convulsive independence campaign and split up in the UK will make ordinary people better off. I don't say it couldn’t make people better off. But when recent candidates for the SNP leadership say it would be 10 years after independence before people saw a benefit, it begs the question whether it is worth it?

While I don't question your sincerity, that's not always afforded to people who don't support independence. Staunch Tory , Rangers fan, weird and flag ****ger are recent compliments. If a campaign is predicated as being a moral high ground it's very difficult to see people who disagree with as anything other than immoral.

By saying you don't accept that an independent Scotland will make ordinary people better off you are inferring they will be better off as part of the union. Can you tell us how?

If the last 10 years are any indication of what the next 10 will bring then I'd suggest Scotland and the UK will be in a considerably worse place than they are now.

[archie]

This is obviously the way you choose to see it.

But do you not think an argument could be made that by very visibly standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in 2014, Labour drove that wedge in themselves?

I'd say it was more the fact that people who had voted Labour all their lives, mainly lived under a succession of Tory governments of differing degrees of awfulness and who had not seen their lives improve found that alliance distasteful. They chose to made their own move, rather than it being some sort of machiavellian act from the SNP.

Of course it was acts by the SNP. They had do break Labour hegemony in Scotland to get anywhere. And they were successful in doing that.

[archie]

By saying you don't accept that an independent Scotland will make ordinary people better off you are inferring they will be better off as part of the union. Can you tell us how?

If the last 10 years are any indication of what the next 10 will bring then I'd suggest Scotland and the UK will be in a considerably worse place than they are now.
I think the risks are great and the rewards uncertain. For the UK the future depends on political choices that are made. Obviously I think that electing a Labour government is a step in this. I think the biggest lesson that the UK government has taught us is that just wishing things to happen doesn't cut it. Liz Truss is the prime example of that. The markets sunk her. I also think Brexit is a key lesson. The convulsive effect of withdrawing from what was effectively a trading and free movement treaty shows that just saying it will be fine doesn't cut it any more. I think that the convulsive effect of independence would have negative impacts for quite some time. The SNP Growth Commission and Kate Forbes put that at 10 years.

[Jones28]

I think the risks are great and the rewards uncertain. For the UK the future depends on political choices that are made. Obviously I think that electing a Labour government is a step in this. I think the biggest lesson that the UK government has taught us is that just wishing things to happen doesn't cut it. Liz Truss is the prime example of that. The markets sunk her. I also think Brexit is a key lesson. The convulsive effect of withdrawing from what was effectively a trading and free movement treaty shows that just saying it will be fine doesn't cut it any more. I think that the convulsive effect of independence would have negative impacts for quite some time. The SNP Growth Commission and Kate Forbes put that at 10 years.

Brexit is such a key issue for me. If Labour campaigned on a Brexit-reversal ticket they would clean house IMO, and they'd render the Conservatives an irrelevance for a generation.

But Starmer is basically saying "no no, we voted for it, and we must take our punishment for doing so, I know it looks like a pizza covered in **** but we have to eat that **** covered pizza because it's what we voted for."

[archie]

Brexit is such a key issue for me. If Labour campaigned on a Brexit-reversal ticket they would clean house IMO, and they'd render the Conservatives an irrelevance for a generation.

But Starmer is basically saying "no no, we voted for it, and we must take our punishment for doing so, I know it looks like a pizza covered in **** but we have to eat that **** covered pizza because it's what we voted for."

The thing is, no-one can campaign on a Brexit reversal ticket because it's not reversible. The idea that we would go in on the same terms is a stretch. I think the UK and an independent Scotland would face the same issues around negotiations. Arguably the UK would have a stronger hand because defeating Brexit would be a big win for the EU. The SNP have signaled that they will go for membership with no further referendum. I think that's wrong for a number of reasons, not least that the need to win a referendum can soften the EUs position in negotiations.

[grunt]

The thing is, no-one can campaign on a Brexit reversal ticket because it's not reversible. The idea that we would go in on the same terms is a stretch. I think the UK and an independent Scotland would face the same issues around negotiations. Arguably the UK would have a stronger hand because defeating Brexit would be a big win for the EU. The SNP have signaled that they will go for membership with no further referendum. I think that's wrong for a number of reasons, not least that the need to win a referendum can soften the EUs position in negotiations.
Do you think there would be any meaningful negotiations prior to a referendum to join?

[archie]

Do you think there would be any meaningful negotiations prior to a referendum to join?

There would have to be. There would be questions as to how Scotland would meet accession criteria, attitudes to the Euro, timescales for joining, would Scotland be a net contributer and so on. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/joining-eu_en#:~:text=Joining%20the%20EU,-Becoming%20a%20member&text=Any%20country%20that%20satisfies%20the,legisl ation%2C%20including%20of%20the%20euro.

[Jack]

I think the risks are great and the rewards uncertain. For the UK the future depends on political choices that are made. Obviously I think that electing a Labour government is a step in this. I think the biggest lesson that the UK government has taught us is that just wishing things to happen doesn't cut it. Liz Truss is the prime example of that. The markets sunk her. I also think Brexit is a key lesson. The convulsive effect of withdrawing from what was effectively a trading and free movement treaty shows that just saying it will be fine doesn't cut it any more. I think that the convulsive effect of independence would have negative impacts for quite some time. The SNP Growth Commission and Kate Forbes put that at 10 years.

So the basis of your optimism is wishing Labour get in, wishing they are not as bad as the tories and wishing they win the following election?

Well that's your 3 wishes up! If you come up with anything more tangible be sure and tell us.

[Ozyhibby]

The thing is, no-one can campaign on a Brexit reversal ticket because it's not reversible. The idea that we would go in on the same terms is a stretch. I think the UK and an independent Scotland would face the same issues around negotiations. Arguably the UK would have a stronger hand because defeating Brexit would be a big win for the EU. The SNP have signaled that they will go for membership with no further referendum. I think that's wrong for a number of reasons, not least that the need to win a referendum can soften the EUs position in negotiations.

I don’t want in on the same terms. I want in on the terms the other members have. The opt outs were bad for ordinary people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

There would have to be. There would be questions as to how Scotland would meet accession criteria, attitudes to the Euro, timescales for joining, would Scotland be a net contributer and so on. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/joining-eu_en#:~:text=Joining%20the%20EU,-Becoming%20a%20member&text=Any%20country%20that%20satisfies%20the,legisl ation%2C%20including%20of%20the%20euro.

Net contributor? That changes from year to year. And if you are, it’s bloody worth it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

So the basis of your optimism is wishing Labour get in, wishing they are not as bad as the tories and wishing they win the following election?

Well that's your 3 wishes up! If you come up with anything more tangible be sure and tell us.
Well ultimately it's about belief. I believe Labour will get in and I believe they will be more competent than the Tories. That's because they appear to me to be serious and capable people. For example, I think Rachel Reeves is a real talent. Using the experience of the last Labour governments I think they will, as they did then, improve the lives of ordinary people. I think that the British economy can be utilised more efficiently to improve the lives of ordinary people under Labour.

Of course the same applies to an independent Scotland. You belive it will be better. If you come up with anything more tangible be sure to tell us!

[archie]

I don’t want in on the same terms. I want in on the terms the other members have. The opt outs were bad for ordinary people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I think the opt out from the Euro was a good thing.

[archie]

I don’t want in on the same terms. I want in on the terms the other members have. The opt outs were bad for ordinary people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You'd be a car salesmanship dream.

[Hibbyradge]

Brexit is such a key issue for me. If Labour campaigned on a Brexit-reversal ticket they would clean house IMO, and they'd render the Conservatives an irrelevance for a generation.

But Starmer is basically saying "no no, we voted for it, and we must take our punishment for doing so, I know it looks like a pizza covered in **** but we have to eat that **** covered pizza because it's what we voted for."

Labour will have been polling on this issue and they know that they would lose the GE if there was the faintest hint about rejoining.

They might win more seats from the SNP in Scotland, but they need to win seats from the Tories. The reason all those "red wall" seats went Conservative last time was because Labour supported remain.

[grunt]

Well ultimately it's about belief. I believe Labour will get in and I believe they will be more competent than the Tories. That's because they appear to me to be serious and capable people. For example, I think Rachel Reeves is a real talent. Using the experience of the last Labour governments I think they will, as they did then, improve the lives of ordinary people. I think that the British economy can be utilised more efficiently to improve the lives of ordinary people under Labour.
Do you also believe that Starmer will continue with Brexit, and will continue with the anti-immigration policies of the Tories? Because he seems to have committed to both of these policies. I believe he'll be not much of an improvement on the Tories, and certainly no benefit to Scotland.

[Jones28]

The thing is, no-one can campaign on a Brexit reversal ticket because it's not reversible. The idea that we would go in on the same terms is a stretch. I think the UK and an independent Scotland would face the same issues around negotiations. Arguably the UK would have a stronger hand because defeating Brexit would be a big win for the EU. The SNP have signaled that they will go for membership with no further referendum. I think that's wrong for a number of reasons, not least that the need to win a referendum can soften the EUs position in negotiations.

We would not be rejoining on the same terms. No chance. But, as the Think of It so aptly puts it, it's better to be inside the tent pissing out.

We have imposed economic sanctions on ourselves.

A big win for the EU would still be a big win for individuals and businesses alike.

[grunt]

Labour will have been polling on this issue and they know that they would lose the GE if there was the faintest hint about rejoining.

They might win more seats from the SNP in Scotland, but they need to win seats from the Tories. The reason all those "red wall" seats went Conservative last time was because Labour supported remain.If you're telling me that England still wants to continue with Brexit, further proof that Scotland needs independence.

[archie]

Do you also believe that Starmer will continue with Brexit, and will continue with the anti-immigration policies of the Tories? Because he seems to have committed to both of these policies. I believe he'll be not much of an improvement on the Tories, and certainly no benefit to Scotland.

My sense is that there will be a rapprochement with the EU after the next election. As it happens I think this even if Tories win. The Windsor agreement is evidence of that. In my view the public will respond well to an incremental shift in relations with Europe that addresses issues rather than a big philosophical debate about the EU.

[Hibbyradge]

If you're telling me that England still wants to continue with Brexit, further proof that Scotland needs independence.

I'm pro independence so I don't need convincing.

I would imagine the majority in England now thinks Brexit was a bad idea. Not in every constituency, however.

[archie]

If you're telling me that England still wants to continue with Brexit, further proof that Scotland needs independence.

It was only parts of England that favoured Brexit. The Lib Dems polling after the last election suggested that ordinary people couldn't understand ( and were resentful of) attempts to overturn a democratic vote.

[marinello59]

My sense is that there will be a rapprochement with the EU after the next election. As it happens I think this even if Tories win. The Windsor agreement is evidence of that. In my view the public will respond well to an incremental shift in relations with Europe that addresses issues rather than a big philosophical debate about the EU.

:agree:

[Ozyhibby]

Well I think the opt out from the Euro was a good thing.

What was good about it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

The thing is, no-one can campaign on a Brexit reversal ticket because it's not reversible. The idea that we would go in on the same terms is a stretch. I think the UK and an independent Scotland would face the same issues around negotiations. Arguably the UK would have a stronger hand because defeating Brexit would be a big win for the EU. The SNP have signaled that they will go for membership with no further referendum. I think that's wrong for a number of reasons, not least that the need to win a referendum can soften the EUs position in negotiations.

Just as arguably the EU would want to make an example of repentant Britain and reward the anti-Brexit Scotland coming back to the fold.

I really don't think non-standard terms are that big a deal, tbh, for either iScotland or a returning UK.

The big opt outs the UK had were:

- the Euro - but in practice there's no difference between de jure opt out Denmark and de facto opt out Sweden
- Schengen - but the UK/Ireland's offshore geography makes this something the rest aren't overly bothered about, imo
- the social chapter - Blair opted back in

and the UK had a financial rebate, nobody is reinstating that!

[grunt]

It was only parts of England that favoured Brexit. The Lib Dems polling after the last election suggested that ordinary people couldn't understand ( and were resentful of) attempts to overturn a democratic vote.
If this is the case, we need a comprehensive independent judge-led inquiry into the referendum, including Russian influence and sources of funding of Farage and Banks et al.

[JeMeSouviens]

I hesitate to jump in here, but there you go. Is there not a danger that you are setting up a false dichotomy here? I can only speak for myself, but British nationalism as characterised on this board holds no attraction for me at all. There does seem to be a sense that if you're not an independence supporter you must be a British nationalist. It's almost as if portraying the debate as a clash of nationalisms makes it more palatable for some independence supporters.

This discussion is beyond tedious and usually takes place at cross purposes because of the conflation of the general meaning of the word nationalist (someone who believes their own nation is different and special) with the particularly Scottish context where it applies to anyone who thinks Scotland would be better as an independent country. People who are only the latter but not the former turn the logic of this back onto Britain. So, even if you are not "nationalist" in the sense of believing Britain/Britons is/are exceptional and special, the very fact that you support the existence of the British state makes you a "British nationalist". What's sauce for the goose ...

Supporters of the Union are often minded to dismiss the drive for Scottish independence as just a mixture of anti-English xenophobia and Scottish exceptionalism. The tired old trope is that "you just hate the English". Yawn.

Are there a few numpties you can dig up from twitter with views like that? Yes. Are they significant or representative? Not ime.

There's something quite ironic in people simultaneously claiming borders mean nothing to them while fighting tooth and nail to protect the immutability of the borders as currently constituted.

Anyway, fwiw, I think Scots are just the same as anybody else, no better nor worse. I think the UK could theoretically be reformed to correct all the things that are way long overdue being reformed but I have lost any vestigial faith I ever had in this happening.

[JeMeSouviens]

Well ultimately it's about belief. I believe Labour will get in and I believe they will be more competent than the Tories. That's because they appear to me to be serious and capable people. For example, I think Rachel Reeves is a real talent. Using the experience of the last Labour governments I think they will, as they did then, improve the lives of ordinary people. I think that the British economy can be utilised more efficiently to improve the lives of ordinary people under Labour.

Of course the same applies to an independent Scotland. You belive it will be better. If you come up with anything more tangible be sure to tell us!

I think Labour has capable and good people too. I think they will win the next UK GE and make things a bit better for a while. Then the Tories will come back and make it all worse than ever again.

Labour could do something about this: electoral reform is the single biggest transformative thing they could do imo. But they won't. Ho hum.

An iScotland might be awful. But at least it has a chance.

[archie]

I think Labour has capable and good people too. I think they will win the next UK GE and make things a bit better for a while. Then the Tories will come back and make it all worse than ever again.

Labour could do something about this: electoral reform is the single biggest transformative thing they could do imo. But they won't. Ho hum.

An iScotland might be awful. But at least it has a chance.

I wonder about electoral reform. In some respects better reflecting the electorate votes is attractive. In the last general election the SNP got 45% of the vote and 48 seats. The three main other parties got 53% of the vote and 11 seats. But there are a number of issues I would want reassurance on:

- the potential for small parties to have a disproportionate influence through coalitions
- how list systems work for the parties - the Scottish Parliament system shows that (but I accept it is a vehicle for smaller parties to get representation)
- how to maintain a link between individual representatives and constituencies
- stability in government
- what system - we already had a referendum on this, so how much public demand?

I accept that it should lead to more moderate government, but at what cost?

An iScotland might be awful. But at least it has a chance.Commendable frankness.

[JeMeSouviens]

Taking your points in the wrong order, I remember Miliband’s speeches and statements on energy going back to when he had the brief under Gordon Brown. Your quote is of course far more recent. He is a fundamentally decent man in my book. I actually voted for him in the 2010 leadership election, which took me more thought than any other election I’ve voted in.

But I don’t like it. I don’t slavishly like or defend every single Labour policy. But I do like to go beyond the simple points-scoring when it comes to policy, regardless of which party. If I’m going to say something is bad policy I will say why it is bad, not it is bad because it is the policy of such-and-such.

If I was making excuses for Miliband here I would say he is talking about using North Sea oil and gas as a realistic and plausible stop-gap on the road to this lofty ambition of ‘energy security’. The tone in my words there relates to how ‘energy security’ has become an existential thing. I read it more that if you are going to pull up drawbridges then you need energy :greengrin

Anyway, I think it isn’t ambitious enough. We need change for a future that people can survive, let alone enjoy. And that requires a bit more commitment and probably making harder choices. But it is nevertheless different from what the SNP was proposing, which was a Bonanza! Wealth Fund to make us all rich and progressed!

As to your first point, I didn’t use the word ‘hate’, assuming you meant me? I did and do mean that I think for some of the nationalist brethren, independence trumps anything logical or pragmatic, as was the case with the Brexiteers. And that can spill into intolerance and jingoism and even racism. Whether that stems from hate or ignorance or both probably varies.

And I did and do mean that on the whole I find nationalism offensive, especially when it is to the detriment of important things like destroying the **** out of the planet. But even just common, garden nationalism I struggle with. All that defining yourself by how you are different from someone who lives a mile across an artificially-drawn line on a map.

A good few years back on here I used to ask the question as to whether anyone could make a positive, rational case for nationalism in the 21st century. I asked a few times. Never got an answer. I suspect because there isn’t one.


Missed this response in the unexpectedly high currrent HG posting volume! So, essentially, you don't like Lab's oil policy either. Fair enough (I agree about Ed btw, seems a sound bloke).

I already wrote a bit about the nationalist label, etc. so won't bore off on it again. But suffice to say, British exceptionalism is not in short supply if you go looking for it.

[JeMeSouviens]

I wonder about electoral reform. In some respects better reflecting the electorate votes is attractive. In the last general election the SNP got 45% of the vote and 48 seats. The three main other parties got 53% of the vote and 11 seats. But there are a number of issues I would want reassurance on:

- the potential for small parties to have a disproportionate influence through coalitions
- how list systems work for the parties - the Scottish Parliament system shows that (but I accept it is a vehicle for smaller parties to get representation)
- how to maintain a link between individual representatives and constituencies
- stability in government
- what system - we already had a referendum on this, so how much public demand?

I accept that it should lead to more moderate government, but at what cost?

An iScotland might be awful. But at least it has a chance. Commendable frankness.

Exactly :agree:

Scotland viewed from the HoC looks like a monolithic separatist hotbed. Even as a vile separatist I think this is barking.

Points 2, 3 and 5 - multi-member STV. Point 4 - you think we have a stable govt? :confused: Point 1, is it really disproportionate? How much did the Libs ever get either at Holyrood or WM?

Leaving the post-election formation to one side, you would definitely see a more moderate Tory party (for example) if there was no way it could ever win unfettered power on 40% of the vote. They'd have to cast their net further to the centre.

It just seems like such a no-brainer.

[archie]

Exactly :agree:

Scotland viewed from the HoC looks like a monolithic separatist hotbed. Even as a vile separatist I think this is barking.

Points 2, 3 and 5 - multi-member STV. Point 4 - you think we have a stable govt? :confused: Point 1, is it really disproportionate? How much did the Libs ever get either at Holyrood or WM?

Leaving the post-election formation to one side, you would definitely see a more moderate Tory party (for example) if there was no way it could ever win unfettered power on 40% of the vote. They'd have to cast their net further to the centre.

It just seems like such a no-brainer.

Fair points. What do you think the implications would be for the SNP?

[Ozyhibby]

Fair points. What do you think the implications would be for the SNP?

You never answered why staying out the euro was so good for us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk