Indy Ref 2

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well. The report mentioned a note in the package.

Ha ha, well, if there is a note!

Whatever it transpires, surely we can all agrer it would be the work of some disturbed individual, and not some party or security service dirty trick?

[ronaldo7]

Any evidence that it was the Tories that sent the 'crystals' or indeed if it was a Tory voter or are you just making that up?

SNP out Tories in mentioned in the article unless you didn't read it.:rolleyes:

I see you make light of dodgy packages sent to elected officials. Nice.

[ronaldo7]

Atleast it wasn't something offensive, like stickers.

Ha Ha,

I remember when the outrage of the locals in Edinburgh South and a particular MP getting all puffed up and having to have police security for that.

That was the pesky Cybernats though.:wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

Local report on the chaos in Forfar at the Angus Council HQ

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/angus-mearns/413804/forfar-town-centre-locked-politically-motivated-anthrax-threat/


Forfar town centre was plunged into lockdown after a letter with an alleged anthrax threat was delivered to council offices


It is understood the letter indicated it contained spores of the disease, along with the message “Get SNP out. Tories in”.

[RyeSloan]

SNP out Tories in mentioned in the article unless you didn't read it.:rolleyes:

I see you make light of dodgy packages sent to elected officials. Nice.

Who was making light of anything? I merely referenced the contents of the package as reported which was rather more accurate than the headline of the article you linked.

These types of actions have as much to do with the Conservative party or their supporters in general as the swastikas and Quisling graffiti daubed over the Conservative and Labour Party offices in Aberdeen had to do with the SNP.

Using these actions to paint your political opposition as stooping to a new level is opportunistic and completely disingenuous.

And yes before you raise it I know the Aberdeen attacks were used to attack the SNP by some and my point stands for those comments as well. It's what having a non partisan view point allows me to do, you should try it sometime [emoji57]

That is of course unless you are aligned to Natalie's view of community justice [emoji12]

[ronaldo7]

Who was making light of anything? I merely referenced the contents of the package as reported which was rather more accurate than the headline of the article you linked.

These types of actions have as much to do with the Conservative party or their supporters in general as the swastikas and Quisling graffiti daubed over the Conservative and Labour Party offices in Aberdeen had to do with the SNP.

Using these actions to paint your political opposition as stooping to a new level is opportunistic and completely disingenuous.

And yes before you raise it I know the Aberdeen attacks were used to attack the SNP by some and my point stands for those comments as well. It's what having a non partisan view point allows me to do, you should try it sometime [emoji57]

That is of course unless you are aligned to Natalie's view of community justice [emoji12]

Laugh out loud moment. Cheers.

The Tory party have raised the rhetoric recently on Indyref2 and sending messages. Maybe someone took them at their word eh.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/love-is-a-stranger-in-an-open-car/

[ronaldo7]

A wee pattern beginning to show here. I wonder how the news would portray it, if it was against the Unionist parties?

Sticker gate:wink:

https://t.co/oqdiihjatx

[G B Young]

I was sent the article below by a Canadian relative prior to the 2014 referendum. Not expecting many on here to agree with it, just posting it because I think it captures the way a lot of no voters felt and still feel about being part of the union - and is expressed far more eloquently than I could put it.

Where peoples have lived in peace, secession is the worst sin in politics, writes Michael Ignatieff
©Getty (http://www.ft.com/servicestools/terms/getty)
Two prominent British politicians recently asked me for advice about how to stem the rising tide of independence in Scotland (http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/future-of-the-union). The rough stuff – threatening to keep the Scots out of the pound or out of Europe – had failed. What, they wanted to know, had saved the cause of Canada (http://www.ft.com/intl/world/canada) during the Quebec referendum of 1995 when the secessionists came within a percentage point of victory.
In the Canadian case, I told them, heartfelt appeals to stay together were made. Thousands of anglophones from outside Quebec descended on Montreal in the week before the referendum to proclaim their love for the Québécois. But Canada survived, if by a razor-thin margin, not because mutual affection was rekindled but because a cooler consensus prevailed.
Both sides realised two nations could continue to coexist side by side in the same state. Loveless coexistence keeps us going to this day. Recent polling in Quebec indicates that, while 60 per cent of the younger generation reject separatism, only 30 per cent of them express any strong identification with Canada. Quebec is in effect master in its own house – it has “devo max”, as the Scots might say. This, together with a shared shudder at the thought of ever going through the ordeal of a referendum again, keeps Canada in one piece. Once was divisive enough.
This is what I told the British politicians but I felt I had sold my own convictions short. I am an English-speaking Canadian but my entire family – Russian exiles and the Canadians they married – is buried in Quebec, and if Quebec were to separate I would feel I had been cut in two. This is why my belief in multinational, multi-ethnic states, not just in Canada but also in Britain, Spain, the former Yugoslavia and now in Ukraine, has always been a matter of passion.
To me states such as these show that people who speak different languages, worship in different faiths and are heirs to painfully different histories can share institutions and defend democratic freedoms together. When I see Scots or Catalans thinking of breaking up a union, I feel what a poet called a “tidal heave in the chest” (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vPOXloIUHpQC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=brad+leithauser+and+%22after+the+detonation+of+ the+moon%22&source=bl&ots=GHMJHLNq97&sig=oADgIILP5ePlprDe8oy82F5q_WY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xv-rU8y7EMPfOsLVgLAL&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=brad%20leithauser%20and%20%22after%20the%20deton ation%20of%20the%20moon%22&f=false). I am invested emotionally in the survival of all multi-ethnic, multinational, multi-confessional experiments in democratic freedom.
It is not that I do not respect the visceral appeal of nationalist feeling: the desire to be master in your own house, to be at home among fellow countrymen who, as Isaiah Berlin said, understand not just what you say but also what you mean. Like Berlin, I have never thought that liberalism and national patriotism should be enemies or that the only good liberal is a cosmopolitan. Belief in liberal freedom and democracy is always belief in it in a particular place, in a national home with histories that only those who are born in a place or who adopt its citizenship can hope to understand.
No, my visceral opposition to Scottish, Catalan, Quebec and other projects of independence is not to nationalism, but to secession – to the breaking apart of political systems that, without violence, have enabled peoples to live together. For the breaking apart does not merely shatter a political union, it forces apart the shared identities that people like me carry in their souls.
Secessionists, whether in Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec or anywhere else, invariably assume that a person must either be Scottish or British, Catalan or Spanish, Québécois or Canadian. What about those who feel they are both? I know that I cannot share the same sense of being a minority my Québécois friends feel but I do know that Quebec’s soil, its language, its winter cold, its languid summers, are part of who I am.
I am not so exceptional. There are hundreds of thousands of Scots who acknowledge English, Irish or Welsh parts of their very being. Lives and destinies are similarly intertwined in Catalonia and Spain, in Ukraine and Russia. The same was true in the former Yugoslavia, where in the 1990s women with Croatian names and Serbian husbands used to ask me with tears in their eyes why the nationalists were forcing them to choose between parts of their being.
This is the moral sin of separatism. Separatist politicians, desiring to be presidents or prime ministers of little countries, force their fellow citizens to make choices that they should not have to make between identities that they have combined, each in their own unique way, and now watch being ripped apart – one portion of themselves flung on one side of a border, a damaged remnant on the other. If Scotland does secede, there will be many torn souls the day after.
I do not claim secession is never justified. When blood has been shed, people will fight to be free of an alien yoke. But where, as in the UK, Canada, Spain and Ukraine, peoples have lived side by side, perhaps not always in justice but usually in peace, secession is the worst sin in politics, a gratuitous infliction of political choice on peoples who do not want to be forced to choose.
Nor do I claim that the constitutional status quo in Spain, Canada and the UK cannot be improved upon. Further change may be necessary in each case. What I do believe is that these states work because they do not force free peoples to choose between identities. They allow them to be Scots or British, Canadian or Québécois, Spanish or Catalan, in whatever rank order a citizen chooses. This is the moral value that redeems multinational states, the freedom to belong, to order your ultimate loyalties as you think best.
If you destroy that freedom – and secession does destroy it – Scotland may be sovereign but its people will be the poorer for it. I hope believers in the union will start making this argument with the passion it deserves.

[pacoluna]

I was sent the article below by a Canadian relative prior to the 2014 referendum. Not expecting many on here to agree with it, just posting it because I think it captures the way a lot of no voters felt and still feel about being part of the union - and is expressed far more eloquently than I could put it.

Where peoples have lived in peace, secession is the worst sin in politics, writes Michael Ignatieff
©Getty (http://www.ft.com/servicestools/terms/getty)
Two prominent British politicians recently asked me for advice about how to stem the rising tide of independence in Scotland (http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/future-of-the-union). The rough stuff – threatening to keep the Scots out of the pound or out of Europe – had failed. What, they wanted to know, had saved the cause of Canada (http://www.ft.com/intl/world/canada) during the Quebec referendum of 1995 when the secessionists came within a percentage point of victory.
In the Canadian case, I told them, heartfelt appeals to stay together were made. Thousands of anglophones from outside Quebec descended on Montreal in the week before the referendum to proclaim their love for the Québécois. But Canada survived, if by a razor-thin margin, not because mutual affection was rekindled but because a cooler consensus prevailed.
Both sides realised two nations could continue to coexist side by side in the same state. Loveless coexistence keeps us going to this day. Recent polling in Quebec indicates that, while 60 per cent of the younger generation reject separatism, only 30 per cent of them express any strong identification with Canada. Quebec is in effect master in its own house – it has “devo max”, as the Scots might say. This, together with a shared shudder at the thought of ever going through the ordeal of a referendum again, keeps Canada in one piece. Once was divisive enough.
This is what I told the British politicians but I felt I had sold my own convictions short. I am an English-speaking Canadian but my entire family – Russian exiles and the Canadians they married – is buried in Quebec, and if Quebec were to separate I would feel I had been cut in two. This is why my belief in multinational, multi-ethnic states, not just in Canada but also in Britain, Spain, the former Yugoslavia and now in Ukraine, has always been a matter of passion.
To me states such as these show that people who speak different languages, worship in different faiths and are heirs to painfully different histories can share institutions and defend democratic freedoms together. When I see Scots or Catalans thinking of breaking up a union, I feel what a poet called a “tidal heave in the chest” (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vPOXloIUHpQC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=brad+leithauser+and+%22after+the+detonation+of+ the+moon%22&source=bl&ots=GHMJHLNq97&sig=oADgIILP5ePlprDe8oy82F5q_WY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xv-rU8y7EMPfOsLVgLAL&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=brad%20leithauser%20and%20%22after%20the%20deton ation%20of%20the%20moon%22&f=false). I am invested emotionally in the survival of all multi-ethnic, multinational, multi-confessional experiments in democratic freedom.
It is not that I do not respect the visceral appeal of nationalist feeling: the desire to be master in your own house, to be at home among fellow countrymen who, as Isaiah Berlin said, understand not just what you say but also what you mean. Like Berlin, I have never thought that liberalism and national patriotism should be enemies or that the only good liberal is a cosmopolitan. Belief in liberal freedom and democracy is always belief in it in a particular place, in a national home with histories that only those who are born in a place or who adopt its citizenship can hope to understand.
No, my visceral opposition to Scottish, Catalan, Quebec and other projects of independence is not to nationalism, but to secession – to the breaking apart of political systems that, without violence, have enabled peoples to live together. For the breaking apart does not merely shatter a political union, it forces apart the shared identities that people like me carry in their souls.
Secessionists, whether in Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec or anywhere else, invariably assume that a person must either be Scottish or British, Catalan or Spanish, Québécois or Canadian. What about those who feel they are both? I know that I cannot share the same sense of being a minority my Québécois friends feel but I do know that Quebec’s soil, its language, its winter cold, its languid summers, are part of who I am.
I am not so exceptional. There are hundreds of thousands of Scots who acknowledge English, Irish or Welsh parts of their very being. Lives and destinies are similarly intertwined in Catalonia and Spain, in Ukraine and Russia. The same was true in the former Yugoslavia, where in the 1990s women with Croatian names and Serbian husbands used to ask me with tears in their eyes why the nationalists were forcing them to choose between parts of their being.
This is the moral sin of separatism. Separatist politicians, desiring to be presidents or prime ministers of little countries, force their fellow citizens to make choices that they should not have to make between identities that they have combined, each in their own unique way, and now watch being ripped apart – one portion of themselves flung on one side of a border, a damaged remnant on the other. If Scotland does secede, there will be many torn souls the day after.
I do not claim secession is never justified. When blood has been shed, people will fight to be free of an alien yoke. But where, as in the UK, Canada, Spain and Ukraine, peoples have lived side by side, perhaps not always in justice but usually in peace, secession is the worst sin in politics, a gratuitous infliction of political choice on peoples who do not want to be forced to choose.
Nor do I claim that the constitutional status quo in Spain, Canada and the UK cannot be improved upon. Further change may be necessary in each case. What I do believe is that these states work because they do not force free peoples to choose between identities. They allow them to be Scots or British, Canadian or Québécois, Spanish or Catalan, in whatever rank order a citizen chooses. This is the moral value that redeems multinational states, the freedom to belong, to order your ultimate loyalties as you think best.
If you destroy that freedom – and secession does destroy it – Scotland may be sovereign but its people will be the poorer for it. I hope believers in the union will start making this argument with the passion it deserves.



I take it this guy didn't support Quebec independence :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

He says a lot.

Here is another quote from him about the Ukraine in 2005 while running for the Canadian Liberal party.

"I have reasons to take the Ukraine seriously indeed. But, to be honest, I'm having trouble. Ukrainian independence conjures up images of peasants in embroidered shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony Cossacks in cloaks and boots..."[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff#cite_note-Usborne-43)

He also referred to himself as American, while running for election, in Canada.

HE SAYS "I never felt part of the political common sense of Britain. I didn't really get what people there cared about."

Not the brightest Harvard alumni, if you ask me.

[PeeJay]

I was sent the article below by a Canadian relative prior to the 2014 referendum. Not expecting many on here to agree with it, just posting it because I think it captures the way a lot of no voters felt and still feel about being part of the union - and is expressed far more eloquently than I could put it.



Thanks for posting his well-presented article, hits home with much of how I feel about the situation back home ...

[JeMeSouviens]

I am an English-speaking Canadian but my entire family – Russian exiles and the Canadians they married – is buried in Quebec, and if Quebec were to separate I would feel I had been cut in two. This is why my belief in multinational, multi-ethnic states, not just in Canada but also in Britain, Spain, the former Yugoslavia and now in Ukraine, has always been a matter of passion.

This is the key bit for me, he's emotionally invested in his own national identity which is that of a Canadian in a Canada that includes Québec. So basically, he builds an intellectual case to suit his own emotional need.

Which is fine, but the corollary is that the French speaking Québecois is denied his or her right to live in a country that reflects their identity. Or here, my country is a region of someone else's, I have no emotional investment whatever in the British state.

In Québec, the circle has been squared by giving Québec full autonomy within Canada. Not near-federalism or devo-max but an actual state within a proper federation with complete power over domestic affairs and even certain external facing ones such as their own immigration policy.

This might work in Scotland, or at least might have worked, I tend to think that ship has sailed.

[xyz23jc]

Laugh out loud moment. Cheers.

The Tory party have raised the rhetoric recently on Indyref2 and sending messages. Maybe someone took them at their word eh.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/love-is-a-stranger-in-an-open-car/

Thank god they could not be described as a one trick pony eh? It's not surprising they don't have any time for the DAYJOB eh? FFS.:rolleyes::agree::greengrin

[G B Young]

He says a lot.

Here is another quote from him about the Ukraine in 2005 while running for the Canadian Liberal party.

"I have reasons to take the Ukraine seriously indeed. But, to be honest, I'm having trouble. Ukrainian independence conjures up images of peasants in embroidered shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony Cossacks in cloaks and boots..."[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff#cite_note-Usborne-43)

He also referred to himself as American, while running for election, in Canada.

HE SAYS "I never felt part of the political common sense of Britain. I didn't really get what people there cared about."

Not the brightest Harvard alumni, if you ask me.

Yep, he sounds a bit dim right enough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff

[G B Young]

This is the key bit for me, he's emotionally invested in his own national identity which is that of a Canadian in a Canada that includes Québec. So basically, he builds an intellectual case to suit his own emotional need.

Which is fine, but the corollary is that the French speaking Québecois is denied his or her right to live in a country that reflects their identity. Or here, my country is a region of someone else's, I have no emotional investment whatever in the British state.

In Québec, the circle has been squared by giving Québec full autonomy within Canada. Not near-federalism or devo-max but an actual state within a proper federation with complete power over domestic affairs and even certain external facing ones such as their own immigration policy.

This might work in Scotland, or at least might have worked, I tend to think that ship has sailed.

He doesn't sound emotionally needy to me. Based on what he's written he comes across to me as an intelligent, eloquent and articulate individual expressing a point of view close to his heart. But if, as you say, you have zero emotional investment in the British state I can understand why it's a head scratcher for you that so many voters in Scotland feel an emotional connection to the union similar to the feelings Ignatieff has for his own country.

As I said, not expecting any nationalist on here to agree with him. His piece simply struck a chord with me.

[JeMeSouviens]

He doesn't sound emotionally needy to me. Based on what he's written he comes across to me as an intelligent, eloquent and articulate individual expressing a point of view close to his heart. But if, as you say, you have zero emotional investment in the British state I can understand why it's a head scratcher for you that so many voters in Scotland feel an emotional connection to the union similar to the feelings Ignatieff has for his own country.

As I said, not expecting any nationalist on here to agree with him. His piece simply struck a chord with me.

Jeez - can you not read a response without being so touchy?

I didn't say he was emotionally needy, well not moreso than anyone else and yes, he expressed his view in such a way as to make it clear it is close to his heart. Thus it is a case built on emotion. And there's nothing wrong with that, in my view. I think it's an unfortunate aspect of the Scottish constitutional question that so much of it is conducted entirely on a financial cost/benefit basis and every other aspect; cultural, emotional, etc is largely ignored.

I also didn't say I didn't understand it. Just because I have no emotional connection to Britain doesn't mean I don't recognise others do. The point I was trying (but clearly failing) to make is that there is another side to the coin. For every unionist who feels they'd lose a part of their identity along with the Union, there's a nationalist who feels that part of their identity is missing because they have no country.

And of course, there's myriad shades in between, and people who don't care about national identity at all but take an entirely pragmatic view of the constitution based on other things important to them, etc, etc.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yep, he sounds a bit dim right enough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff

He was quite an eminent academic if memeory serves from uni

[greenlex]

Do the tories know the election next week is to elect local councils and councillors? I've just endured their party political broadcast. At least 10 times throughout the broadcast, which is only what 2 maybe 3 mins max.l, they either mentioned audibly or. visually independence or referendum. Are folks really falling for this? What about local issues rather than something that is sat best 18months to two years away and **** all to do with councillors. Talk about the day job😂😂

[makaveli1875]

Do the tories know the election next week is to elect local councils and councillors? I've just endured their party political broadcast. At least 10 times throughout the broadcast, which is only what 2 maybe 3 mins max.l, they either mentioned audibly or. visually independence or referendum. Are folks really falling for this? What about local issues rather than something that is sat best 18months to two years away and **** all to do with councillors. Talk about the day job😂😂

nobody would be talking about independence if Sturgeon hadnt called for indyref2 . It was quite obviously going to crop up in any subsequent elections

[Just Alf]

nobody would be talking about independence if Sturgeon hadnt called for indyref2 . It was quite obviously going to crop up in any subsequent elections
That's not 100% correct though... Even on here it's been mentioned over the last year or so how it seems to be the Tories mentioning it at every opportunity... I guess it's probably because any other argument they have must be pretty weak :dunno:


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

That's not 100% correct though... Even on here it's been mentioned over the last year or so how it seems to be the Tories mentioning it at every opportunity... I guess it's probably because any other argument they have must be pretty weak :dunno:


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

:agree: The only reason to vote Tory in Scotland is to preserve the Union, that's the ticket they're riding on and to be honest there's not much more they have to offer.

[G B Young]

Jeez - can you not read a response without being so touchy?

I didn't say he was emotionally needy, well not moreso than anyone else and yes, he expressed his view in such a way as to make it clear it is close to his heart. Thus it is a case built on emotion. And there's nothing wrong with that, in my view. I think it's an unfortunate aspect of the Scottish constitutional question that so much of it is conducted entirely on a financial cost/benefit basis and every other aspect; cultural, emotional, etc is largely ignored.

I also didn't say I didn't understand it. Just because I have no emotional connection to Britain doesn't mean I don't recognise others do. The point I was trying (but clearly failing) to make is that there is another side to the coin. For every unionist who feels they'd lose a part of their identity along with the Union, there's a nationalist who feels that part of their identity is missing because they have no country.

And of course, there's myriad shades in between, and people who don't care about national identity at all but take an entirely pragmatic view of the constitution based on other things important to them, etc, etc.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to appear touchy. The perils of text/email/messageboard etc responses are that you can't always convey your tone accurately. I should probably have stuck a couple of emojis in there but I sometimes worry they can appear condescending or annoying! :confused:

My opposition to independence is most certainly based to a large extent on an emotional connection to being British. In fact I was surprised by the strength of my feeling on the matter when it appeared there was a prospect of losing that identity in 2014, which is why I found so much in Ignatieff's piece to identify with.

Had the result in 2014 gone the other way, though, I'm not sure I'd have started banging the drum for a new referendum to rejoin the UK. I like to think I'd have rolled reluctantly with with the result as a democratic necessity and as I'm sure you're aware it's the SNP's perceived lack of respect for the way the vote DID go that grates with so many non nationalists.

Anyway, enough from me for this week. Have a good weekend :scarf:

[greenlex]

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to appear touchy. The perils of text/email/messageboard etc responses are that you can't always convey your tone accurately. I should probably have stuck a couple of emojis in there but I sometimes worry they can appear condescending or annoying! :confused:

My opposition to independence is most certainly based to a large extent on an emotional connection to being British. In fact I was surprised by the strength of my feeling on the matter when it appeared there was a prospect of losing that identity in 2014, which is why I found so much in Ignatieff's piece to identify with.

Had the result in 2014 gone the other way, though, I'm not sure I'd have started banging the drum for a new referendum to rejoin the UK. I like to think I'd have rolled reluctantly with with the result as a democratic necessity and as I'm sure you're aware it's the SNP's perceived lack of respect for the way the vote DID go that grates with so many non nationalists.

Anyway, enough from me for this week. Have a good weekend :scarf:
To be honest I think the perceived lack of respect for the result of the vote comes squarely from the fact the way the no campaign was fought in particular the vow and European question. Most yes voters feel cheated and dusappointed as do many no voters swayed by both points late in the day and has little to do with lack of respect. I accept there will be others going the other way because the subsequent short time between referendums and are somewhat either turned it completely or turned on the SNP because if that.

[CropleyWasGod]

nobody would be talking about independence if Sturgeon hadnt called for indyref2 . It was quite obviously going to crop up in any subsequent elections
In the Council elections?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

To be honest I think the perceived lack of respect for the result of the vote comes squarely from the fact the way the no campaign was fought in particular the vow and European question. Most yes voters feel cheated and dusappointed as do many no voters swayed by both points late in the day and has little to do with lack of respect. I accept there will be others going the other way by the subsequent short time between referendums.
Ta saved me some typing!

Also to be fair to GBY... Up to that point in the post I was in 100% agreement.

Anyways... Have a good weekend guys.. We can pick this all up again next week I'm sure!


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[stoneyburn hibs]

nobody would be talking about independence if Sturgeon hadnt called for indyref2 . It was quite obviously going to crop up in any subsequent elections

Pony, I don't know what the Tory Scottish leader's policy is ? Has Ruthie got any progressive policies for Scotland ? I'd like to hear one,just one will do, other than no to independence.

[The Harp Awakes]

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to appear touchy. The perils of text/email/messageboard etc responses are that you can't always convey your tone accurately. I should probably have stuck a couple of emojis in there but I sometimes worry they can appear condescending or annoying! :confused:

My opposition to independence is most certainly based to a large extent on an emotional connection to being British. In fact I was surprised by the strength of my feeling on the matter when it appeared there was a prospect of losing that identity in 2014, which is why I found so much in Ignatieff's piece to identify with.

Had the result in 2014 gone the other way, though, I'm not sure I'd have started banging the drum for a new referendum to rejoin the UK. I like to think I'd have rolled reluctantly with with the result as a democratic necessity and as I'm sure you're aware it's the SNP's perceived lack of respect for the way the vote DID go that grates with so many non nationalists.

Anyway, enough from me for this week. Have a good weekend :scarf:

I hear this spouted so often by the Unionists that I think that they believe if the say it so often, it has to be true. Complete tosh and you know it.

There is no lack of respect towards the outcome of the 2014 vote by the SNP. The Yes campaign in 2014 was founded on independence from the UK but Scotland being a member of the EU. The Unionist argument at that time was for Scotland to continue to be part of the EU it must vote No.

The SNP manifesro commitment at the last election was that if Scotland was pulled out of the EU against its will it would consider that a material change and seek indyref2. The SNP won the election fair and square on that commitment.

Lack of respect - you're deluding yourself.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I hear this spouted so often by the Unionists that I think that they believe if the say it so often, it has to be true. Complete tosh and you know it.

There is no lack of respect towards the outcome of the 2014 vote by the SNP. The Yes campaign in 2014 was founded on independence from the UK but Scotland being a member of the EU. The Unionist argument at that time was for Scotland to continue to be part of the EU it must vote No.

The SNP manifesro commitment at the last election was that if Scotland was pulled out of the EU against its will it would consider that a material change and seek indyref2. The SNP won the election fair and square on that commitment.

Lack of respect - you're deluding yourself.

But whether it is true or not is subjective and actually irrelevant - if people percieve that it is true, then it is true, in effect.

And lots of people do think it.

[northstandhibby]

In the Council elections?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Politicians will use any and I mean any opportunity to get their points and messages across. Its all they ever think about. The most appalling for me is when they're cradling someone's baby at election time with the fixed fake smiles.

:greengrin

glory glory

[McD]

I hear this spouted so often by the Unionists that I think that they believe if the say it so often, it has to be true. Complete tosh and you know it.

There is no lack of respect towards the outcome of the 2014 vote by the SNP. The Yes campaign in 2014 was founded on independence from the UK but Scotland being a member of the EU. The Unionist argument at that time was for Scotland to continue to be part of the EU it must vote No.

The SNP manifesro commitment at the last election was that if Scotland was pulled out of the EU against its will it would consider that a material change and seek indyref2. The SNP won the election fair and square on that commitment.

Lack of respect - you're deluding yourself.


i don't doubt that this is the position of yourself and many others.


i do know many 'Yes' voters who were demanding another referendum from the day after the last one happened though. A great deal of whom who have said openly that they will never accept a 'No' vote and will keep demanding another referendum until they get what they want.

[makaveli1875]

Pony, I don't know what the Tory Scottish leader's policy is ? Has Ruthie got any progressive policies for Scotland ? I'd like to hear one,just one will do, other than no to independence.

i dont care what the tories policies are i have no intention to vote for them . But to blame davidson for the independence talk is nonsense. It was sturgeon who went infront of the TV camers jumping up and down demanding a referendum - she has a 'cast iron mandate' you know :rolleyes:

[G B Young]

I hear this spouted so often by the Unionists that I think that they believe if the say it so often, it has to be true. Complete tosh and you know it.

There is no lack of respect towards the outcome of the 2014 vote by the SNP. The Yes campaign in 2014 was founded on independence from the UK but Scotland being a member of the EU. The Unionist argument at that time was for Scotland to continue to be part of the EU it must vote No.

The SNP manifesro commitment at the last election was that if Scotland was pulled out of the EU against its will it would consider that a material change and seek indyref2. The SNP won the election fair and square on that commitment.

Lack of respect - you're deluding yourself.

I don't know it, I really don't. As somebody else has pointed out, there was agitation for a new referendum from nationalists almost from the moment the 2014 referendum was lost. Would there have been such agitation for a new referendum to rejoin the UK had the result gone the other way? Hard to imagine, and even harder to imagine the SNP would have accorded it any respect. I'm not disputing that the SNP's manifesto gave them a mandate to press for a new referendum following the Brexit vote, but given that support for independence has barely shifted since then the SNP's portrayal of Scotland as a nation seething over our imminent departure from the EU and desperate to cut ties with the UK seems far from accurate. Like many Scottish voters who voted remain I was very surprised by the result of the Brexit vote but it didn't immediately make me want to leave the UK. Considering that a third of nationalist voters were among the near 40% of Scottish voters who voted leave, the SNP's championing of our place in Europe rings a little hollow and smacks of using Brexit as a convenient smokescreen for a fresh independence drive. Unfortunately for them it doesn't really seem to be a strategy that is reflected by a surge in support for their cause.

[marinello59]

Politicians will use any and I mean any opportunity to get their points and messages across. Its all they ever think about. The most appalling for me is when they're cradling someone's baby at election time with the fixed fake smiles.

:greengrin

glory glory

Not all of the babies have fake smiles, some of them enjoy it.

[JeMeSouviens]

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to appear touchy. The perils of text/email/messageboard etc responses are that you can't always convey your tone accurately. I should probably have stuck a couple of emojis in there but I sometimes worry they can appear condescending or annoying! :confused:

My opposition to independence is most certainly based to a large extent on an emotional connection to being British. In fact I was surprised by the strength of my feeling on the matter when it appeared there was a prospect of losing that identity in 2014, which is why I found so much in Ignatieff's piece to identify with.

Had the result in 2014 gone the other way, though, I'm not sure I'd have started banging the drum for a new referendum to rejoin the UK. I like to think I'd have rolled reluctantly with with the result as a democratic necessity and as I'm sure you're aware it's the SNP's perceived lack of respect for the way the vote DID go that grates with so many non nationalists.

Anyway, enough from me for this week. Have a good weekend :scarf:

I do actually have some sympathy with that. Fwiw, I doubt the SNP leadership expected to be going for a 2nd referendum until into the 2020s. The UK GE should have been 2020 and next Holyrood in 2021. I think they expected a huge Tory majority in 2020 off the back of a decade of Tory ******* rule and with the prospect of at least another decade to come. Let that sink in and go for a mandate in 2021 and Indyref2 maybe a year or 2 later.

Brexit has undoubtedly been the gamechanger. I think the SNP to some extent backed itself into a corner waiting for a surge that didn't come. But while it's true that there hasn't been a surge in Yes support, there has probably been a slight net increase, which given the oil price collapse is quite remarkable in itself. The other big factor is the massive membership surge. The SNP has 120K members (equivalent to a UK party a million strong). They are all desperate for independence asap. NS and co had to keep them onside. Despite these factors, I'm pretty sure the SNP would have compromised given constructive engagement from UK gov over Brexit. The UK gov wouldn't even have had to deliver the single market membership deal, it would in all probability have been impossible to negotiate and they would have been able to conveniently blame Europe. The UK gov failure to engage and attempt to humiliate Scot gov by not even replying but instead publicly announcing a single UK position outside the single market with no warning left NS with no choice. It would have been impossible for her to save face from that position.

[snooky]

I was sent the article below by a Canadian relative prior to the 2014 referendum. Not expecting many on here to agree with it, just posting it because I think it captures the way a lot of no voters felt and still feel about being part of the union - and is expressed far more eloquently than I could put it.

Where peoples have lived in peace, secession is the worst sin in politics, writes Michael Ignatieff
©Getty (http://www.ft.com/servicestools/terms/getty)
Two prominent British politicians recently asked me for advice about how to stem the rising tide of independence in Scotland (http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/future-of-the-union). The rough stuff – threatening to keep the Scots out of the pound or out of Europe – had failed. What, they wanted to know, had saved the cause of Canada (http://www.ft.com/intl/world/canada) during the Quebec referendum of 1995 when the secessionists came within a percentage point of victory.
In the Canadian case, I told them, heartfelt appeals to stay together were made. Thousands of anglophones from outside Quebec descended on Montreal in the week before the referendum to proclaim their love for the Québécois. But Canada survived, if by a razor-thin margin, not because mutual affection was rekindled but because a cooler consensus prevailed.
Both sides realised two nations could continue to coexist side by side in the same state. Loveless coexistence keeps us going to this day. Recent polling in Quebec indicates that, while 60 per cent of the younger generation reject separatism, only 30 per cent of them express any strong identification with Canada. Quebec is in effect master in its own house – it has “devo max”, as the Scots might say. This, together with a shared shudder at the thought of ever going through the ordeal of a referendum again, keeps Canada in one piece. Once was divisive enough.
This is what I told the British politicians but I felt I had sold my own convictions short. I am an English-speaking Canadian but my entire family – Russian exiles and the Canadians they married – is buried in Quebec, and if Quebec were to separate I would feel I had been cut in two. This is why my belief in multinational, multi-ethnic states, not just in Canada but also in Britain, Spain, the former Yugoslavia and now in Ukraine, has always been a matter of passion.
To me states such as these show that people who speak different languages, worship in different faiths and are heirs to painfully different histories can share institutions and defend democratic freedoms together. When I see Scots or Catalans thinking of breaking up a union, I feel what a poet called a “tidal heave in the chest” (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vPOXloIUHpQC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=brad+leithauser+and+%22after+the+detonation+of+ the+moon%22&source=bl&ots=GHMJHLNq97&sig=oADgIILP5ePlprDe8oy82F5q_WY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xv-rU8y7EMPfOsLVgLAL&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=brad%20leithauser%20and%20%22after%20the%20deton ation%20of%20the%20moon%22&f=false). I am invested emotionally in the survival of all multi-ethnic, multinational, multi-confessional experiments in democratic freedom.
It is not that I do not respect the visceral appeal of nationalist feeling: the desire to be master in your own house, to be at home among fellow countrymen who, as Isaiah Berlin said, understand not just what you say but also what you mean. Like Berlin, I have never thought that liberalism and national patriotism should be enemies or that the only good liberal is a cosmopolitan. Belief in liberal freedom and democracy is always belief in it in a particular place, in a national home with histories that only those who are born in a place or who adopt its citizenship can hope to understand.
No, my visceral opposition to Scottish, Catalan, Quebec and other projects of independence is not to nationalism, but to secession – to the breaking apart of political systems that, without violence, have enabled peoples to live together. For the breaking apart does not merely shatter a political union, it forces apart the shared identities that people like me carry in their souls.
Secessionists, whether in Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec or anywhere else, invariably assume that a person must either be Scottish or British, Catalan or Spanish, Québécois or Canadian. What about those who feel they are both? I know that I cannot share the same sense of being a minority my Québécois friends feel but I do know that Quebec’s soil, its language, its winter cold, its languid summers, are part of who I am.
I am not so exceptional. There are hundreds of thousands of Scots who acknowledge English, Irish or Welsh parts of their very being. Lives and destinies are similarly intertwined in Catalonia and Spain, in Ukraine and Russia. The same was true in the former Yugoslavia, where in the 1990s women with Croatian names and Serbian husbands used to ask me with tears in their eyes why the nationalists were forcing them to choose between parts of their being.
This is the moral sin of separatism. Separatist politicians, desiring to be presidents or prime ministers of little countries, force their fellow citizens to make choices that they should not have to make between identities that they have combined, each in their own unique way, and now watch being ripped apart – one portion of themselves flung on one side of a border, a damaged remnant on the other. If Scotland does secede, there will be many torn souls the day after.
I do not claim secession is never justified. When blood has been shed, people will fight to be free of an alien yoke. But where, as in the UK, Canada, Spain and Ukraine, peoples have lived side by side, perhaps not always in justice but usually in peace, secession is the worst sin in politics, a gratuitous infliction of political choice on peoples who do not want to be forced to choose.
Nor do I claim that the constitutional status quo in Spain, Canada and the UK cannot be improved upon. Further change may be necessary in each case. What I do believe is that these states work because they do not force free peoples to choose between identities. They allow them to be Scots or British, Canadian or Québécois, Spanish or Catalan, in whatever rank order a citizen chooses. This is the moral value that redeems multinational states, the freedom to belong, to order your ultimate loyalties as you think best.
If you destroy that freedom – and secession does destroy it – Scotland may be sovereign but its people will be the poorer for it. I hope believers in the union will start making this argument with the passion it deserves.



Quebec is a different kettle of fish. The rest of Canada bends over backwards to accommodate it in many ways unlike the situation we have in the UK.

[Smartie]

I was sent the article below by a Canadian relative prior to the 2014 referendum. Not expecting many on here to agree with it, just posting it because I think it captures the way a lot of no voters felt and still feel about being part of the union - and is expressed far more eloquently than I could put it.

Where peoples have lived in peace, secession is the worst sin in politics, writes Michael Ignatieff
©Getty (http://www.ft.com/servicestools/terms/getty)
Two prominent British politicians recently asked me for advice about how to stem the rising tide of independence in Scotland (http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/future-of-the-union). The rough stuff – threatening to keep the Scots out of the pound or out of Europe – had failed. What, they wanted to know, had saved the cause of Canada (http://www.ft.com/intl/world/canada) during the Quebec referendum of 1995 when the secessionists came within a percentage point of victory.
In the Canadian case, I told them, heartfelt appeals to stay together were made. Thousands of anglophones from outside Quebec descended on Montreal in the week before the referendum to proclaim their love for the Québécois. But Canada survived, if by a razor-thin margin, not because mutual affection was rekindled but because a cooler consensus prevailed.
Both sides realised two nations could continue to coexist side by side in the same state. Loveless coexistence keeps us going to this day. Recent polling in Quebec indicates that, while 60 per cent of the younger generation reject separatism, only 30 per cent of them express any strong identification with Canada. Quebec is in effect master in its own house – it has “devo max”, as the Scots might say. This, together with a shared shudder at the thought of ever going through the ordeal of a referendum again, keeps Canada in one piece. Once was divisive enough.
This is what I told the British politicians but I felt I had sold my own convictions short. I am an English-speaking Canadian but my entire family – Russian exiles and the Canadians they married – is buried in Quebec, and if Quebec were to separate I would feel I had been cut in two. This is why my belief in multinational, multi-ethnic states, not just in Canada but also in Britain, Spain, the former Yugoslavia and now in Ukraine, has always been a matter of passion.
To me states such as these show that people who speak different languages, worship in different faiths and are heirs to painfully different histories can share institutions and defend democratic freedoms together. When I see Scots or Catalans thinking of breaking up a union, I feel what a poet called a “tidal heave in the chest” (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vPOXloIUHpQC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=brad+leithauser+and+%22after+the+detonation+of+ the+moon%22&source=bl&ots=GHMJHLNq97&sig=oADgIILP5ePlprDe8oy82F5q_WY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xv-rU8y7EMPfOsLVgLAL&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=brad%20leithauser%20and%20%22after%20the%20deton ation%20of%20the%20moon%22&f=false). I am invested emotionally in the survival of all multi-ethnic, multinational, multi-confessional experiments in democratic freedom.
It is not that I do not respect the visceral appeal of nationalist feeling: the desire to be master in your own house, to be at home among fellow countrymen who, as Isaiah Berlin said, understand not just what you say but also what you mean. Like Berlin, I have never thought that liberalism and national patriotism should be enemies or that the only good liberal is a cosmopolitan. Belief in liberal freedom and democracy is always belief in it in a particular place, in a national home with histories that only those who are born in a place or who adopt its citizenship can hope to understand.
No, my visceral opposition to Scottish, Catalan, Quebec and other projects of independence is not to nationalism, but to secession – to the breaking apart of political systems that, without violence, have enabled peoples to live together. For the breaking apart does not merely shatter a political union, it forces apart the shared identities that people like me carry in their souls.
Secessionists, whether in Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec or anywhere else, invariably assume that a person must either be Scottish or British, Catalan or Spanish, Québécois or Canadian. What about those who feel they are both? I know that I cannot share the same sense of being a minority my Québécois friends feel but I do know that Quebec’s soil, its language, its winter cold, its languid summers, are part of who I am.
I am not so exceptional. There are hundreds of thousands of Scots who acknowledge English, Irish or Welsh parts of their very being. Lives and destinies are similarly intertwined in Catalonia and Spain, in Ukraine and Russia. The same was true in the former Yugoslavia, where in the 1990s women with Croatian names and Serbian husbands used to ask me with tears in their eyes why the nationalists were forcing them to choose between parts of their being.
This is the moral sin of separatism. Separatist politicians, desiring to be presidents or prime ministers of little countries, force their fellow citizens to make choices that they should not have to make between identities that they have combined, each in their own unique way, and now watch being ripped apart – one portion of themselves flung on one side of a border, a damaged remnant on the other. If Scotland does secede, there will be many torn souls the day after.
I do not claim secession is never justified. When blood has been shed, people will fight to be free of an alien yoke. But where, as in the UK, Canada, Spain and Ukraine, peoples have lived side by side, perhaps not always in justice but usually in peace, secession is the worst sin in politics, a gratuitous infliction of political choice on peoples who do not want to be forced to choose.
Nor do I claim that the constitutional status quo in Spain, Canada and the UK cannot be improved upon. Further change may be necessary in each case. What I do believe is that these states work because they do not force free peoples to choose between identities. They allow them to be Scots or British, Canadian or Québécois, Spanish or Catalan, in whatever rank order a citizen chooses. This is the moral value that redeems multinational states, the freedom to belong, to order your ultimate loyalties as you think best.
If you destroy that freedom – and secession does destroy it – Scotland may be sovereign but its people will be the poorer for it. I hope believers in the union will start making this argument with the passion it deserves.



This is an interesting and thought provoking piece, although not one I agree with much.

I also think it carries more clout in relation to the 2014 referendum than the current situation in Scotland.

The idea that a desire for a nation's independence at the expense of a mostly successful Union being undesirable is a reasonable one.

The current talk re Indyref2 has only really been brought about by Brexit - I don't think anyone could seriously justify another referendum so soon after the last one without it.

How does the article read when you put it in the context of a Brexit?

The article talks of jeopardising peace. We've had 50+ years of relative peace in one of the most turbulent corners of the planet. The desire to free the UK of the EU tyranny was not (in my opinion) so much motivated by a desire to protect diversity, multi-ethnicity and different faiths being able to co-exist next to each other but the opposite.

In the event of an Indyref2 we might have the choice of leaving a Union or leaving a Union. Or leaving both Unions or leaving one or the other.

Interesting article, but imo already badly out of date.

[ronaldo7]

Steady as she goes. :greengrin

https://t.co/N2rSCciQuR

57% support for Independence.:aok:

[JeMeSouviens]

Steady as she goes. :greengrin

https://t.co/N2rSCciQuR

57% support for Independence.:aok:

Much as I'd love it to be true:


Google Surveys run thousands of surveys a day, across a network of online news, reference and entertainment sites where it's embedded directly into content.

On the web, users answer questions in exchange for access to that content. The user's gender, age, and geographic location are inferred based on anonymous browsing history and IP address.

Using this data, Google Surveys can automatically build a representative sample of thousands of respondents.

Sounds ropey as **** to me.

[ronaldo7]

Much as I'd love it to be true:



Sounds ropey as **** to me.

I noticed that. It's unusual for the Daily Rancid to to use Google as a source. As we all know, the only poll that matters is on polling day. I can always dream:greengrin

I should have added that most polls I've seen on Indy, don't include 16/17yr olds, or Eu citizens. Both were included in Indy 1

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The National (i know, i know) had a poll on its front page with a majority for indy today.

[stoneyburn hibs]

The National (i know, i know) had a poll on its front page with a majority for indy today.

I always assumed that the laddie was not for turning 😁

[JeMeSouviens]

The National (i know, i know) had a poll on its front page with a majority for indy today.

You need to read on, even if you were worried you might be seen. :wink:

It's a 3 option poll: indy in eu, indy out of eu or brexit britain. They added the 2 indy options together.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You need to read on, even if you were worried you might be seen. :wink:

It's a 3 option poll: indy in eu, indy out of eu or brexit britain. They added the 2 indy options together.

Just saw the headline in the shop! Ok, i see, im sure john curtice wouldnt approve!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I always assumed that the laddie was not for turning 😁

Eh?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Eh?

As in : The lady's not for turning, Thatcher.
I was relating that to you, as possibly turning to SNP with the post I quoted.

[JeMeSouviens]

Just saw the headline in the shop! Ok, i see, im sure john curtice wouldnt approve!

Indeed, he would not!

It's an interesting poll but the headline they put on it is just a tad misleading.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

As in : The lady's not for turning, Thatcher.
I was relating that to you, as possibly turning to SNP with the post I quoted.

Sorry i got it after i had posted, bit slow on the uptake this morning!

Ive voted SNP previously, although given who they have just selected as their Edinburgh South candidate, there is no chance this time!

I believe Sturgeon is in Leith campaigning today, maybe someone will ask her about police scotland wasting money to catch pitch invaders from a year ago...

[Moulin Yarns]

These are not my words, but worthy of consideration.


I'm not sure if the Record have abandoned Survation as their regular pollster, but for whatever reason they've commissioned Google to produce a Scottish political survey, which is apparently demographically representative (albeit on the basis of algorithm-derived 'inferences' rather than definite information). However, it's not yet clear that it's been politically weighted in the way that would be standard for an online poll conducted by a BPC firm, so we should certainly be very cautious about the results.

What stands out is a question asking whether people would prefer independence within the EU, or to remain in the UK under a Tory government after Brexit. The result is startlingly decisive -
Independence within EU : 56.7%
Brexit under the Tories : 43.3%
It's important to stress that this is not a "Yes lead", any more than yesterday's widely misreported Panelbase poll was. There are undoubtedly people out there who would answer "no" to the straight question "Should Scotland be an independent country?" because of misplaced doubts over whether an independent Scotland could really remain in the EU, or over whether staying in the UK really means Tory rule for the foreseeable future. But that's not to say that these findings are meaningless - they chart a course to how a Yes vote could conceivably be won, if the choice is framed correctly.
There are also voting intention numbers for the general election, which are initially quite hard to make sense of, because (in contrast to the practice in standard polls) the Don't Knows haven't been stripped out.
Westminster voting intentions :
SNP 38.9%
Conservatives 24.6%
Labour 17.8%
Greens 8.4%
Liberal Democrats 6.2%
A rough calculation suggests that the SNP would be on around 40.6% of the vote if Don't Knows were removed - essentially identical to their 41% showing in the recent YouGov poll. However, the Tories would be on only 25.7% - making this their worst showing of the general election campaign so far. The SNP's 15% lead over the Tories also equals the record in the Survation poll as the biggest lead of the campaign (compared to 13% with YouGov and 11% with Panelbase). Far more important, though, is the implausibly high vote for the Greens. If it can be assumed that a decent chunk of that vote is actually destined for the SNP, this poll is effectively implying a very, very healthy SNP lead.
All of this does of course depend on whether we can trust Google's methodology, and given that it's so untested, I'm not at all convinced that we can.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

These are not my words, but worthy of consideration.


I'm not sure if the Record have abandoned Survation as their regular pollster, but for whatever reason they've commissioned Google to produce a Scottish political survey, which is apparently demographically representative (albeit on the basis of algorithm-derived 'inferences' rather than definite information). However, it's not yet clear that it's been politically weighted in the way that would be standard for an online poll conducted by a BPC firm, so we should certainly be very cautious about the results.

What stands out is a question asking whether people would prefer independence within the EU, or to remain in the UK under a Tory government after Brexit. The result is startlingly decisive -
Independence within EU : 56.7%
Brexit under the Tories : 43.3%
It's important to stress that this is not a "Yes lead", any more than yesterday's widely misreported Panelbase poll was. There are undoubtedly people out there who would answer "no" to the straight question "Should Scotland be an independent country?" because of misplaced doubts over whether an independent Scotland could really remain in the EU, or over whether staying in the UK really means Tory rule for the foreseeable future. But that's not to say that these findings are meaningless - they chart a course to how a Yes vote could conceivably be won, if the choice is framed correctly.
There are also voting intention numbers for the general election, which are initially quite hard to make sense of, because (in contrast to the practice in standard polls) the Don't Knows haven't been stripped out.
Westminster voting intentions :
SNP 38.9%
Conservatives 24.6%
Labour 17.8%
Greens 8.4%
Liberal Democrats 6.2%
A rough calculation suggests that the SNP would be on around 40.6% of the vote if Don't Knows were removed - essentially identical to their 41% showing in the recent YouGov poll. However, the Tories would be on only 25.7% - making this their worst showing of the general election campaign so far. The SNP's 15% lead over the Tories also equals the record in the Survation poll as the biggest lead of the campaign (compared to 13% with YouGov and 11% with Panelbase). Far more important, though, is the implausibly high vote for the Greens. If it can be assumed that a decent chunk of that vote is actually destined for the SNP, this poll is effectively implying a very, very healthy SNP lead.
All of this does of course depend on whether we can trust Google's methodology, and given that it's so untested, I'm not at all convinced that we can.

I have my doubts about the polling, but given bow unreliable mainstream polling has been recently, it is a wider problem than just google.

[grunt]

Ive voted SNP previously, although given who they have just selected as their Edinburgh South candidate, there is no chance this time!Why is that, may I ask?

[Moulin Yarns]

I have my doubts about the polling, but given bow unreliable mainstream polling has been recently, it is a wider problem than just google.

The comment near the end about the Green vote is probably important as I have my doubts about how many Green candidates there will be this time round, only 2 years after the last election.

FWIW I know of a potential Green Candidate willing to put up their own candidate fee, but it needs the branch to agree the candidature.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why is that, may I ask?

I think he is pretty rubbish, and im surprised the SNP have selected him, given he lost the same seat at Holyrood.

Hes a complete careerist, never even lived in edinburgh south until he took the seat in 2011.

[grunt]

And anyway, are you defending those MPs and their second jobs, or just indulging in some serious whataboutery?So you don't like it when MPs have second jobs ...


Hes a complete careerist ...And you don't like it when politicians make a career out of being politicians.

Perhaps you just don't like him because he's SNP?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So you don't like it when MPs have second jobs ...

And you don't like it when politicians make a career out of being politicians.

Perhaps you just don't like him because he's SNP?

Ha ha, didnt see that ambush coming mate! And i am the one who just likes to argue for the sake of it!!

In the spirit of not being argumentative, im not gonna get into this, suffice to say i wont be voting for him (although i did in 2011) and ill just leave it there.

[makaveli1875]

if the referendum comes to pass , does anyone dare to predict the result ?

are the nationalists among you confident ?

are all you unionists bricking it ?

il have a crack , when sturgeon 1st dropped her bombshell i was thinking a yes vote was a stick on certainty . Now in the cold light of day im starting to think no would prevail if its held within sturgeons time table

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

if the referendum comes to pass , does anyone dare to predict the result ?

are the nationalists among you confident ?

are all you unionists bricking it ?

il have a crack , when sturgeon 1st dropped her bombshell i was thinking a yes vote was a stick on certainty . Now in the cold light of day im starting to think no would prevail if its held within sturgeons time table

I think it would be very close either way, which is almost rhe worst outcome. Close ref results, as we are all now living through, seem to create more division than unity.

[Just Alf]

if the referendum comes to pass , does anyone dare to predict the result ?

are the nationalists among you confident ?

are all you unionists bricking it ?

il have a crack , when sturgeon 1st dropped her bombshell i was thinking a yes vote was a stick on certainty . Now in the cold light of day im starting to think no would prevail if its held within sturgeons time table

I'm leaning that way as well.... I do think that however well/bad the Tories do in the GE and whatever comes out of the Brexit negotiations will move the dial one way or another though!

[Smartie]

if the referendum comes to pass , does anyone dare to predict the result ?

are the nationalists among you confident ?

are all you unionists bricking it ?

il have a crack , when sturgeon 1st dropped her bombshell i was thinking a yes vote was a stick on certainty . Now in the cold light of day im starting to think no would prevail if its held within sturgeons time table

I think it would be a no if it were to happen within the next couple of years. Sturgeon has over-estimated the depth of feeling that many Scots have about Brexit - it simply hasn't done enough to swing enough people who hold entrenched views to vote the other way. And then you have to consider the sizeable 30% of SNP voters who voted to leave the EU.

A no result would and could be catastrophically damaging to the Independence movement.

I think that if we waited 10 years or so, weathered whatever Brexit brought us, endured another decade of Tory rule, possibly renegotiating a "fairer" (for England) Barnett formula and have a decade's worth of old people who can just about remember the glorious post-WW2 era die off then it would be a 100% shoo-in.

I do think there's bit of the personal glory thing about it from Sturgeon and Salmond though. I think there is a greedy self-interest and that they wold like to be the ones that ushered in Scotland's independence and I think that they would risk independence ever happening to have their "shot at glory".

And that's from someone who quite likes Sturgeon and Salmond and would vote yes in a referendum.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think it would be a no if it were to happen within the next couple of years. Sturgeon has over-estimated the depth of feeling that many Scots have about Brexit - it simply hasn't done enough to swing enough people who hold entrenched views to vote the other way. And then you have to consider the sizeable 30% of SNP voters who voted to leave the EU.

A no result would and could be catastrophically damaging to the Independence movement.

I think that if we waited 10 years or so, weathered whatever Brexit brought us, endured another decade of Tory rule, possibly renegotiating a "fairer" (for England) Barnett formula and have a decade's worth of old people who can just about remember the glorious post-WW2 era die off then it would be a 100% shoo-in.

I do think there's bit of the personal glory thing about it from Sturgeon and Salmond though. I think there is a greedy self-interest and that they wold like to be the ones that ushered in Scotland's independence and I think that they would risk independence ever happening to have their "shot at glory".

And that's from someone who quite likes Sturgeon and Salmond and would vote yes in a referendum.

Some good points.

I was thinking about this, but if we were led to indy, imo the person who leads us there (sturgeon or a successor) should bed it in then bow put.

My thinking being that a sizeable minority would hate her (or whoever) amd so it would be difficult for that person to bring the country together - they would be too divisive.

Look at the vitriol we see around just now. I think it would be in the country's best interests to bring in someone relatively clean.

[Smartie]

Some good points.

I was thinking about this, but if we were led to indy, imo the person who leads us there (sturgeon or a successor) should bed it in then bow put.

My thinking being that a sizeable minority would hate her (or whoever) amd so it would be difficult for that person to bring the country together - they would be too divisive.

Look at the vitriol we see around just now. I think it would be in the country's best interests to bring in someone relatively clean.

Yes, I agree.

We're not short of decent candidates. All of the political parties have superb Scottish politicians who would be ideal candidates to take us forward - if they wanted to.

Scottish politics may well see an exodus as our "Unionist" politicians head South in an attempt to carve out a career there. It has been comforting in a way to see remainers rally behind Brexit once it has been decided that that is the way the country is going, and it gives me faith that our best politicians might be content to dust themselves down post-Indy and work towards a positive future in Scotland.

I find the thought of what it would actually be like in an independent Scotland fascinating and I'd love to see how it might pan out.

The biggest downside would be what would we do to ourselves in the immediate aftermath. There will be some very unhappy people, there will be an exodus and there will be a fair bit of turmoil. Once that had calmed down then I'm sure we would go on to make a roaring success of it.

[pacoluna]

if the referendum comes to pass , does anyone dare to predict the result ?

are the nationalists among you confident ?

are all you unionists bricking it ?

il have a crack , when sturgeon 1st dropped her bombshell i was thinking a yes vote was a stick on certainty . Now in the cold light of day im starting to think no would prevail if its held within sturgeons time table
As mentioned before i believe momentum and demographics will mean independence is a matter of when not if.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

As mentioned before i believe momentum and demographics will mean independence is a matter of when not if.

I used to think this, and probably still do to an extent - that indy was a process where powers would move to holyrood almost by osmosis. The drip drip effect would nullify the opposition, suddem shocks and fear.

Its one of the reasosn i believe sturgeon has overplayer her hand - by bringing the matter to a head so quickly, possibly prematurely she risks undoing decades of work and halting that process. Obviously the gamble could pay off, but i would say the 'slowly slowly' strategy would have more chance. But equally i suppose it is more capricious. Judgement call either way, but its very high stakes stuff.

[ronaldo7]

Local election issue.

Willie Young, Labours Aberdeen council finance boss is an innocent bystander.

https://t.co/3ZMaIc6Llc

Any Aberdonians shed any light on this misunderstanding?


Willie Young epitomizes everything that is wrong with the ruling Labour Council in Aberdeen. Thankfully they won't be in place much longer.

It looks like the Labour finance councillor in Aberdeen did nothing wrong in waving through work done on land owed by.....His Dad. :rolleyes:

The council accepted Mr Young was not the registered title holder, but he had refused to comment on whether any of his family owned the land.

https://t.co/VLGl7LCmtm

[JeMeSouviens]

I used to think this, and probably still do to an extent - that indy was a process where powers would move to holyrood almost by osmosis. The drip drip effect would nullify the opposition, suddem shocks and fear.

Its one of the reasosn i believe sturgeon has overplayer her hand - by bringing the matter to a head so quickly, possibly prematurely she risks undoing decades of work and halting that process. Obviously the gamble could pay off, but i would say the 'slowly slowly' strategy would have more chance. But equally i suppose it is more capricious. Judgement call either way, but its very high stakes stuff.

I think to some extent you have to shake the tree to collect the fruit. It's only a realistic threat of independence that will bring more power to Holyrood.

As to the original question, it's going to be really close. I didn't think we had any chance in 2014 until the last couple of weeks. This time we're obviously starting from almost as high a base as we finished in 2014.

I think if Yes has clear, coherent positions on
- currency
- EU membership including any transition through EEA and future referendum
- a realistic deficit forecast and credible plan to bring it under control within a few years
- and a well laid out strategy to capitalise on Brexit and our position as a single market haven.
then we'll win.

Otoh, I'm not overly confident we'll get all of that. The natural born pessimist in me thinks we'll lose just so we get the full effect of the coming Brexit slowdown and the UK gets to squeeze every last drop out of the north sea. When we're well and truly ****ed in a decade or 2, maybe we'll get indyref3 :rolleyes:

[grunt]

Its one of the reasosn i believe sturgeon has overplayer her hand - by bringing the matter to a head so quickly, possibly prematurely she risks undoing decades of work and halting that process. We've been through this before, I'm sure. The timing was forced on the SNP by the Brexit vote. If we wait until Brexit is done and dusted, it's likely that May and Davis will have given away many of our Scottish rights and assets during the negotiations, in exchange for benefits for London and the financial sector. So we will be poorer after Brexit. And leaving the UK then will be difficult, because many of the assets that we will need to allow us to prosper will no longer be ours, or at least we won't have the rights to them. May will not hesitate to diminish Scotland in an attempt to get what she wants for London. It's a win/win situation for her.

Judgement call either way, but its very high stakes stuff.Absolutely. The highest stakes of all. The future and wellbeing of our country and our people.

[Just Alf]

It looks like the Labour finance councillor in Aberdeen did nothing wrong in waving through work done on land owed by.....His Dad. :rolleyes:

The council accepted Mr Young was not the registered title holder, but he had refused to comment on whether any of his family owned the land.

https://t.co/VLGl7LCmtm
So there's dubiety over the ownership?

Simple solution, ask the Land owner (councillors dad) is it your wall?

Yes = he pays to get it fixed.

No = council knocks it down to the extent it's safe.

In the case of the 2nd option the land owner could always get a brand new wall built if they would prefer some privacy :agree:


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

We've been through this before, I'm sure. The timing was forced on the SNP by the Brexit vote. If we wait until Brexit is done and dusted, it's likely that May and Davis will have given away many of our Scottish rights and assets during the negotiations, in exchange for benefits for London and the financial sector. So we will be poorer after Brexit. And leaving the UK then will be difficult, because many of the assets that we will need to allow us to prosper will no longer be ours, or at least we won't have the rights to them. May will not hesitate to diminish Scotland in an attempt to get what she wants for London. It's a win/win situation for her.
Absolutely. The highest stakes of all. The future and wellbeing of our country and our people.

I dont agree it was forced on her. I think she jumped the gun because she made an emotional reaction to Brexit, and before she knew it she had locked her party into it. She could have waited, and there are nats who think so too. Bit ultimately it has been and gone.

The ideal situation for the nats would have been hold fire, and let brexit unravel, and let public opinion come to them. She could have been in a situatiob where there begins to be a public clamour for a ref. By going too early, if it happens, it risks not allowing that to happen.

There was a rumour going round westminster that no.10 would allow a ref, bit only if it was held in 2017. Obviously that never happened, but if true it suggests they were more confidemt of going early.

But history will be the judge i suppose!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So there's dubiety over the ownership?

Simple solution, ask the Land owner (councillors dad) is it your wall?

Yes = he pays to get it fixed.

No = council knocks it down to the extent it's safe.

In the case of the 2nd option the land owner could always get a brand new wall built if they would prefer some privacy :agree:


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Is that not a plot line from In The Loop...?

Life imitating art indeed

[Just Alf]

:agree:

I remember watching some of the yes (prime) minister episodes on YouTube and having a wee laugh at how close to the truth they actually were in hindsight!



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

So there's dubiety over the ownership?

Simple solution, ask the Land owner (councillors dad) is it your wall?

Yes = he pays to get it fixed.

No = council knocks it down to the extent it's safe.

In the case of the 2nd option the land owner could always get a brand new wall built if they would prefer some privacy :agree:


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

It seems Willie Young's register of interest includes the Orchard, on Prospect Terrace, adjacent to Wellington Brae. Maybe nothing in it though.:wink:

https://t.co/cPsEG0r7hj

[marinello59]

It seems Willie Young's register of interest includes the Orchard, on Prospect Terrace, adjacent to Wellington Brae. Maybe nothing in it though.:wink:

https://t.co/cPsEG0r7hj

It seems he may now be an ex-Councillor.

[ronaldo7]

It seems he may now be an ex-Councillor.

Saw that.

Well done the Dandies.:greengrin

He can pay for his wall himself now.:wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Slightly concerning...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/rbs-refuses-to-rule-out-england-move-if-indyref2-called-1-4443814/amp

RBS saying it will consider moving its HQ to england if there is a second indyref.

[Slavers]

Slightly concerning...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/rbs-refuses-to-rule-out-england-move-if-indyref2-called-1-4443814/amp

RBS saying it will consider moving its HQ to england if there is a second indyref.

They wont be the only one. 95% of sales for the company I work for sells to businesses throughout England, they will move our HQ to England it would be no brainer.

[Just Alf]

Slightly concerning...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/rbs-refuses-to-rule-out-england-move-if-indyref2-called-1-4443814/amp

RBS saying it will consider moving its HQ to england if there is a second indyref.

They said this last time around as well, they did also follow it up with a bit more detail in that it would be a "boiler plate" move only with very little, if any impact on the workforce.

The really big question about it all is that if Scotland was independent what would it's trading relationship be with the EU compared with similar for the former UK countries and how would the various multinationals decide to set themselves up as a result.

[snooky]

Slightly concerning...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/rbs-refuses-to-rule-out-england-move-if-indyref2-called-1-4443814/amp

RBS saying it will consider moving its HQ to england if there is a second indyref.

It's my bank and a pretty crap one these days. They're closing branches by the day so in the long term who cares where their HQ ends up.
Sir HA? Probably another political puppet throwing his tacky hat in the ring.
Surprised the Scotsman reporting this - they are usually so pro indy :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

They wont be the only one. 95% of sales for the company I work for sells to businesses throughout England, they will move our HQ to England it would be no brainer.

Why would it be a no-brainer?

If they are happy with the commercial set-up here, wouldn't they be better-served by waiting to see what the relative tax rates would be?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's my bank and a pretty crap one these days. They're closing branches by the day so in the long term who cares where their HQ ends up.
Sir HA? Probably another political puppet throwing his tacky hat in the ring.
Surprised the Scotsman reporting this - they are usually so pro indy :wink:

The scotsman has actually altered its editorial stance recently. It is now taking a fact based, non-aligned position and it has committed to not supporting any parties.

A welcome development i would suggest.

But yeah, who cares about one of our largest employers eh...

[Slavers]

Why would it be a no-brainer?

If they are happy with the commercial set-up here, wouldn't they be better-served by waiting to see what the relative tax rates would be?

Why have your HQ working in EUROS when all your business deal in £'s?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why have your HQ working in EUROS when all your business deal in £'s?

Id habe thought the problem would be tarrifs, that indy scotland in the EU would habe to impose on rUK if outside, assuming no free trade deal?

[CropleyWasGod]

Why have your HQ working in EUROS when all your business deal in £'s?

Fopr one thing, we don't know what currency Scotland would have.

In any event, I can't see why the currency thing would be that big an issue. Our whisky industry seems to do pretty well dealing in all sorts of currencies.

If the company thinks that the charges inherent in dealing with different currencies outweigh the costs involved in moving operations (including the tax issue), so be it. But why make that decision without knowing all of the facts first?

[Slavers]

Id habe thought the problem would be tarrifs, that indy scotland in the EU would habe to impose on rUK if outside, assuming no free trade deal?

Aye that as well, why pay tariffs for cross boarder trade when it would be cheaper to move the HQ - your right!

[Slavers]

Fopr one thing, we don't know what currency Scotland would have.

In any event, I can't see why the currency thing would be that big an issue. Our whisky industry seems to do pretty well dealing in all sorts of currencies.

If the company thinks that the charges inherent in dealing with different currencies outweigh the costs involved in moving operations (including the tax issue), so be it. But why make that decision without knowing all of the facts first?

What about tarrifs on the trade between nations? If it's more expensive then it's a no brainer to move HQ

[CropleyWasGod]

What about tarrifs on the trade between nations? If it's more expensive then it's a no brainer to move HQ

The big word is "IF", which you didn't use before.

We don't know what tariffs would be. We don't know what the tax rates would be.

Your company doesn't know what its moving costs would be (new premises, redundancies etc).

[grunt]

Why have your HQ working in EUROS when all your business deal in £'s?Alternatively, why have your bank HQ in separatist England, when much of your business is done in Europe. Specially if May is unable to swing a deal for the Finance Sector and English banks find themselves frozen out of EU banking and financial services markets. Surely much better to keep your HQ in an independent Scotland within the EU? ;)

[snooky]

The scotsman has actually altered its editorial stance recently. It is now taking a fact based, non-aligned position and it has committed to not supporting any parties.

A welcome development i would suggest.

But yeah, who cares about one of our largest employers eh...

One of largest employers is laying off people by the day.
They are using this threat to intimidate their staff into voting the way the RBS (aka The Government) want.

[Slavers]

The big word is "IF", which you didn't use before.

We don't know what tariffs would be. We don't know what the tax rates would be.

Your company doesn't know what its moving costs would be (new premises, redundancies etc).

OK I can accept its not certain but im pretty sure it would happen. A lot of business have said along the same lines they would move their HQ out of Scotland.

[Slavers]

Alternatively, why have your bank HQ in separatist England, when much of your business is done in Europe. Specially if May is unable to swing a deal for the Finance Sector and English banks find themselves frozen out of EU banking and financial services markets. Surely much better to keep your HQ in an independent Scotland within the EU? ;)

Because England is one of financial centres of the world with the skills, expertise and experience in finance?

My company is not a financial one but a Audio & Visual installation company.

[CropleyWasGod]

OK I can accept its not certain but im pretty sure it would happen. A lot of business have said along the same lines they would move their HQ out of Scotland.

...without knowing the facts, costs and benefits of moving out of "possible EU Scotland" to "probably non-EU England"?

I'd doubt that.

[Slavers]

...without knowing the facts, costs and benefits of moving out of "possible EU Scotland" to "probably non-EU England"?

I'd doubt that.

95% of our business sells to England not the EU.

Goes for most Scottish Businesses - England are by far our biggest trading partners not the EU.

[CropleyWasGod]

95% of our business sells to England not the EU.

Goes for most Scottish Businesses - England are by far our biggest trading partners not the EU.

.. that doesn't meant to say that it would be a smart commercial decision to move there.

If that were the only criterion, our whisky companies would be based in the US.

[Slavers]

.. that doesn't meant to say that it would be a smart commercial decision to move there.

If that were the only criterion, our whisky companies would be based in the US.

It would be smart decision if tariffs are placed between nations. If there are no tariffs then it would mean the UK has a great free trade deal with the EU, exactly what the SNP say will not happen.

[CropleyWasGod]

It would be smart decision if tariffs are placed between nations. If there are no tariffs then it would mean the UK has a great free trade deal with the EU, exactly what the SNP say will not happen.

That word "if" again.

If Scotland reduces Corporation Tax to 3 points below the UK rate....... :cb

[Slavers]

That word "if" again.

If Scotland reduces Corporation Tax to 3 points below the UK rate....... :cb

Going into a trade war with your closets trading partners that also happens to have a stronger currency - doesn't seem a great idea to me.

[CropleyWasGod]

Going into a trade war with your closets trading partners that also happens to have a stronger currency - doesn't seem a great idea to me.

That's another issue , of course.

But my point is... would lower tax rates affect the attitude of companies who are thinking of relocating? Of course they would.

( a side issue.... what makes you think England would have a stronger currency than Scotland, in or out of the EU?)

[Just Alf]

last RBS group accounts.... 87,000 employees, 23,000 of which are uk based. Of the 23 they are spread across Ulster bank, williams and Glynn, Natwest and Coutts.

As the group is clearly a worldwide operation the reality is that it's not going to do something (or not do it) if it's going to impact on their costs.

[grunt]

( a side issue.... what makes you think England would have a stronger currency than Scotland, in or out of the EU?)
Hardly a side issue. And anyway, what is this currency which is weaker than the £?

[CropleyWasGod]

Hardly a side issue. And anyway, what is this currency which is weaker than the £?

Of course it's not a side issue, but it was a tangent in the wee spat we're having :greengrin

[Slavers]

That's another issue , of course.

But my point is... would lower tax rates affect the attitude of companies who are thinking of relocating? Of course it would.

( a side issue.... what makes you think England would have a stronger currency than Scotland, in or out of the EU?)

The Deficit Scotland runs in its economy and the over all size of GDP would surely weaken our currency.

[Hibrandenburg]

Because England is one of financial centres of the world with the skills, expertise and experience in finance?

My company is not a financial one but a Audio & Visual installation company.

Not for much longer. They'll find the bulk of their trade is soon to be rerouted to an undecided destination within the EU'S.

[Hibrandenburg]

95% of our business sells to England not the EU.

Goes for most Scottish Businesses - England are by far our biggest trading partners not the EU.

95% of our business is exported via England. Doesn't mean were dealing with England.

[grunt]

last RBS group accounts.... 87,000 employees, 23,000 of which are uk based. Of the 23 they are spread across Ulster bank, williams and Glynn, Natwest and Coutts.

As the group is clearly a worldwide operation the reality is that it's not going to do something (or not do it) if it's going to impact on their costs.
The reasons for moving a bank's operations are significantly more complex than simply cost. And anyway, I think the discussion was about where the HQ is. Personally I don't give a stuff where the HQ is, I'm more interested in where the jobs are, and the quality of those jobs. Regardless of what RBS does in relation to Scotland, it's a certainty that most financial services companies in London are busy working out where they need to base their operations in order to minimise the potentially negative impacts of Brexit on them. London (the City) is going to suffer big time as a result of Brexit.

And while I'm here, I watched BBCQT last night. An unusually balanced panel, I thought, barring the Tory plant in the audience. I was not surprised, but I was dismayed to see the two Tory panellists telling us what life would be like after Brexit. "It will be ok", and "you won't notice the difference". Airheaded vacant soundbites based on feeling, not knowledge. God help us all.

Damn. Just realised this is the Indyref thread. Sorry.

[CropleyWasGod]

The Deficit Scotland runs in its economy and the over all size of GDP would surely weaken our currency.

Which currency is this? :greengrin

[grunt]

The Deficit Scotland runs in its economy and the over all size of GDP would surely weaken our currency.What deficit is that?

[JeMeSouviens]

The Deficit Scotland runs in its economy and the over all size of GDP would surely weaken our currency.

Otoh, our probable current account surplus vs the UK's even larger deficit would be in our favour. Your second point about overall size is nonsense, cf. Switzerland, Norway, etc.

[G B Young]

Ruth Davidson's suggested date for another referendum works for me:

http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/15284761.Ruth_Davidson_says_no_independence_refere ndum_for_at_least_35_years/

:agree:

[grunt]

Ruth Davidson's suggested date for another referendum works for me:

http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/15284761.Ruth_Davidson_says_no_independence_refere ndum_for_at_least_35_years/

:agree:There will be nothing left of Scotland by then. It will all have been given away in EU deals, or sold to the Americans.
Of course, this is the Tory plan.

[pacoluna]

Ruth Davidson's suggested date for another referendum works for me:

http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/15284761.Ruth_Davidson_says_no_independence_refere ndum_for_at_least_35_years/

:agree:
I say no to a Tory government for at least 35 year, wishful thinking.

[makaveli1875]

I say no to a Tory government for at least 35 year, wishful thinking.

you seem obsessed with torrees , what party do you actually support ? This anti torree stuff provides no constructiveness :wink:

[High-On-Hibs]

you seem obsessed with torrees , what party do you actually support ? This anti torree stuff provides no constructiveness :wink:

Here's an idea. Put forward some positive arguments as to why the Scottish people should vote Tory? Try to do this without mentioning the SNP and lets see how far you get. :cb

[makaveli1875]

Here's an idea. Put forward some positive arguments as to why the Scottish people should vote Tory? Try to do this without mentioning the SNP and lets see how far you get. :cb

free prescriptions :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

free prescriptions :greengrin

So not something new the Tories are proposing then. Not worth voting for a party that is imitating the policies of others, just vote for the originators of the policy

[High-On-Hibs]

So not something new the Tories are proposing then. Not worth voting for a party that is imitating the policies of others, just vote for the originators of the policy

The Communist Party? :dunno: :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I hope this "WEE" march in Glasgow will be covered by the Beeb tonight? Sending Ruth a message.:wink:

18692

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I hope this "WEE" march in Glasgow will be covered by the Beeb tonight? Sending Ruth a message.:wink:

18692

Is that those bloody unionist parties droning-on about independence again, honestly i wish they would talk about something else...

[High-On-Hibs]

Is that those bloody unionist parties droning-on about independence again, honestly i wish they would talk about something else...

Is that all the saltire is to you? A pesky symbolism for independence?

[ronaldo7]

Is that those bloody unionist parties droning-on about independence again, honestly i wish they would talk about something else...

We're allowed to join in some time. :wink: This march was planned over a year ago FYI.

It must be galling for the Unionists, when the Yes movement can put 25,000 on the streets of Glasgow whilst the SNP are out canvassing.:thumbsup:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Is that all the saltire is to you? A pesky symbolism for independence?

Its a pro-independence march, i never mentioned the flags on display.

[cabbageandribs1875]

15,000 marched in the weeg earlier, wonderful sight seeing all those Saltires :agree:



proud

[Colr]

15,000 marched in the weeg earlier, wonderful sight seeing all those Saltires :agree:



proud

Popular time of year for marching in Weegiestan!

[ronaldo7]

Popular time of year for marching in Weegiestan!

Inclusiveness is all we ask. Other marches can do one.:greengrin

https://t.co/OUtO5t31U6

[pacoluna]

Is that those bloody unionist parties droning-on about independence again, honestly i wish they would talk about something else...

Nothing to do with party's, it's a movement. Some MPs were asking people to campaign on the door step instead of going on this March.. Stewart Mcdonald in particular which I certainly wasn't happy about . Grass roots own this movement not any party.

[xyz23jc]

Popular time of year for marching in Weegiestan!

Jist like thi Burgh then..... :greengrin

[marinello59]

Inclusiveness is all we ask. Other marches can do one.:greengrin

https://t.co/OUtO5t31U6

Good stuff but I love the 'more progressive view towards independence line'. What on earth does that mean?

[ronaldo7]

Good stuff but I love the 'more progressive view towards independence line'. What on earth does that mean?

You'll have to ask Ms Chapman. I can't speak for her, sorry.:wink:

[SHODAN]

That'll be that then for indyref2.

Fully expect Sturgeon to shelve the plans now - SNP voters in 2015 who were convinced a second referendum was off the cards clearly voting tactically to send a message. Ironically the beneficiaries are the Conservatives who put us in this mess in the first place with that ****ing EU referendum.

Will be interesting to see how Davidson and Dugdale fare now that they've got what they wanted.

[Beefster]

That'll be that then for indyref2.

I don't see how tbh.

Brexit is the only thing that has put it back on the table. If the SNP wimp out from following through on their promise, there may not be any comparable circumstances that put it back on the table for a very very long time.

[marinello59]

I don't see how tbh.

Brexit is the only thing that has put it back on the table. If the SNP wimp out from following through on their promise, there may not be any comparable circumstances that put it back on the table for a very very long time.

Sturgeon has to follow through on this, she has no choice.

[Pretty Boy]

The 2nd Indy Ref will still happen.

SNP headquarters will be busy reworking the strategy as we speak.

[JeMeSouviens]

Hard to see how Yes can win from here. V depressing.

[Wembley67]

Hard to see how Yes can win from here. V depressing.

Why?

[Pete]

Why?

Unionist parties v Nats

Percentage of votes.

It's not happening.

[PiemanP]

Hopefully that is a strong show of support against indyref2 and Sturgeon can get back on with her job of actually running the country.

[Hiber-nation]

Hard to see how Yes can win from here. V depressing.

Far stranger things have happened in politics over the past few years.

[DaveF]

Sturgeon has to follow through on this, she has no choice.

Can't see it be an easy sell now that the unionist supporting parties have wind in their sails. It matters not that you support Independence - your vote last night went towards supporting get the anti Indeyref2 cause didn't it?

Well that's how it will be portrayed anyway.

[marinello59]

Can't see it be an easy sell now that the unionist supporting parties have wind in their sails. It matters not that you support Independence - your vote last night went towards supporting get the anti Indeyref2 cause didn't it?

Well that's how it will be portrayed anyway.

The SNP want to take a good hard look at themselves if they want to see where the blame lies for putting IndyRef 2 at risk, it's totally down to them. Sturgeon can start by trying to understand why she lost their entire North East heartlands to the Tories with voters going directly from SNP to Tory.

[DaveF]

The SNP want to take a good hard look at themselves if they want to see where the blame lies for putting IndyRef 2 at risk, it's totally down to them. Sturgeon can start by trying to understand why she lost their entire North East heartlands to the Tories with voters going directly from SNP to Tory.

Yes, I'm sure they do need to re-assess.

My point was merely that in my view, I reckon ref2 is dead in the water. And it will be votes (like yours) which will have helped kill it.

So it's your fault ;-)

[snooky]

The SNP want to take a good hard look at themselves if they want to see where the blame lies for putting IndyRef 2 at risk, it's totally down to them. Sturgeon can start by trying to understand why she lost their entire North East heartlands to the Tories with voters going directly from SNP to Tory.

Agree to a point. The indyref2 distraction tactic by all other parties and the media certainly was the weak point of the SNP. It was the dummy punch that drops ones guard. Well folks, here comes the uppercut. Be prepared for a lot of pain.

[marinello59]

Yes, I'm sure they do need to re-assess.

My point was merely that in my view, I reckon ref2 is dead in the water. And it will be votes (like yours) which will have helped kill it.

So it's your fault ;-)
Sorry. :greengrin
The Brexit vote forced a timetable on Sturgeon for IndyRef2 that she wouldn't have chosen. Having a slightly longer period to gather more support may not be a bad thing.

[snooky]

Sorry. :greengrin
The Brexit vote forced a timetable on Sturgeon for IndyRef2 that she wouldn't have chosen. Having a slightly longer period to gather more support may not be a bad thing.

On the button, m59.
Her hand was forced and I wonder if that was part of the UK government's tactic. I, myself didn't want another indy ref at this point. I'm sure there were many others who felt the same and maybe voted accordingly. That being the case, indyref2 isn't dead, it's just not it's time - yet. A couple of years of getting a severe kicking and continuing austerity will put it back on the table.
Fwiw, I think Scotland has lost it's two best Westminster MPs.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Agree to a point. The indyref2 distraction tactic by all other parties and the media certainly was the weak point of the SNP. It was the dummy punch that drops ones guard. Well folks, here comes the uppercut. Be prepared for a lot of pain.

It wasnt a distraction tactic, its a legitimate point, and one the snp have badly misjudged.

Also, most SNP seats are borrowed from someone else, many of thesr seats are reverting back to the norm.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

On the button, m59.
Her hand was forced and I wonder if that was part of the UK government's tactic. I, myself didn't want another indy ref at this point. I'm sure there were many others who felt the same and maybe voted accordingly. That being the case, indyref2 isn't dead, it's just not it's time - yet. A couple of years of getting a severe kicking and continuing austerity will put it back on the table.
Fwiw, I think Scotland has lost it's two best Westminster MPs.

She overplayed it, her hand wadnt forced.

She misjudged the mood. Take some responsibilit, stop trying to blame the others for hoodwinking the nats. Its pathetic, all parties have to take their medicine sometimes, tonight its the nats turn.

[The Tubs]

With European negotiations starting in a couple of weeks, and the Uk in an even more unstable position, independence, in my opinion, has become more desirable.

[Pretty Boy]

With European negotiations starting in a couple of weeks, and the Uk in an even more unstable position, independence, in my opinion, has become more desirable.

The negotiations will be delayed imo.

That's an option if the EU member states all agree.

[The Harp Awakes]

Strangely enough, the GE result of 2015 where the SNP won 56 of the 59 seats has ended up being their Achilles heel. In the previous GE of 2010, the SNP won 6 seats, so this morning they have 6 times the amount of seats they had in 2010, which sounds impressive. Clearly though, the focus is on how they fared in 2015, meaning that momentum has been lost by the SNP and the independence movement generally.

Whilst it may push back the timing of indyref2, that may be good thing for the SNP as it will give them time to re-group increasing the chances of a Yes vote when indyref2 does happen, probably after 2020 now.

[Pretty Boy]

Strangely enough, the GE result of 2015 where the SNP won 56 of the 59 seats has ended up being their Achilles heel. In the previous GE of 2010, the SNP won 6 seats, so this morning they have 6 times the amount of seats they had in 2010, which sounds impressive. Clearly though, the focus is on how they fared in 2015, meaning that momentum has been lost by the SNP and the independence movement generally.

Whilst it may push back the timing of indyref2, that may be good thing for the SNP as it will give them time to re-group increasing the chances of a Yes vote when indyref2 does happen, probably after 2020 now.

1st paragraph is similar to the issue Blair faced post 97. His victory then was so unprecedented and spectacular that results that followed were painted as failures when in fact they were still historically massive majorities.

Being the incumbent party (I know the SNP technically aren't but for the sake of my point) always sets you up as having the target on your back. Both Holyrood and Westminster elections haven't been kind to the SNP relatively speaking.

I really hope the SNP go away and use this opportunity to begin to prepare the best possible case for independence they can. The hissy fits being seen on social media are really helping no one. A year or 2 of a Tory/DUP pact, official or otherwise, will see an opportunity presented. The White Paper had fundamental issues last time in that it read like a detailed manifesto in large parts as opposed to a clear blueprint for an iScotland. Be clear and honest on the various options for EU membership, currency and so on. The issue is too big to be derailed by an OTT reaction to a partisan setback.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Hard to see how Yes can win from here. V depressing.

I wouldnt be so sure.

Politics is in flux like never before in my lifetime, predictions are useless.

Yeah the snp took a hammering, and at least partly that was a reactiob againsy sturgeon / indyref2.

But a better leader taking a more consensual, long term approach will have another chance in the future imo.

Probably settled fpr the short term, but certainly not dead. Just not being rushed through on the SNPs timetable.

[Moulin Yarns]

On amore positive note

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-catalonia-idUSKBN19012A

I feel a wee trip to Barcelona coming on

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

1st paragraph is similar to the issue Blair faced post 97. His victory then was so unprecedented and spectacular that results that followed were painted as failures when in fact they were still historically massive majorities.

Being the incumbent party (I know the SNP technically aren't but for the sake of my point) always sets you up as having the target on your back. Both Holyrood and Westminster elections haven't been kind to the SNP relatively speaking.

I really hope the SNP go away and use this opportunity to begin to prepare the best possible case for independence they can. The hissy fits being seen on social media are really helping no one. A year or 2 of a Tory/DUP pact, official or otherwise, will see an opportunity presented. The White Paper had fundamental issues last time in that it read like a detailed manifesto in large parts as opposed to a clear blueprint for an iScotland. Be clear and honest on the various options for EU membership, currency and so on. The issue is too big to be derailed by an OTT reaction to a partisan setback.

Agree with this.

Its easy being a small party who dont have to take decisions. Much more difficult being a large party and in power. But its where real, grown-up politics exists.

Unfortunately many eejits joined the SNP after the ref on the false promise of sweeping to victory. Life is rarely that simple, amd long term it will be no bad thing for the nats to shed some of these reactionary types.

Anyone who bought the holyrood-brexit-indyref2-indy narrative was being very naive imo.

As another poster pointed out, they still habe lots of seats.

Next electiob will be the critical one, lots of the seats they held had their majorties slashed, bringing them very much into play for next time - bit equally they lost a few that they could win back.

[RyeSloan]

I wouldnt be so sure.

Politics is in flux like never before in my lifetime, predictions are useless.

Yeah the snp took a hammering, and at least partly that was a reactiob againsy sturgeon / indyref2.

But a better leader taking a more consensual, long term approach will have another chance in the future imo.

Probably settled fpr the short term, but certainly not dead. Just not being rushed through on the SNPs timetable.

Which I think is what people have been trying to say as soon as Sturgeon launched the Indy2 push....

[RIP]

It's interesting that support for Independence remains strong. I wonder how many of us are forgetting that 400000 Labour voters like me voted Yes at Indy 1.

The idea that the Labour rank and file are Red Tories or butchers apron wearing unionists is as preposterous today as it was when first promoted by the cybernats in 2014.

[DaveF]

It's interesting that support for Independence remains strong. I wonder how many of us are forgetting that 400000 Labour voters like me voted Yes at Indy 1.

The idea that the Labour rank and file are Red Tories or butchers apron wearing unionists is as preposterous today as it was when first promoted by the cybernats in 2014.

I hear what you are saying but Ruth and Kez will take your vote as a signal that Indeyref2 isn't wanted and as such it'll be off the table for a while.

Whether that's good or bad is another matter.

[hibs0666]

What a stunt Sturgeon has pulled. In two years, to go from a position of electoral strength to the point where she acknowledges that indyref2 is a total liability, is pretty special.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the indyistas start to question her leadership now that the wider electoral recognises the abject performance of her governance and leadership.

[Hibbyradge]

Indy 2
https://ak9.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/11747717/thumb/1.jpg

[The Tubs]

I haven't read what Sturgeon said but I imagine she acknowledges that, just like NI, Scotland is spilt by the constitution and it won't go away. The UK's a mess.

Whether yes can win is another question. The SNP could learn from Corbyn's campaigning, though.

[marinello59]

I hear what you are saying but Ruth and Kez will take your vote as a signal that Indeyref2 isn't wanted and as such it'll be off the table for a while.

Whether that's good or bad is another matter.

It looks like Sturgeon has taken note of the many SNP voters who moved directly from SNP to the Tories in so many rural seats. That's where the real damage was done.

[hibs0666]

I hear what you are saying but Ruth and Kez will take your vote as a signal that Indeyref2 isn't wanted and as such it'll be off the table for a while.

Whether that's good or bad is another matter.

Sturgeon recognises the toxicity of indyref2 posturing even if her rank and file continue to pine for a second shot at a referendum under any excuse and at any cost.

[Cameron1875]

Disappointed at the SNP result last night but proud of my local area re electing Joanna Cherry. After years of Alistair Darling, it's nice we have a REAL person as our MP.

I'm a bit worn out with independence chatter and that's from someone who is a staunch Yes.

Maybe time to park that for a couple of years and try get back people who voted Tory this time i.e. some places in the West, Aberdeen, fishermen etc.

The worst part was losing Angus Robertson. Represented the SNP and Scotland excellently so it's gutting and a little ridiculous that he is ousted by a Tory who already has about 9 jobs.

[Slavers]

Sturgeon recognises the toxicity of indyref2 posturing even if her rank and file continue to pine for a second shot at a referendum under any excuse and at any cost.

To most in Scotland the idea of an indyref 2 so soon after the last one is toxic.

Now due to the poor record of the SNP government, if the continue to push for indyref 2 then the SNP are going to be a toxic brand and will loose more seats to a resurgent Labour and Conservatives.

It's the best thing that could have happened for Scotland, now we should get back to managing our schools and hospitals better without the independence debate taking center stage.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Disappointed at the SNP result last night but proud of my local area re electing Joanna Cherry. After years of Alistair Darling, it's nice we have a REAL person as our MP.

I'm a bit worn out with independence chatter and that's from someone who is a staunch Yes.

Maybe time to park that for a couple of years and try get back people who voted Tory this time i.e. some places in the West, Aberdeen, fishermen etc.

The worst part was losing Angus Robertson. Represented the SNP and Scotland excellently so it's gutting and a little ridiculous that he is ousted by a Tory who already has about 9 jobs.

Agree about indy. Need to let it lie and then become an issue again organically, not by forcing it. The biggest (and one of the very few) strategic mistakes that the SNP have made since 2007 imo.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Disappointed at the SNP result last night but proud of my local area re electing Joanna Cherry. After years of Alistair Darling, it's nice we have a REAL person as our MP.

I'm a bit worn out with independence chatter and that's from someone who is a staunch Yes.

Maybe time to park that for a couple of years and try get back people who voted Tory this time i.e. some places in the West, Aberdeen, fishermen etc.

The worst part was losing Angus Robertson. Represented the SNP and Scotland excellently so it's gutting and a little ridiculous that he is ousted by a Tory who already has about 9 jobs.



my thoughts exactly, ruth davidson has tired everyone out with every 2nd word being 'independence' i'm really not sure if i indeed wanted it myself so soon after brexit, i'd prefer it's on the back burner at least until after the final discussions of brexit, personally i will continue to vote/donate to the SNP for as long as the SNP exists, just like i've done for the last 35 years, that won't change

[johnbc70]

my thoughts exactly, ruth davidson has tired everyone out with every 2nd word being 'independence' i'm really not sure if i indeed wanted it myself so soon after brexit, i'd prefer it's on the back burner at least until after the final discussions of brexit, personally i will continue to vote/donate to the SNP for as long as the SNP exists, just like i've done for the last 35 years, that won't change

Ruth Davidson? Do you mean Sturgeon?

[Moulin Yarns]

Ruth Davidson? Do you mean Sturgeon?

No. It was definitely Ruth who kept talking about independence. Every leaflet and email i got from her.

[High-On-Hibs]

Ruth Davidson? Do you mean Sturgeon?

The SNP lost votes because they didn't talk about independence enough. The tories gained votes by bashing on about it endlessly to avoid talking about their disaster of a manifesto.

[johnbc70]

I don't see how Ruth Davidson 'tired everyone out' with her independence chat as the poster stated, hence my query. Having gone from 1 seat to 13 and massively increasing their share of the vote then it seems people were not tired out at all, infact quite the opposite as what she was saying has clearly resonated with significant numbers.

[johnbc70]

The SNP lost votes because they didn't talk about independence enough. The tories gained votes by bashing on about it endlessly to avoid talking about their disaster of a manifesto.

Your opinion of course, to me the SNP lost votes for raising Indyref2 and Sturgeon has hinted at that herself. If you think the SNP would have won more votes by talking more about independence then fair enough.

[High-On-Hibs]

Your opinion of course, to me the SNP lost votes for raising Indyref2 and Sturgeon has hinted at that herself. If you think the SNP would have won more votes by talking more about independence then fair enough.

I do. They allowed the opposition to bash on about preventing another referendum and did very little to counter this. Many independence supporters no longer see the SNP as the party of independence, so default back to Labour as a result.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I do. They allowed the opposition to bash on about preventing another referendum and did very little to counter this. Many independence supporters no longer see the SNP as the party of independence, so default back to Labour as a result.

Really? Who do they see as the party of indy then?

Maybe, just maybe, not everyone is as obsessed by that single issue as you.

Anyway its been put to bed now so you will get your wish, and the debate will all be about policies.

[hibs0666]

I do. They allowed the opposition to bash on about preventing another referendum and did very little to counter this. Many independence supporters no longer see the SNP as the party of independence, so default back to Labour as a result.

I would argue with that. I think many people view the SNP as a single-issue pressure group who, like UKIP, will wither away if independence is ever achieved.

[Moulin Yarns]

SNP are having their 2nd most successful General Election result ever. Only 2nd time they've ever got above 11 seats

[stantonhibby]

I do. They allowed the opposition to bash on about preventing another referendum and did very little to counter this. Many independence supporters no longer see the SNP as the party of independence, so default back to Labour as a result.

Seriouly, what are you talking about ? Independence supporters dont see the SNP as the party of independence ?

[Slavers]

Seriouly, what are you talking about ? Independence supporters dont see the SNP as the party of independence ?

I think what we are seeing here is a meltdown.

[grunt]

The SNP talk about Independence too much. #SNPbad
The SNP don't talk about Independence enough. #SNPbad

[pacoluna]

SNP vote down only 1.7% kezia is to blame for tory revival in Scotland

[marinello59]

SNP vote down only 1.7% kezia is to blame for tory revival in Scotland

It was 13%.

[lord bunberry]

It was 13%.

It said 1.7% on the news

[makaveli1875]

SNP vote down only 1.7% kezia is to blame for tory revival in Scotland

think you need to look a little closer to home . Sturgeon is responsible for the tory revival , kezia never stood on the box jumping up and down demanding a referendum

[marinello59]

It said 1.7% on the news

It's 13%.

[Hibbyradge]

SNP vote down only 1.7% kezia is to blame for tory revival in Scotland

:confused:

The SNP only won 36.9% of the votes last night, a drop of 13.1%.

The Scottish Tories doubled their share to 28.6%, with Labour up by 2.8% at 27.1% and the Lib Dems down slightly to 6.8%.

She's a powerful woman, Kezia, if she can do all that. :faf:

[lord bunberry]

It's 13%.

You are correct. I don't know where I got the 1.7% from.

[Moulin Yarns]

You are correct. I don't know where I got the 1.7% from.

Based on UK figure.


But

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/09/snp-scottish-national-party-nicola-sturgeon

[Beefster]

Many independence supporters no longer see the SNP as the party of independence, so default back to Labour as a result.


SNP vote down only 1.7% kezia is to blame for tory revival in Scotland

I believe that this is technically called 'rationalisation'.

[BullsCloseHibs]

Let the people decide.
Not the Westminster.

[pacoluna]

If indyref2 is "dead" who will suffer the most? I suspect Ruth will. Deep down she wants it to remain a key issue with the Scottish electorate.

[snooky]

Agree about indy. Need to let it lie and then become an issue again organically, not by forcing it. The biggest (and one of the very few) strategic mistakes that the SNP have made since 2007 imo.

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately the FM was caught between a rock and a hard place with indyref2. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. Alas, I think she chose the worse of her two options.

[wookie70]

Scotland has another Tory Government that we never voted for, taking us into a Brexit we never voted for, agreeing an exit deal we were never asked about and bringing in policies that Scotland rejected. I can't help but think the time in some ways has never been more right for Independence put the media have got something to beat the SNP up with and the electorate are probably all voted out and may be voting again in a general election in the near future. The problem is that Brexit is a huge issue for Scotland and if we want our views enacted there is only one way.

[The Harp Awakes]

I would argue with that. I think many people view the SNP as a single-issue pressure group who, like UKIP, will wither away if independence is ever achieved.

A pressure group which has been in Government in Scotland for 10 years? Honestly some of the p1sh I read on here is something to behold.

[Mr Grieves]

Agree about indy. Need to let it lie and then become an issue again organically, not by forcing it. The biggest (and one of the very few) strategic mistakes that the SNP have made since 2007 imo.

Agree.

[cabbageandribs1875]

A pressure group which has been in Government in Scotland for 10 years? Honestly some of the p1sh I read on here is something to behold.


:hilarious a slaver :agree:

[ronaldo7]

A pressure group which has been in Government in Scotland for 10 years? Honestly some of the p1sh I read on here is something to behold.

They've only won the last 7 elections in Scotland, just a wee pressure group, so they are.:greengrin

[pacoluna]

I'm sure EU citizens and 16/17 would appreciate a voice if there was a second referendum.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm sure EU citizens and 16/17 would appreciate a voice if there was a second referendum.

Have to say, i never agreed that non citizens got to vote in the ref. I know its the whole civic nationalism thing, but it just seemed wrong.

16/17 year olds i totally agree with.

[Glory Lurker]

Have to say, i never agreed that non citizens got to vote in the ref. I know its the whole civic nationalism thing, but it just seemed wrong.

16/17 year olds i totally agree with.

Wrong for folk that live here to have a say in what happens here?

[Just Alf]

Have to say, i never agreed that non citizens got to vote in the ref. I know its the whole civic nationalism thing, but it just seemed wrong.

16/17 year olds i totally agree with.
Don't agree at all.... The whole point of the indepence question is about home rule.... Regardless, if your Polish, Welsh, English or Irish... If you have decided to live in Scotland then you have every right to have a vote. It's part of what this whole discussion is about.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

UK nationals get a vote for 15 years after deciding to leave the UK. It seems crazy to me that someone who hasn't lived in the UK for 3 election terms can still vote even when they have never had any intention of returning. There are 3 million ex pats in the UK, no idea how may can vote but it will be a substantial number. They should think about forming their own political parties and hiring holiday homes in the UK to allow for a candidate to have a constituency address. May could form an allegiance with the Costa del Sol Mafia to get her majority.

[ronaldo7]

Have to say, i never agreed that non citizens got to vote in the ref. I know its the whole civic nationalism thing, but it just seemed wrong.

16/17 year olds i totally agree with.

Yer UKIP frock is showing.😕

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Wrong for folk that live here to have a say in what happens here?

No, voting in elections is fine. But a question that defines the future of a country for ever more, should be for citizens / nationals etc - people with a stake in the long term decision.

I certainly wouldnt expect a vote if i lived in barcelona, for example.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Don't agree at all.... The whole point of the indepence question is about home rule.... Regardless, if your Polish, Welsh, English or Irish... If you have decided to live in Scotland then you have every right to have a vote. It's part of what this whole discussion is about.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Yeah i get that point of view, i just dont share it.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yer UKIP frock is showing.😕

Why, because i think scottish people and citizens here should decide on the constitutional future of Scotland?

Its just my view, i accept that not everyone agrees with it.

[ronaldo7]

Why, because i think scottish people and citizens here should decide on the constitutional future of Scotland?

Its just my view, i accept that not everyone agrees with it.
You're entitled to your pov mate. So are the Dup I suppose. 😭

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You're entitled to your pov mate. So are the Dup I suppose. 😭

Yeah, you got me, bang to rights.

Im an intolerant, orange bigot who hates everyone who isnt from my wee, free branch of the Presbyterian church.

[Mr White]

Yeah, you got me, bang to rights.

Im an intolerant, orange bigot who hates everyone who isnt from my wee, free branch of the Presbyterian church.

Yeah yeah but lets cut to the chase. Do you believe in dinosaurs?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yeah yeah but lets cut to the chase. Do you believe in dinosaurs?

No. Dont be daft.

Clearly god just put the fossils here on our 4,000 year old planet to test our faith...

[Mr White]

No. Dont be daft.

Clearly god just put the fossils here on our 4,000 year old planet to test our faith...

Welcome to the club Billy that's a pass right there so it is big lad :aok:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Welcome to the club Billy that's a pass right there so it is big lad :aok:

Am fair pleased, so i am 😁

[Glory Lurker]

No, voting in elections is fine. But a question that defines the future of a country for ever more, should be for citizens / nationals etc - people with a stake in the long term decision.

I certainly wouldnt expect a vote if i lived in barcelona, for example.

But that's blood and soil. Where you live is where you work, where you contribute.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

But that's blood and soil. Where you live is where you work, where you contribute.

I know, i fully respect that others see it differently. There is an element of blood and soil nationalism to every country, its just a question of degrees imo.

[ronaldo7]

Yeah, you got me, bang to rights.

Im an intolerant, orange bigot who hates everyone who isnt from my wee, free branch of the Presbyterian church.

Shock, horror, as the Bhoys infiltrate the DUP.:wink:

[ronaldo7]

I know, i fully respect that others see it differently. There is an element of blood and soil nationalism to every country, its just a question of degrees imo.

Yours seems to be 100%:greengrin

[Mr White]

:wink:

You might want to be careful there R7 I'm sure I've heard too much winking can be bad for one's eyesight.

It would be an awful shame if you were to become short-sighted.

Or myopic to give it another title.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yours seems to be 100%:greengrin

Im not even sure what that is supposed to mean...??

[cabbageandribs1875]

In a short statement outside Downing Street after an audience with the Queen, Mrs May said she would join with her DUP "friends" to "get to work" on Brexit.

She referred to the "strong relationship" she had with the DUP, but gave little detail of how their arrangement might work.





https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/111C2/production/_96428007_tweet.jpg




ruth davidson won't like the friends that theresa may keeps, the DUP won't like ruth Davidson and vice versa,, ruth davidson might not like that theresa may likes the DUP that don't like ruth, the DUP don't like kaffliks...


awww man. where could all this end up

[Moulin Yarns]

Why, because i think scottish people and citizens here should decide on the constitutional future of Scotland?

Its just my view, i accept that not everyone agrees with it.

Foreign nationals resident in Scotland are also citizens are they not?

Thank goodness you got that right at least.

[lord bunberry]

Why, because i think scottish people and citizens here should decide on the constitutional future of Scotland?

Its just my view, i accept that not everyone agrees with it.
I don't agree with you politically, but I respect the fact that you put your point across in a well mannered way and don't resort to some of the nonsense that goes on, but I'm struggling to see your logic on this one. People who come and make their home here and contribute both financially and socially to our country surely deserve the right to decide how the country they live in is governed.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't agree with you politically, but I respect the fact that you put your point across in a well mannered way and don't resort to some of the nonsense that goes on, but I'm struggling to see your logic on this one. People who come and make their home here and contribute both financially and socially to our country surely deserve the right to decide how the country they live in is governed.

Only if you believe all citizens are equal. If for some reason you believe your Johnny Foreigner neighbour who contributes the same way you do to society is less worthy of the same rights as you because of your birth status then you might have a problem with that.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't agree with you politically, but I respect the fact that you put your point across in a well mannered way and don't resort to some of the nonsense that goes on, but I'm struggling to see your logic on this one. People who come and make their home here and contribute both financially and socially to our country surely deserve the right to decide how the country they live in is governed.

Thanks. I think most regular posters on here treat each other with respect.

But is there not a difference between those from abroad who have become uk nationals / gained residency and those who are just here on temporary wprk visas, or no visas at all (EU migrants etc)

Im not saying its die in a ditch stuff, i just look at it that if i moved to Barcelona, or northern ireland for a few years to work, but wasnt interested in becoming a spanish / irish resident or citizen, i wouldnt expect to, and wpuld actually feel a bit uncomfortable voting in a ref to decide the future constitutional status of that place. I would think it is for them to decide.

Different if i had become a citizen / resident etc

But i dont know how the legalities of living somewhere versus being a citizen of that place actually work.

[Hibrandenburg]

Thanks. I think most regular posters on here treat each other with respect.

But is there not a difference between those from abroad who have become uk nationals / gained residency and those who are just here on temporary wprk visas, or no visas at all (EU migrants etc)

Im not saying its die in a ditch stuff, i just look at it that if i moved to Barcelona, or northern ireland for a few years to work, but wasnt interested in becoming a spanish / irish resident or citizen, i wouldnt expect to, and wpuld actually feel a bit uncomfortable voting in a ref to decide the future constitutional status of that place. I would think it is for them to decide.

Different if i had become a citizen / resident etc

But i dont know how the legalities of living somewhere versus being a citizen of that place actually work.

At the moment EU nationals have the right to live and work where they like within the EU on a permanent basis. That's why many chose to move their families and invest their futures in other EU countries. The UK is a EU country that has to uphold EU legislation and that's why not allowing EU citizens to vote on their future was morally repugnant.

[hibs0666]

They've only won the last 7 elections in Scotland, just a wee pressure group, so they are.:greengrin

Yup, a pressure group. Aside from independence, can you list out the other three or four other key principles that have defined the group over it's 80 year history?

So aye, a pressure group that is destined to wither and die once it's one core objective has been achieved. A Scottish UKIP if you will.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

At the moment EU nationals have the right to live and work where they like within the EU on a permanent basis. That's why many chose to move their families and invest their futures in other EU countries. The UK is a EU country that has to uphold EU legislation and that's why not allowing EU citizens to vote on their future was morally repugnant.

So its not a part of EU legislation then?

I completely accept others have a different view, i respectfully disagree.

[Hibrandenburg]

So its not a part of EU legislation then?

I completely accept others have a different view, i respectfully disagree.

So you agree that inviting people to come and invest their future in the UK should be 2nd class citizens.

[makaveli1875]

At the moment EU nationals have the right to live and work where they like within the EU on a permanent basis. That's why many chose to move their families and invest their futures in other EU countries. The UK is a EU country that has to uphold EU legislation and that's why not allowing EU citizens to vote on their future was morally repugnant.

interesting , i work with around 14 or 15 EU migrants . 4 of them have come over here , brought their families over and set up home here . They now consider themselves British , these 4 guys IMO have every right to vote on the constitution . The other 9 or 10 have come over , left their wives and kids at home and are only here to make some cash to send home and will eventually go home themselves in a year or 2 - these guys IMO should have no say on the constitution of this country

[Hibrandenburg]

interesting , i work with around 14 or 15 EU migrants . 4 of them have come over here , brought their families over and set up home here . They now consider themselves British , these 4 guys IMO have every right to vote on the constitution . The other 9 or 10 have come over , left their wives and kids at home and are only here to make some cash to send home and will eventually go home themselves in a year or 2 - these guys IMO should have no say on the constitution of this country

Why not? They pay their taxes and are effected by the results of elections/referendum where they pay their taxes. Who's to say that they won't change their mind and stay longer if not permanently? Although that last point is moot imo because providing they are resident and adding to society they should have the same rights and obligations as everyone else.

[Slavers]

I'd support migrants being allowed a vote in indyref 2 as they are more likely to vote to remain as part of the UK.

[lord bunberry]

I very much doubt there will be another independence referendum anytime soon. If it comes it will be because brexit hasn't gone well and people are looking for a way out.

[makaveli1875]

Why not? They pay their taxes and are effected by the results of elections/referendum where they pay their taxes. Who's to say that they won't change their mind and stay longer if not permanently? Although that last point is moot imo because providing they are resident and adding to society they should have the same rights and obligations as everyone else.

not sure i agree with that . If i went to work abroad for a year or 2 i wouldnt expect to have a say on constitutional matters for that country .

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

not sure i agree with that . If i went to work abroad for a year or 2 i wouldnt expect to have a say on constitutional matters for that country .

Thats my view as well.

[Hibrandenburg]

not sure i agree with that . If i went to work abroad for a year or 2 i wouldnt expect to have a say on constitutional matters for that country .

Fair doos but if you're gonna have freedom of movement and employment for your citizens within a union then you have to decide where these people can take part in the democratic process otherwise it's not a democratic process. Either you restrict voting rights to those who live there or those who were born there but live elsewhere or you create a society where some have more rights than others.

How long in you're eyes does someone need to live somewhere before he gains democratic relevancy?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Fair doos but if you're gonna have freedom of movement and employment for your citizens within a union then you have to decide where these people can take part in the democratic process otherwise it's not a democratic process. Either you restrict voting rights to those who live their or those who were born there but live elsewhere or you create a society where some have more rights than others.

How long in you're eyes does someone need to live somewhere before he gains democratic relevancy?

Do we not do that already? Different levels of visa, temp residency, student visas, permananet residency, british citizens/nationals?

[ronaldo7]

Yup, a pressure group. Aside from independence, can you list out the other three or four other key principles that have defined the group over it's 80 year history?

So aye, a pressure group that is destined to wither and die once it's one core objective has been achieved. A Scottish UKIP if you will.

If you'd mentioned that they'd been a pressure group for the majority of the 80 years, I might have agreed with you, however since 1999 when the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, they've been the only people putting Scotland's interests first.

You only need look at the our infrastructure since 2007 to see that.

The party of Government if you like. Getting on with the day job.:aok:

[hibs0666]

If you'd mentioned that they'd been a pressure group for the majority of the 80 years, I might have agreed with you, however since 1999 when the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, they've been the only people putting Scotland's interests first.

You only need look at the our infrastructure since 2007 to see that.

The party of Government if you like. Getting on with the day job.:aok:

I didn't think you'd be able to answer the question.

[ronaldo7]

I didn't think you'd be able to answer the question.


They'll be here for a while, and until Independence is delivered, they'll just have to keep governing when elected.

What happens then, is anyone's guess.

[Hibrandenburg]

Do we not do that already? Different levels of visa, temp residency, student visas, permananet residency, british citizens/nationals?

I've got EU on my passport making me an EU citizen, however democratically I'm a nomad and unable to vote in any country within the union on constitutional issues. Of course I could become a nationalized German but why should I have to if I still live in the EU?

[ronaldo7]

Nice to see Simon Pia move to YES. Welcome Simon.:aok:

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

[marinello59]

If you'd mentioned that they'd been a pressure group for the majority of the 80 years, I might have agreed with you, however since 1999 when the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, they've been the only people putting Scotland's interests first.

You only need look at the our infrastructure since 2007 to see that.

The party of Government if you like. Getting on with the day job.:aok:


That's a great line for those of you who are devoted to their party and think Nicola Sturgeon is 'magnificent' but let's face it, every single party could come out with the same one, they just have a different way of going about it.
Since the Scottish parliament reconvened I think it would be fair to say that every single administration has made a decent job of running things whether that was Labour. Labour-LibDem, SNP-Tory or SNP. Until now. Nicola Sturgeon's tenure has been disappointing on a number of fronts. Whether it's the poor performance on education or the botched centralisation of our Police forces amongst other things she has left herself open to taking her eye of the ball domestically. She can still put things right before the next Holyrood election but this one should be a wee warning for her that supporting Independence will not be enough on it's own to allow the SNP to continue weighing the votes.

[Mikey]

Nice to see Simon Pia move to YES. Welcome Simon.:aok:

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

I'd have kept that quiet to be honest :greengrin

[marinello59]

I'd have kept that quiet to be honest :greengrin

:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

That's a great line for those of you who are devoted to their party and think Nicola Sturgeon is 'magnificent' but let's face it, every single party could come out with the same line, they just have a different way of going about it.
Since the Scottish parliament reconvened I think it would be fair to say that every single administration has made a decent job of running things whether that was Labour. Labour-LibDem, SNP-Tory or SNP. Until now. Nicola Sturgeon's tenure has been disappointing on a number of fronts. Whether it's the poor performance on education or the botched centralisation of our Police forces amongst other things she has left herself open to taking her eye of the ball domestically. She can still put things right before the next Holyrood election but this one should be a wee warning for her that supporting Independence will not be enough on it's own to allow the SNP to continue weighing the votes.

I'd agree with most of that. It was unfortunate that Donald Dewar never got much of a chance to shape things, however, McConnell never really got out of second gear imo. I agree with your last paragraph, and look forward to see what's in store. Lessons to be learnt, and a further move to the left is where I'd like to go.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I've got EU on my passport making me an EU citizen, however democratically I'm a nomad and unable to vote in any country within the union on constitutional issues. Of course I could become a nationalized German but why should I have to if I still live in the EU?

I dont know, i dont know anything about your personal circumstances.

But you do know that the eu aint a country, amd while being ru citizens grants some rights, nation states remain the main actors, amd it is up to them who gets to decide on their constitutional future.

[grunt]

But you do know that the eu aint a country, amd while being ru citizens grants some rights, nation states remain the main actors, amd it is up to them who gets to decide on their constitutional future.Good point. Very good point. Sadly not one which got much coverage during the referendum. If more people realised this, there'd be less rubbish spouted about "taking back control" and "regaining sovereignty".

[Hibrandenburg]

I dont know, i dont know anything about your personal circumstances.

But you do know that the eu aint a country, amd while being ru citizens grants some rights, nation states remain the main actors, amd it is up to them who gets to decide on their constitutional future.

Of course I do, my point is that the UK agreed to join a union of nations with free trade and free movement but then creates a 2 class society for it's own born citizens and those who choose to live there from elsewhere in the union. If I was German living in the UK I'd still at least be able to vote in Germany on issues that might effect me.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Of course I do, my point is that the UK agreed to join a union of nations with free trade and free movement but then creates a 2 class society for it's own born citizens and those who choose to live there from elsewhere in the union. If I was German living in the UK I'd still at least be able to vote in Germany on issues that might effect me.

I dont really know what you are saying. It sounds like you have sone personal gripes, but of course policy cant be made to suit personal circumstances.

[G B Young]

What a stunt Sturgeon has pulled. In two years, to go from a position of electoral strength to the point where she acknowledges that indyref2 is a total liability, is pretty special.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the indyistas start to question her leadership now that the wider electoral recognises the abject performance of her governance and leadership.

Sturgeon's stubborn-headed decision to demand indyref2 has run Theresa May's decision to call an election close when it comes to spectacular backfires. She simply could not accept that most voters in Scotland did not see Brexit as a trigger for another referendum and has now paid the price.

With a 62% vote in favour of the unionist parties, it's hard to see where the SNP go with their independence plans now. In addition to the extraordinary Tory revival north of the border (where unlike in England the momentum of the council elections was ratcheted up several degrees), they now face potentially an even bigger threat from Labour. A lot of lapsed Labour voters will now start to wonder if 'social justice' can be achieved within the UK under a Corbyn government and in the event there is another general election during the next year you'd imagine we'll see an even bigger swing away from the SNP to Labour.

Sturgeon's best hope is that the Tories manage to muddle their way through their current troubles, get rid of May when the time is right and stave off the threat of another election to blunt Labour's momentum. That at least gives the SNP a continued Tory target to aim at.

[marinello59]

I'd agree with most of that. It was unfortunate that Donald Dewar never got much of a chance to shape things, however, McConnell never really got out of second gear imo. I agree with your last paragraph, and look forward to see what's in store. Lessons to be learnt, and a further move to the left is where I'd like to go.

If she does shift the party to the left then I am going to have a tough decision to make at the next election. That will bring problems for her though. I think it was yourself who described the SNP as a broad church and there will a massive range of views all attracted by Independence. It's been one of the great achievements of the SNP to be all things to everybody. That may be more difficult now , especially with so many new members wanting Independence yesterday. The problems of success. :greengrin
As it is they still won the election in Scotland comfortably. Interesting times ahead.

[pacoluna]

If she does shift the party to the left then I am going to have a tough decision to make at the next election. That will bring problems for her though. I think it was yourself who described the SNP as a broad church and there will a massive range of views all attracted by Independence. It's been one of the great achievements of the SNP to be all things to everybody. That may be more difficult now , especially with so many new members wanting Independence yesterday. The problems of success. :greengrin
As it is they still won the election in Scotland comfortably. Interesting times ahead.
Call a snap scotgov election, once again have clear policy in manifesto regarding referendum make it a substantial part of their campaign, SNP can't afford to avoid or be scared to talk about independence it's why Ruth was successful. Attract all eu nationalists, 16/17 year olds, get reelected and reinforce the mandate. Or we can just be patient ;)

[ronaldo7]

If she does shift the party to the left then I am going to have a tough decision to make at the next election. That will bring problems for her though. I think it was yourself who described the SNP as a broad church and there will a massive range of views all attracted by Independence. It's been one of the great achievements of the SNP to be all things to everybody. That may be more difficult now , especially with so many new members wanting Independence yesterday. The problems of success. :greengrin
As it is they still won the election in Scotland comfortably. Interesting times ahead.

I thought Ruth won.:greengrin

[marinello59]

I thought Ruth won.:greengrin

Compared to May she did. :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Compared to May she did. :greengrin

Why do you "always" have to compare Scotland with England.:greengrin

[lord bunberry]

Sturgeon's stubborn-headed decision to demand indyref2 has run Theresa May's decision to call an election close when it comes to spectacular backfires. She simply could not accept that most voters in Scotland did not see Brexit as a trigger for another referendum and has now paid the price.

With a 62% vote in favour of the unionist parties, it's hard to see where the SNP go with their independence plans now. In addition to the extraordinary Tory revival north of the border (where unlike in England the momentum of the council elections was ratcheted up several degrees), they now face potentially an even bigger threat from Labour. A lot of lapsed Labour voters will now start to wonder if 'social justice' can be achieved within the UK under a Corbyn government and in the event there is another general election during the next year you'd imagine we'll see an even bigger swing away from the SNP to Labour.

Sturgeon's best hope is that the Tories manage to muddle their way through their current troubles, get rid of May when the time is right and stave off the threat of another election to blunt Labour's momentum. That at least gives the SNP a continued Tory target to aim at.
The SNP will just have to bide their time for now. I suspect that this country is about to enter into a period of extreme uncertainty. It will be the public that decide if and when the time is right for another referendum. The unionists parties getting 62% of the votes doesn't mean that 62% support the union.
We have had at least 2 people that I can think of on this board that voted Labour as they thought it wouldn't effect the chances of a second referendum. I doubt there will be a referendum in the next few years, but the independence issue won't just go away.

[lucky]

Call a snap scotgov election, once again have clear policy in manifesto regarding referendum make it a substantial part of their campaign, SNP can't afford to avoid or be scared to talk about independence it's why Ruth was successful. Attract all eu nationalists, 16/17 year olds, get reelected and reinforce the mandate. Or we can just be patient ;)

I think a snap election is the last thing the SNP will do. But I think all other parties bar the Greens would welcome it. It's clear that the SNP need to rethink any plans for indey2 until at least after the next Scottish parliament elections

[lucky]

The SNP will just have to bide their time for now. I suspect that this country is about to enter into a period of extreme uncertainty. It will be the public that decide if and when the time is right for another referendum. The unionists parties getting 62% of the votes doesn't mean that 62% support the union.
We have had at least 2 people that I can think of on this board that voted Labour as they thought it wouldn't effect the chances of a second referendum. I doubt there will be a referendum in the next few years, but the independence issue won't just go away.

I know loads that voted yes then SNP but returned to Labour in this election. It was the Labour manifesto and Corbyn that attracted them back. Even had people say if there's a progressive government in Westminster there's no need for independence