SNP nonsense

[xyz23jc]

A dated poll? I could go find another poll saying differently, I didn't even bother reading the article btw.

This one any good...? I'm sure you'll concentrate on the negatives tho...Vaccine roll out etc :rolleyes:

EM-RED-C-Infographic-2021-FINAL.pdf (europeanmovement.ie) (https://www.europeanmovement.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/EM-RED-C-Infographic-2021-FINAL.pdf)

[Moulin Yarns]

Just joined this thread and only read back today’s discussions, so apologise if I missed anything.
I don’t remember any vote for Ireland to leave the eu, there was a vote to reject the Lisbon treaty, which was not the same thing. The Dutch likewise had a vote on the eu constitution but again this was not about leaving. I was on holiday in Spain shortly after the Dutch vote and had a chat with a Dutch couple in a bar. They were against the EU and wanted to leave, but they didn’t claim that their referendum was about leaving, only about details of the constitution. They claimed that a lot of their friends felt the same and would vote to leave if given the chance, this was back about roughly 15 years ago.

That's pretty much all I could find. Thanks for confirming it. I don't think any other country has had, or is even considering a referendum on leaving the EU. Too much to lose.

[He's here!]

Yep, at least it’s an honest response and a view someone is perfectly entitled to. Though I reckon if I said I like being Scottish and would prefer to identify as that rather than British I would be accused of watching too much braveheart and hating the English.

On the subject of reasoning, mine is quite simple too - my principle reason for being pro-independence is a hatred of tories and I genuinely believe the only way I’ll see my country escape their rule and everything that comes with it is through Scottish independence. I have other reasons (many outlined in this thread) but I feel this one is strong enough.

I would always say I'm Scottish if asked where I'm from, but I don't think there's any contradiction in being a proud Scot who also feels British.

It seems to me there's an irony in the way the SNP constantly fuel anti-Tory sentiment and claim that Scotland never gets what it votes for - as though we're some hopelessly oppressed little colony.

It wasn't really so long ago that we wiped the Tories off the electoral map in Scotland and helped to sweep Labour back into power. Who could have foreseen that at the height of Thatcher's popularity? Sure, Labour have taken a series of disastrous wrong turns post-Blair but even Boris Johnson has acknowledged that the likes of the 'red wall' voters are essentially 'lending' him their votes. He won't be in power forever and a recalibrated Labour party would have every chance of returning to relevance.

It's the SNP who, with their divisive agenda, laid the groundwork for the Tories not only regaining a foothold in Scotland but for some time now being the main party of opposition at Holyrood. Unthinkable in the not too distant past.

Mind you, on the subject of Thatcher, some older Labour voters still refer to the SNP as the Tartan Tories for the way they played an instrumental role in bringing her to power so I guess it's maybe not such a surprise to see them lending the Tories a helping hand again :wink:

[Peevemor]

I would always say I'm Scottish if asked where I'm from, but I don't think there's any contradiction in being a proud Scot who also feels British.

It seems to me there's an irony in the way the SNP constantly fuel anti-Tory sentiment and claim that Scotland never gets what it votes for - as though we're some hopelessly oppressed little colony.

It wasn't really so long ago that we wiped the Tories off the electoral map in Scotland and helped to sweep Labour back into power. Who could have foreseen that at the height of Thatcher's popularity? Sure, Labour have taken a series of disastrous wrong turns post-Blair but even Boris Johnson has acknowledged that the likes of the 'red wall' voters are essentially 'lending' him their votes. He won't be in power forever and a recalibrated Labour party would have every chance of returning to relevance.

It's the SNP who, with their divisive agenda, laid the groundwork for the Tories not only regaining a foothold in Scotland but for some time now being the main party of opposition at Holyrood. Unthinkable in the not too distant past.

Mind you, on the subject of Thatcher, some older Labour voters still refer to the SNP as the Tartan Tories for the way they played an instrumental role in bringing her to power so I guess it's maybe not such a surprise to see them lending the Tories a helping hand again :wink:It's the SNP's fault that the UK Labour party is crap?

[He's here!]

Scotland has as much chance of influencing EU policy as winning the World Cup.

We get more than a fair share of the UK wealth under the Barnett formula, do you think we'd get a similar or better deal under the EU? not a chance and you know it.

Indeed, and that's an uncomfortable truth for the SNP.

Keep an eye out too for the forthcoming review of the Fiscal Framework Agreement, which the UK government hopes will open up avenues for more direct spending in Scotland. Unfortunately the SNP will almost certainly do their best to clog up any progress with a hefty sprinkling of grievance and a series of impossible demands (which will essentially equate to an entire rewrite of the devolution settlement).

[weecounty hibby]

Indeed, and that's an uncomfortable truth for the SNP.

Keep an eye out too for the forthcoming review of the Fiscal Framework Agreement, which the UK government hopes will open up avenues for more direct spending in Scotland. Unfortunately the SNP will almost certainly do their best to clog up any progress with a hefty sprinkling of grievance and a series of impossible demands (which will essentially equate to an entire rewrite of the devolution settlement).
You have changed from Leonard and Corbyn leading us all to a socialist utopia to proclaiming what a fantastic success we will all have under a Tory government.

[CapitalGreen]

You have changed from Leonard and Corbyn leading us all to a socialist utopia to proclaiming what a fantastic success we will all have under a Tory government.

Different poster. This is the latest reincarnation of Johnbc/James310/BrianC.

[Ozyhibby]

I would always say I'm Scottish if asked where I'm from, but I don't think there's any contradiction in being a proud Scot who also feels British.

It seems to me there's an irony in the way the SNP constantly fuel anti-Tory sentiment and claim that Scotland never gets what it votes for - as though we're some hopelessly oppressed little colony.

It wasn't really so long ago that we wiped the Tories off the electoral map in Scotland and helped to sweep Labour back into power. Who could have foreseen that at the height of Thatcher's popularity? Sure, Labour have taken a series of disastrous wrong turns post-Blair but even Boris Johnson has acknowledged that the likes of the 'red wall' voters are essentially 'lending' him their votes. He won't be in power forever and a recalibrated Labour party would have every chance of returning to relevance.

It's the SNP who, with their divisive agenda, laid the groundwork for the Tories not only regaining a foothold in Scotland but for some time now being the main party of opposition at Holyrood. Unthinkable in the not too distant past.

Mind you, on the subject of Thatcher, some older Labour voters still refer to the SNP as the Tartan Tories for the way they played an instrumental role in bringing her to power so I guess it's maybe not such a surprise to see them lending the Tories a helping hand again :wink:

So the best Scotland can hope for is to sit tight and hope that at some point in the future England has a change of direction and eventually votes in a govt that is suitable for Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

Different poster. This is the latest reincarnation of Johnbc/James310/BrianC.I don't think so. James 310 is/was better informed and didn't come out with the same level of fantasy. Also he almost never posts about Hibs or football.

[Ozyhibby]

Indeed, and that's an uncomfortable truth for the SNP.

Keep an eye out too for the forthcoming review of the Fiscal Framework Agreement, which the UK government hopes will open up avenues for more direct spending in Scotland. Unfortunately the SNP will almost certainly do their best to clog up any progress with a hefty sprinkling of grievance and a series of impossible demands (which will essentially equate to an entire rewrite of the devolution settlement).


Scotland standing with the begging bowl waiting for crumbs of the table and your happy with that set up? Where is your self respect?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

So the best Scotland can hope for is to sit tight and hope that at some point in the future England has a change of direction and eventually votes in a govt that is suitable for Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yip, what the poster won't want to admit is that Scotland got that Labour government because England voted Labour, not because Scotland did. We always get whatever party England votes for it is obvious when Scotland has 59 MPs and England has 533. Not difficult arithmetic

[WeeRussell]

I would always say I'm Scottish if asked where I'm from, but I don't think there's any contradiction in being a proud Scot who also feels British.

A perfectly acceptable view. I’m a proud Scot who doesn’t feel any pride in being ‘British’.

I’ve disregarded the rest of your post as, in my humble opinion, it was largely drivel. And the parts that weren’t have already been addressed plenty in this thread.

[Smartie]

Indeed, and that's an uncomfortable truth for the SNP.

Keep an eye out too for the forthcoming review of the Fiscal Framework Agreement, which the UK government hopes will open up avenues for more direct spending in Scotland. Unfortunately the SNP will almost certainly do their best to clog up any progress with a hefty sprinkling of grievance and a series of impossible demands (which will essentially equate to an entire rewrite of the devolution settlement).

Or is the uncomfortable truth for unionists everywhere that we are becoming increasingly dependent on handouts weighted in our favour, all whilst the other party is becoming increasingly resentful of the situation?

[Hiber-nation]

Different poster. This is the latest reincarnation of Johnbc/James310/BrianC.

Did mywifecamille ever post about politics.....? Probably the biggest wind-up merchant ever seen on .net but not usually on The Holy Ground as far as I can recall.

There's a style in there I've seen before but as you say I doubt if it's James310 etc.

[Moulin Yarns]

Did mywifecamille ever post about politics.....? Probably the biggest wind-up merchant ever seen on .net but not usually on The Holy Ground as far as I can recall.

There's a style in there I've seen before but as you say I doubt if it's James310 etc.

I wonder if they are from Fife 🤔

[He's here!]

Yip, what the poster won't want to admit is that Scotland got that Labour government because England voted Labour, not because Scotland did. We always get whatever party England votes for it is obvious when Scotland has 59 MPs and England has 533. Not difficult arithmetic

Well, obviously we can't mathematically 'win' an election based solely on Scottish seats but there have been plenty of occasions since the second world war alone when if you'd taken Scottish votes out of the equation the result would have been different. As recently as 2017 (as somebody else pointed out on here) Theresa May was kept in power thanks to the number of seats the Tories won in Scotland, while in 2010 the Tories would have won an overall majority if Scottish votes weren't included. Instead, they were forced into coalition with the Lib-Dems.

Going further back, Scottish votes had a material impact on Labour winning (and not winning) a majority in both 1974 elections, while there were also elections in the mid-60s and mid-50s (the last time the Tories won a majority of votes in Scotland) whereby Scottish votes were crucial to the government of the day. And as previously mentioned, Thatcher owed the SNP MPs a debt of thanks as well as the electorate in 1979 for helping her into power (including 20-plus seats in Scotland if I recall rightly).

It's therefore certainly not the case that Scotland never gets what it votes for and even if that were the case we don't (as the SNP would have us believe) vote as a separate body known as 'the people of Scotland' but as an integral part of that wider democracy known as the United Kingdom.

[Jack]

Well, obviously we can't mathematically 'win' an election based solely on Scottish seats but there have been plenty of occasions since the second world war alone when if you'd taken Scottish votes out of the equation the result would have been different. As recently as 2017 (as somebody else pointed out on here) Theresa May was kept in power thanks to the number of seats the Tories won in Scotland, while in 2010 the Tories would have won an overall majority if Scottish votes weren't included. Instead, they were forced into coalition with the Lib-Dems.

Going further back, Scottish votes had a material impact on Labour winning (and not winning) a majority in both 1974 elections, while there were also elections in the mid-60s and mid-50s (the last time the Tories won a majority of votes in Scotland) whereby Scottish votes were crucial to the government of the day. And as previously mentioned, Thatcher owed the SNP MPs a debt of thanks as well as the electorate in 1979 for helping her into power (including 20-plus seats in Scotland if I recall rightly).

It's therefore certainly not the case that Scotland never gets what it votes for and even if that were the case we don't (as the SNP would have us believe) vote as a separate body known as 'the people of Scotland' but as an integral part of that wider democracy known as the United Kingdom.

Scottish votes may have had an impact but for how many years, in the last 50 say, has Scotland voted for the party that ended up in power in Westminster?

[Ozyhibby]

Well, obviously we can't mathematically 'win' an election based solely on Scottish seats but there have been plenty of occasions since the second world war alone when if you'd taken Scottish votes out of the equation the result would have been different. As recently as 2017 (as somebody else pointed out on here) Theresa May was kept in power thanks to the number of seats the Tories won in Scotland, while in 2010 the Tories would have won an overall majority if Scottish votes weren't included. Instead, they were forced into coalition with the Lib-Dems.

Going further back, Scottish votes had a material impact on Labour winning (and not winning) a majority in both 1974 elections, while there were also elections in the mid-60s and mid-50s (the last time the Tories won a majority of votes in Scotland) whereby Scottish votes were crucial to the government of the day. And as previously mentioned, Thatcher owed the SNP MPs a debt of thanks as well as the electorate in 1979 for helping her into power (including 20-plus seats in Scotland if I recall rightly).

It's therefore certainly not the case that Scotland never gets what it votes for and even if that were the case we don't (as the SNP would have us believe) vote as a separate body known as 'the people of Scotland' but as an integral part of that wider democracy known as the United Kingdom.

Are 2017 and 2010 the best examples of Scots votes counting the best unionist can come up with? Both times we voted for someone else and then ended up with the Tories anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Scottish votes may have had an impact but for how many years, in the last 50 say, has Scotland voted for the party that ended up in power in Westminster?

Well, if we were to look, say, at the post-war elections up until 2010 (ie up until the SNP, who obviously cannot win power at Westminster, became a major player in Scotland), both Labour and the Tories each won a majority on eight occasions. On two of those occasions Scotland voted Tory and the UK ended up with a Tory government. On the other 14 occasions Scotland voted Labour and the UK ended up with a Labour government eight times. So on 10 of those 16 occasions the overall UK vote mirrored the Scottish vote.

[Moulin Yarns]

Well, if we were to look, say, at the post-war elections up until 2010 (ie up until the SNP, who obviously cannot win power at Westminster, became a major player in Scotland), both Labour and the Tories each won a majority on eight occasions. On two of those occasions Scotland voted Tory and the UK ended up with a Tory government. On the other 14 occasions Scotland voted Labour and the UK ended up with a Labour government eight times. So on 10 of those 16 occasions the overall UK vote mirrored the Scottish vote.

Statistics, damned statistics and lies 😉

[Ozyhibby]

Well, if we were to look, say, at the post-war elections up until 2010 (ie up until the SNP, who obviously cannot win power at Westminster, became a major player in Scotland), both Labour and the Tories each won a majority on eight occasions. On two of those occasions Scotland voted Tory and the UK ended up with a Tory government. On the other 14 occasions Scotland voted Labour and the UK ended up with a Labour government eight times. So on 10 of those 16 occasions the overall UK vote mirrored the Scottish vote.

On any of those occasions, did England ever get a govt it didn’t vote for or is it just us who have to put up with that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

Well, obviously we can't mathematically 'win' an election based solely on Scottish seats but there have been plenty of occasions since the second world war alone when if you'd taken Scottish votes out of the equation the result would have been different. As recently as 2017 (as somebody else pointed out on here) Theresa May was kept in power thanks to the number of seats the Tories won in Scotland, while in 2010 the Tories would have won an overall majority if Scottish votes weren't included. Instead, they were forced into coalition with the Lib-Dems.

Going further back, Scottish votes had a material impact on Labour winning (and not winning) a majority in both 1974 elections, while there were also elections in the mid-60s and mid-50s (the last time the Tories won a majority of votes in Scotland) whereby Scottish votes were crucial to the government of the day. And as previously mentioned, Thatcher owed the SNP MPs a debt of thanks as well as the electorate in 1979 for helping her into power (including 20-plus seats in Scotland if I recall rightly).

It's therefore certainly not the case that Scotland never gets what it votes for and even if that were the case we don't (as the SNP would have us believe) vote as a separate body known as 'the people of Scotland' but as an integral part of that wider democracy known as the United Kingdom.

That integral that our votes essentially don’t count and our interests are continuously ignored?

[He's here!]

On any of those occasions, did England ever get a govt it didn’t vote for or is it just us who have to put up with that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Millions of UK voters don't get the government they vote for at every election. The Scottish electorate don't have a monopoly on that grievance. We're actually disproportionately well represented by the first past the post system in terms of seats per head of population (witness UKIP's powerful showing back in, I think, 2015, when they got something like 4 million votes and just one seat compared to the SNP's 50 plus seats on the back of around 1.4 million votes).

The answer to your question though is yes. In 1964 the Tories would have been the largest party without Scotland voting. Instead Labour got in. Also in February 1974 (the first of two elections that year), the Tories would again have been the largest party but Scottish votes swung things Labour's way - albeit they didn't get a majority so we had a hung parliament.

[Ozyhibby]

Millions of UK voters don't get the government they vote for at every election. The Scottish electorate don't have a monopoly on that grievance. We're actually disproportionately well represented by the first past the post system in terms of seats per head of population (witness UKIP's powerful showing back in, I think, 2015, when they got something like 4 million votes and just one seat compared to the SNP's 50 plus seats on the back of around 1.4 million votes).

The answer to your question though is yes. In 1964 the Tories would have been the largest party without Scotland voting. Instead Labour got in. Also in February 1974 (the first of two elections that year), the Tories would again have been the largest party but Scottish votes swung things Labour's way - albeit they didn't get a majority so we had a hung parliament.

56 years ago?[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

I see the British governments latest policy to preserve the union is to insist that civil servants no longer refer to Scotland and Wales as countries or use the phrase 4 nations of the UK. Going forward the UK is to be referred to as one country - the one country I presume will be England :greengrin

That may help explain why I am sure I heard the phrase territorial administrations used by BBC shortbread Westminster correspondent on the news last week.



Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Jack]

Millions of UK voters don't get the government they vote for at every election. The Scottish electorate don't have a monopoly on that grievance. We're actually disproportionately well represented by the first past the post system in terms of seats per head of population (witness UKIP's powerful showing back in, I think, 2015, when they got something like 4 million votes and just one seat compared to the SNP's 50 plus seats on the back of around 1.4 million votes).

The answer to your question though is yes. In 1964 the Tories would have been the largest party without Scotland voting. Instead Labour got in. Also in February 1974 (the first of two elections that year), the Tories would again have been the largest party but Scottish votes swung things Labour's way - albeit they didn't get a majority so we had a hung parliament.

How can we ensure that we get a government most people living in Scotland vote for all the time?

[Bostonhibby]

I see the British governments latest policy to preserve the union is to insist that civil servants no longer refer to Scotland and Wales as countries or use the phrase 4 nations of the UK. Going forward the UK is to be referred to as one country - the one country I presume will be England :greengrin

That may help explain why I am sure I heard the phrase territorial administrations used by BBC shortbread Westminster correspondent on the news last week.



Sent from my CPH2009 using TapatalkAs part of a bit of an anti everything that isn't England debate yesterday I had to explain to a guy that Britishness isn't exclusively Englishness and actually never can be. If it's only England there's no Britannia or "Great" Britain, unless Bozo renamed England.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Skol]

How can we ensure that we get a government most people living in Scotland vote for all the time?

What happens if Edinburgh, Glasgow ,Borders etc dont get the government they voted for ?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Yip, what the poster won't want to admit is that Scotland got that Labour government because England voted Labour, not because Scotland did. We always get whatever party England votes for it is obvious when Scotland has 59 MPs and England has 533. Not difficult arithmetic

It's amazing how many people have yet to fathom this out.

[Moulin Yarns]

What happens if Edinburgh, Glasgow ,Borders etc dont get the government they voted for ?

Worst case scenario, and this is true for me in Perthshire North, you end up with Murdo Fraser who I definitely didn't vote for 😉

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Well, obviously we can't mathematically 'win' an election based solely on Scottish seats but there have been plenty of occasions since the second world war alone when if you'd taken Scottish votes out of the equation the result would have been different. As recently as 2017 (as somebody else pointed out on here) Theresa May was kept in power thanks to the number of seats the Tories won in Scotland, while in 2010 the Tories would have won an overall majority if Scottish votes weren't included. Instead, they were forced into coalition with the Lib-Dems.

Going further back, Scottish votes had a material impact on Labour winning (and not winning) a majority in both 1974 elections, while there were also elections in the mid-60s and mid-50s (the last time the Tories won a majority of votes in Scotland) whereby Scottish votes were crucial to the government of the day. And as previously mentioned, Thatcher owed the SNP MPs a debt of thanks as well as the electorate in 1979 for helping her into power (including 20-plus seats in Scotland if I recall rightly).

It's therefore certainly not the case that Scotland never gets what it votes for and even if that were the case we don't (as the SNP would have us believe) vote as a separate body known as 'the people of Scotland' but as an integral part of that wider democracy known as the United Kingdom.

If you took all the votes out of the equation that weren't Scottish votes how many times would Scotland get the government that it had voted for? 😉

[CloudSquall]

The argument always comes down to whether you see Scotland as a region or country.

If you are fine with Scotland being on level pegging with Yorkshire, Cornwall, North Lancashire, of course you won't have a problem with Scotland ending up with a government it doesn't vote for.

[Skol]

The argument always comes down to whether you see Scotland as a region or country.

If you are fine with Scotland being on level pegging with Yorkshire, Cornwall, North Lancashire, of course you won't have a problem with Scotland ending up with a government it doesn't vote for.

This is my personal view and I know you and others will disagree, but this simplifies things too much.

Scotland is a country, but politically it is in a union and so cannot have a different government from that elected by the UK as a whole. It does though have a devolved government which Wales & NI also have.

There are Pro's and Con's with each approach

[WeeRussell]

This is my personal view and I know you and others will disagree, but this simplifies things too much.

Scotland is a country, but politically it is in a union and so cannot have a different government from that elected by the UK as a whole. It does though have a devolved government which Wales & NI also have.

There are Pro's and Con's with each approach

:agree:

And given this appears to be a (seemingly increasingly) right-wing tory-led government that the Scots will not vote for, for the foreseeable, here in lies one big reason why so many of us are pro-independence now.

[Skol]

:agree:

And given this appears to be a (seemingly increasingly) right-wing tory-led government that the Scots will not vote for, for the foreseeable, here in lies one big reason why so many of us are pro-independence now.

I dont disagree and I really despair of the way that England seems to have lurched in that direction.

That doesnt mean that I believe Independence is the answer

[WeeRussell]

I dont disagree and I really despair of the way that England seems to have lurched in that direction.

That doesnt mean that I believe Independence is the answer

Of course not, and I know others in your camp, albeit less than a few years ago :aok:

I'm just at the stage now that I genuinely don't see another answer, if getting rid of the tories is at the top end of one's political priority list.

[Skol]

Of course not, and I know others in your camp, albeit less than a few years ago :aok:

I'm just at the stage now that I genuinely don't see another answer, if getting rid of the tories is at the top end of one's political priority list.

The challenge the SNP have is to work out how they can appeal to people like me (who are not swivel eyed yoons) and:

1) Demonstrate their level of competence as being a better option
2) Demonstrate the 'Business Case' for Independence

I have serious questions in my head about both of these and despair at the current approach which just seems to want to ignore any of the difficult issues and say look at the english tories.

[WeeRussell]

The challenge the SNP have is to work out how they can appeal to people like me (who are not swivel eyed yoons) and:

1) Demonstrate their level of competence as being a better option
2) Demonstrate the 'Business Case' for Independence

I have serious questions in my head about both of these and despair at the current approach which just seems to want to ignore any of the difficult issues and say look at the english tories.

A fair enough position to take Skol, although I'd argue the first point kind of implies an assumption that the SNP would be the party taking Scotland forward post-independence. Not that it does them any harm to demonstrate their competence of course!

[Ozyhibby]

The challenge the SNP have is to work out how they can appeal to people like me (who are not swivel eyed yoons) and:

1) Demonstrate their level of competence as being a better option
2) Demonstrate the 'Business Case' for Independence

I have serious questions in my head about both of these and despair at the current approach which just seems to want to ignore any of the difficult issues and say look at the english tories.

Which issues are ignored?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

A fair enough position to take Skol, although I'd argue the first point kind of implies an assumption that the SNP would be the party taking Scotland forward post-independence. Not that it does them any harm to demonstrate their competence of course!

The SNP forming our government is pretty much a certainty in my opinion and I cannot see how any of the existing parties would emerge strong enough to win an election and we have already seen how the creation of Alba has worked out. Maybe over time we might see a realignment of political parties, but SNP would negotiate our settlement agreement and in my view would form the first government assuming there is an early election.

[WeeRussell]

The SNP forming our government is pretty much a certainty in my opinion and I cannot see how any of the existing parties would emerge strong enough to win an election and we have already seen how the creation of Alba has worked out. Maybe over time we might see a realignment of political parties, but SNP would negotiate our settlement agreement and in my view would form the first government assuming there is an early election.

I do think you're right, I guess I was just challenging the idea that the case for independence is always primarily about what the SNP as a party can do.. and that a fair bit of the argument is around 'escaping' westminster, the tories, and the right-wing leanings that Britain now displays. e.g. The Green Party aren't going to be campaigning about how good an SNP-led independent Scotland would be, but they can still, and are still pulling their weight regards the case for indy. But I suppose you're right in that pointing out how bad the tories are is the easy part...

For what it's worth, I am an SNP supporter and imagine that would continue in an independent world. But I am pro-independence first and foremost and have no ongoing attachment that guarantees my support once independence is secured.

[Just Alf]

The SNP forming our government is pretty much a certainty in my opinion and I cannot see how any of the existing parties would emerge strong enough to win an election and we have already seen how the creation of Alba has worked out. Maybe over time we might see a realignment of political parties, but SNP would negotiate our settlement agreement and in my view would form the first government assuming there is an early election.I think you've pretty much nailed it... I agree the SNP would win any 'honeymoon' election .... I do think though that Labour, unshackled from Westminster rule would have a great shout after that... I also think a Scottish version of the Tories (separated from the toxic views/actions/corruption of the Westminster variant) would see a resurgence :agree:

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

If you took all the votes out of the equation that weren't Scottish votes how many times would Scotland get the government that it had voted for? 😉


I did a bit more research on that very subject yesterday and posted the results further up the thread. To sum it up, between the end of the second world war (I couldn't be ersed going back further than that!) and the 2010 general election (ie around about the time Salmond had made the SNP a credible political force) Scotland got the government it voted for more often than not. Basically it's a nationalist myth that we never get what we vote for.

[Ozyhibby]

I think you've pretty much nailed it... I agree the SNP would win any 'honeymoon' election .... I do think though that Labour, unshackled from Westminster rule would have a great shout after that... I also think a Scottish version of the Tories (separated from the toxic views/actions/corruption of the Westminster variant) would see a resurgence :agree:

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I don’t think Labour would at all. Their continued work with the Tories is poisoning people’s perception of the brand. I don’t think they will recover from that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

I don’t think Labour would at all. Their continued work with the Tories is poisoning people’s perception of the brand. I don’t think they will recover from that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that labour would find things difficult, but I dont agree with your view on 'poisoning peoples perception...'

Where I struggle is that I often here a vote for Independence is not a vote for an SNP government. If you look at the options:

1) SNP currently get pretty close to half of the votes
2) Labour you have ruled out
3) Its hard to see the Conservatives win
4) Greens and Lib Dems would not be anywhere near
5) Alba even further behind.

Do we really expect SNP to disappear and people align behind traditional parties, or even form new ones ? I really dont see that and SNP will continue albeit some of their support will go elsewhere once Independence has been achieved.

[The Modfather]

The challenge the SNP have is to work out how they can appeal to people like me (who are not swivel eyed yoons) and:

1) Demonstrate their level of competence as being a better option
2) Demonstrate the 'Business Case' for Independence

I have serious questions in my head about both of these and despair at the current approach which just seems to want to ignore any of the difficult issues and say look at the english tories.

A fair position. I think the Union had the same issue, and a harder sell IMO, in making a case that remaining in the Union is the best option. I’ve seen lots of fair questions and challenges, and some less constructive challenges, to independence. However yet to see any kind of positive case or vision of what will be different from the Union going forward.

[Just Alf]

I agree that labour would find things difficult, but I dont agree with your view on 'poisoning peoples perception...'

Where I struggle is that I often here a vote for Independence is not a vote for an SNP government. If you look at the options:

1) SNP currently get pretty close to half of the votes
2) Labour you have ruled out
3) Its hard to see the Conservatives win
4) Greens and Lib Dems would not be anywhere near
5) Alba even further behind.

Do we really expect SNP to disappear and people align behind traditional parties, or even form new ones ? I really dont see that and SNP will continue albeit some of their support will go elsewhere once Independence has been achieved.I hear what you're saying, but more than half my Indy leaning mates that currently vote SNP say they'd likely move to Labour, I think many overstate how much the SNP will be in control as the years roll by.

No doubt it'll be a slow change (back?) for many, but I think it'll happen.

Ps.. caveat, this is my mates, NOT necessarily a representative example!



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

I agree that labour would find things difficult, but I dont agree with your view on 'poisoning peoples perception...'

Where I struggle is that I often here a vote for Independence is not a vote for an SNP government. If you look at the options:

1) SNP currently get pretty close to half of the votes
2) Labour you have ruled out
3) Its hard to see the Conservatives win
4) Greens and Lib Dems would not be anywhere near
5) Alba even further behind.

Do we really expect SNP to disappear and people align behind traditional parties, or even form new ones ? I really dont see that and SNP will continue albeit some of their support will go elsewhere once Independence has been achieved.
I actually think that there could be room in Scotland post independence for a new centre left progressive party to come to the fore. 1st election after indy will probably see SNP lead the country and that will allow for any new party to establish itself before the 2nd election. Remember when folk like Williams, Owen and Jenkins left Labour to set up SDP. Something like that attracting others from Labour, SNP, Greens etc could be powerful. The old party lines have become a but toxic now. Although im a natural left of centre type in my views I'm just not sure I could vote for Sarwar, Baillie etc. I actually had a bit of admiration for Leonard and thought he came across OK. Just not leadership material. Tories is out obviously. Libdems a waste of space. Greens are a possibility. But I would like to see another party that would give me something to think about

[Skol]

A fair position. I think the Union had the same issue, and a harder sell IMO, in making a case that remaining in the Union is the best option. I’ve seen lots of fair questions and challenges, and some less constructive challenges, to independence. However yet to see any kind of positive case or vision of what will be different from the Union going forward.

Thats true although arguably the UK dont need to make a case as 'what you see is what you get'. However we already know that strategy has not worked and for those that have moved towards independence, something needs to change.

Any attempt to make a case is fraught with danger as well and labour have suffered from working with the other parties back in 2014 and we have seen the reaction to William and Kate increasing their profile. Albeit there is a big difference between the Union of the Crown and the Political Union.

[660]

I did a bit more research on that very subject yesterday and posted the results further up the thread. To sum it up, between the end of the second world war (I couldn't be ersed going back further than that!) and the 2010 general election (ie around about the time Salmond had made the SNP a credible political force) Scotland got the government it voted for more often than not. Basically it's a nationalist myth that we never get what we vote for.

Can you give me a source for a nationalist saying Scotland “never” gets who they vote for?

[Just Alf]

Thats true although arguably the UK dont need to make a case as 'what you see is what you get'. However we already know that strategy has not worked and for those that have moved towards independence, something needs to change.

Any attempt to make a case is fraught with danger as well and labour have suffered from working with the other parties back in 2014 and we have seen the reaction to William and Kate increasing their profile. Albeit there is a big difference between the Union of the Crown and the Political Union.You make a good point, folks conflate independence with getting rid of the monarchy.... the Commonwealth clearly shows that as a fallacy

That's not to say an independent Scotland would vote that way, I do think though that a surprising number of us would be 'happy' to still belong to the Commonwealth even while independent.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

I did a bit more research on that very subject yesterday and posted the results further up the thread. To sum it up, between the end of the second world war (I couldn't be ersed going back further than that!) and the 2010 general election (ie around about the time Salmond had made the SNP a credible political force) Scotland got the government it voted for more often than not. Basically it's a nationalist myth that we never get what we vote for.Why stop at 2010? Is that because the Tories have formed the government after each election since then?

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Why stop at 2010? Is that because they've formed the government after each election since then?

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

There have been 13 general elections in my lifetime and Scotland got the govt it voted for just 4 times. In contrast, England has a 100% record.
Doesn’t seem like Scotland is getting a very good deal there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

Why stop at 2010? Is that because the Tories have formed the government after each election since then?

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

Stopping at 2010 is logical as Scotland started to vote for a party that could not form a UK government

[degenerated]

Stopping at 2010 is logical as Scotland started to vote for a party that could not form a UK governmentSurely that means we are still not getting the government we want, unless I've missed something.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Skol]

Surely that means we are still not getting the government we want, unless I've missed something.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

It means you are voting for a party that cannot govern the UK

[degenerated]

It means you are voting for a party that cannot govern the UKWe are still getting governed by a party that we have rejected though.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[CapitalGreen]

It means you are voting for a party that cannot govern the UK

But if there was one the country found palatable to form a government at Westminster they could vote for it?

[wookie70]

There have been 13 general elections in my lifetime and Scotland got the govt it voted for just 4 times. In contrast, England has a 100% record.
Doesn’t seem like Scotland is getting a very good deal there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Similar in my lifetime but even when the results have went the same way there are differences. 1974 would have seem big Labour wins if Scotland got what we voted for but we got a very weak Labour Governments. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-elections-without-scotland-part-1-1945-2010/

[The Tubs]

Stopping at 2010 is logical as Scotland started to vote for a party that could not form a UK government

This can be argued, just as Labour-SNP coalition can be considered as a government that Scotland voted for. This option has been prominent at recent elections.

[Skol]

This can be argued, just as Labour-SNP coalition can be considered as a government that Scotland voted for. This option has been prominent at recent elections.

Yeah, I can see there is a case for that, although it was by no means certain that if the numbers made it possible that a coalition was likely to happen. Given the views of some SNP supports on the labour party, would it even have been workable.

You could also argue that Lib Dem voters have more often than not had the government they voted for given they once had a coalition with the Conservatives.

It just goes to show (in my opinion and others will no doubt disagree) that the 'Scotland doesnt get the government it voted for' argument is not as simple as that

[WeeRussell]

Yeah, I can see there is a case for that, although it was by no means certain that if the numbers made it possible that a coalition was likely to happen. Given the views of some SNP supports on the labour party, would it even have been workable.

You could also argue that Lib Dem voters have more often than not had the government they voted for given they once had a coalition with the Conservatives.

It just goes to show (in my opinion and others will no doubt disagree) that the 'Scotland doesnt get the government it voted for' argument is not as simple as that

It would certainly be a more simple argument in an independent Scotland, I’ll give you that 😁

[Skol]

It would certainly be a more simple argument in an independent Scotland, I’ll give you that 😁

Maybe not if the SNP disbands :rolleyes:

[Jack]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the constituency boundary review.

Briefly Scotland will have fewer seats and the torys will get more!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57400901

[SHODAN]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the constituency boundary review.

Briefly Scotland will have fewer seats and the torys will get more!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57400901

No doubt half of the new Scottish constituencies will be in the Borders and D&G.

[lapsedhibee]

No doubt half of the new Scottish constituencies will be in the Borders and D&G.
Gerry Mander himself would be proud of that. :agree:

[weecounty hibby]

Its not just Scotland though. Overall Scotland and Wales lose 10 seats and England gains 10 seats. Scandalous and another attempt to keep the colonies in their place. Dilute the voices of the smaller nations and strengthen England's grip on WM. O haven't seen the full detail but wouldn't be surprised if the changes meant not just a positive number of MPs for England but a positive number of Tory MPs

[CropleyWasGod]

Its not just Scotland though. Overall Scotland and Wales lose 10 seats and England gains 10 seats. Scandalous and another attempt to keep the colonies in their place. Dilute the voices of the smaller nations and strengthen England's grip on WM. O haven't seen the full detail but wouldn't be surprised if the changes meant not just a positive number of MPs for England but a positive number of Tory MPs

Is it not to reflect changes in population?

[Ozyhibby]

Is it not to reflect changes in population?

It will be of course. And in a unitary state it would be fine but in a 4 nations union it further marginalises the voice of Scotland. There are perfectly reasonable reasons for it but doesn’t make it good for Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

Its not just Scotland though. Overall Scotland and Wales lose 10 seats and England gains 10 seats. Scandalous and another attempt to keep the colonies in their place. Dilute the voices of the smaller nations and strengthen England's grip on WM. O haven't seen the full detail but wouldn't be surprised if the changes meant not just a positive number of MPs for England but a positive number of Tory MPs
Scotland will lose 2, it would seem Wales have the biggest gripe.

[Ozyhibby]

Its not just Scotland though. Overall Scotland and Wales lose 10 seats and England gains 10 seats. Scandalous and another attempt to keep the colonies in their place. Dilute the voices of the smaller nations and strengthen England's grip on WM. O haven't seen the full detail but wouldn't be surprised if the changes meant not just a positive number of MPs for England but a positive number of Tory MPs

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210609/12f907bfec10c69d10f1b7ad91b8d1fe.jpg
How on earth did you guess?[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

I havent looked at the detail, but I did read that the changes are broadly made on the population size so that constituencies are broadly equivalent sizes. If that is true then maybe Scotland and Wales maybe have more MPs that their population warrant.

I also believe the changes are led by the Electoral Commission and so its not a Conservative gerrymandering in their and England's favour

[Moulin Yarns]

I havent looked at the detail, but I did read that the changes are broadly made on the population size so that constituencies are broadly equivalent sizes. If that is true then maybe Scotland and Wales maybe have more MPs that their population warrant.

I also believe the changes are led by the Electoral Commission and so its not a Conservative gerrymandering in their and England's favour


Ah yes, the electoral commission that saw nothing wrong with Independent Green Voice changing their election logo and typeface to more closely resemble the Scottish green party! 🤔

[Ozyhibby]

I havent looked at the detail, but I did read that the changes are broadly made on the population size so that constituencies are broadly equivalent sizes. If that is true then maybe Scotland and Wales maybe have more MPs that their population warrant.

I also believe the changes are led by the Electoral Commission and so its not a Conservative gerrymandering in their and England's favour

Does it or does it not reduce Scotland’s influence in the union? And do you support it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

I havent looked at the detail, but I did read that the changes are broadly made on the population size so that constituencies are broadly equivalent sizes. If that is true then maybe Scotland and Wales maybe have more MPs that their population warrant.

I also believe the changes are led by the Electoral Commission and so its not a Conservative gerrymandering in their and England's favour

As far as I'm aware, and I could be wrong, the Electoral Commission do lead. However its then passed on the a parliamentary committee who fiddle with it. The parliamentary committee will have a tory majority, as is their right given their majority in parliament.

[Skol]

Does it or does it not reduce Scotland’s influence in the union? And do you support it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It depends if it is a fair reflection of our share or not. If it is a fair reflection I cant see how we object. If it is unfair then no I wouldnt support it

[Skol]

As far as I'm aware, and I could be wrong, the Electoral Commission do lead. However its then passed on the a parliamentary committee who fiddle with it. The parliamentary committee will have a tory majority, as is their right given their majority in parliament.

If there was a parliamentary override in favour of the government that would be an issue - do we know if that has happened ?

[JimBHibees]

What a crock that is.

[Ozyhibby]

It depends if it is a fair reflection of our share or not. If it is a fair reflection I cant see how we object. If it is unfair then no I wouldnt support it

We used to have 72 mp’s, now it’s going down to 57. We have no way of stopping this decline either. As long as the UK is run for the benefit of London and the South East then most inward migration will go there. We have zero control over immigration in Scotland so have no way of protecting the number of representatives in the Parliament. It’s just another case of the managed decline unionists are offering to Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I havent looked at the detail, but I did read that the changes are broadly made on the population size so that constituencies are broadly equivalent sizes. If that is true then maybe Scotland and Wales maybe have more MPs that their population warrant.

I also believe the changes are led by the Electoral Commission and so its not a Conservative gerrymandering in their and England's favour

There's no maybe about it. We have long enjoyed significant over-representation at Westminster and this move is overdue. Sure, it's unfortunate if it ends up benefiting the the government initially but overall it will lead to a fairer distribution of seats.

Needless to say, from a Scottish nationalist perspective it's another outrageous power grab.

[He's here!]

Its not just Scotland though. Overall Scotland and Wales lose 10 seats and England gains 10 seats. Scandalous and another attempt to keep the colonies in their place. Dilute the voices of the smaller nations and strengthen England's grip on WM. O haven't seen the full detail but wouldn't be surprised if the changes meant not just a positive number of MPs for England but a positive number of Tory MPs

When did this colonisation take place?

[JimBHibees]

We used to have 72 mp’s, now it’s going down to 57. We have no way of stopping this decline either. As long as the UK is run for the benefit of London and the South East then most inward migration will go there. We have zero control over immigration in Scotland so have no way of protecting the number of representatives in the Parliament. It’s just another case of the managed decline unionists are offering to Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Better together though

[Ozyhibby]

There's no maybe about it. We have long enjoyed significant over-representation at Westminster and this move is overdue. Sure, it's unfortunate if it ends up benefiting the the government initially but overall it will lead to a fairer distribution of seats.

Needless to say, from a Scottish nationalist perspective it's another outrageous power grab.

I never said it was a power grab. It’s really just a marker of Scotland’s continuing decline in the union. We are becoming ever more marginalised and are powerless to do anything about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I never said it was a power grab. It’s really just a marker of Scotland’s continuing decline in the union. We are becoming ever more marginalised and are powerless to do anything about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe I'm missing something, but if it's an adjustment to realign the constituencies, I can't see that it's a "decline".

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if it's an adjustment to realign the constituencies, I can't see that it's a "decline".

It isn't even the Electoral Commission. It is the Boundaries Commission, a Westminster appointed body which is seperate for England and Scotland.

After the review the average constituency population in both will be about 74,000

https://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/


(https://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/)

[Crunchie]

I never said it was a power grab. It’s really just a marker of Scotland’s continuing decline in the union. We are becoming ever more marginalised and are powerless to do anything about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Per head of population we get more out of the union, and we have our own Parliament. Your hyperbole about a steady decline just doesn't stack up.

[WeeRussell]

Per head of population we get more out of the union, and we have our own Parliament. Your hyperbole about a steady decline just doesn't stack up.

Get more what? Money presumably.

How is it hyperbole when he's talking about Scotland becoming more marginalised and powerless within the union?

[Ozyhibby]

Per head of population we get more out of the union, and we have our own Parliament. Your hyperbole about a steady decline just doesn't stack up.

Get more what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Get more what? Money presumably.

How is it hyperbole when he's talking about Scotland becoming more marginalised and powerless within the union?

This is not a dig at you, and I'm pro independence, but as I posted a couple of minutes ago it is aimed to equalise the population in constituencies.

[WeeRussell]

This is not a dig at you, and I'm pro independence, but as I posted a couple of minutes ago it is aimed to equalise the population in constituencies.

:aok: No issue with that MY. It was the general accusation of "hyperbole" I was questioning and how "Scotland gets more out of the union" proves that.

[Moulin Yarns]

:aok: No issue with that MY. It was the general accusation of "hyperbole" I was questioning and how "Scotland gets more out of the union" proves that.

:aok: Your post was just the one I replied to. :greengrin

[Peevemor]

Per head of population we get more out of the union, and we have our own Parliament. Your hyperbole about a steady decline just doesn't stack up.And in terms of resources and taxes paid to Westminster on goods from Scotland, how do we fare?

How's the vow and devolution+ coming along. I can't remember the bit where they vowed to reduce the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

What about Brexit - that Scotland didn't want?

[WeeRussell]

:aok: Your post was just the one I replied to. :greengrin

It's usually mine that deserve it :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

This is not a dig at you, and I'm pro independence, but as I posted a couple of minutes ago it is aimed to equalise the population in constituencies.

Absolutely, and it’s the right thing to do. I’m just interested in why the population of Scotland isn’t growing in line with England’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

When did this colonisation take place?Maybe he means the common trait among countries which are empire builders bribing some of the leaders of the indigenous nation to sell out to them?

The Persians used it, the Romans did it as a matter of course. I'm sure there are other examples.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

Maybe he means the common trait among countries which are empire builders bribing some of the leaders of the indigenous nation to sell out to them?

The Persians used it, the Romans did it as a matter of course. I'm sure there are other examples.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk
Maybe he does, but Scotland isn't a colony is it, we're a union.

[degenerated]

Maybe he does, but Scotland isn't a colony is it, we're a union.We're a colony in all but name

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Maybe he does, but Scotland isn't a colony is it, we're a union.I suppose so. On paper.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe he does, but Scotland isn't a colony is it, we're a onion.

There are many layers to being an onion. 😉

[weecounty hibby]

Maybe he does, but Scotland isn't a colony is it, we're a union.

A union would imply being able to leave if we wanted to. You know a bit like brexit and UK leaving the European Union. But in fact we are not even ALLOWED to ask the question of the citizens of Scotland. We are continually TOLD that no matter what the polls say or how often we have pro indy majorities in Holyrood that we CAN'T leave. That's not a union

[Crunchie]

A union would imply being able to leave if we wanted to. You know a bit like brexit and UK leaving the European Union. But in fact we are not even ALLOWED to ask the question of the citizens of Scotland. We are continually TOLD that no matter what the polls say or how often we have pro indy majorities in Holyrood that we CAN'T leave. That's not a union
We had a once in a generation referendum and lost, your once great leaders words.

[Peevemor]

We had a once in a generation referendum and lost, your once great leaders words.

Is that the one where they told us to vote remain otherwise we'd no longer be in the EU?

[degenerated]

We had a once in a generation referendum and lost, your once great leaders words.Thanks to the Belfast agreement we know that, in terms of referenda, a generation is 7 years. This was ratified by the British government and agreed by all your unionist parties.

It therefore lacks any credibility or consistency for the Brits to think that a generation can be of a differing length in one part of this union of equals than it is in another.



Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

We had a once in a generation referendum and lost, your once great leaders words.

Can you show us all, as you are clearly the expert, where in the Edinburgh agreement that is written. Remember your great leader once said he'd rather die in a ditch but he didn't. Rhetoric is exactly that just rhetoric. Nothing was ever negotiated nor agreed about this once in a generation nonsense.

[He's here!]

We're a colony in all but name

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

That's just not true.

[Ozyhibby]

That's just not true.

I agree. That will change though the minute a referendum request by our democratically elected govt is turned down. At that point everything about our relationship changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

Can you show us all, as you are clearly the expert, where in the Edinburgh agreement that is written. Remember your great leader once said he'd rather die in a ditch but he didn't. Rhetoric is exactly that just rhetoric. Nothing was ever negotiated nor agreed about this once in a generation nonsense.
The last great leader I had any respect for was John Smith, I can't think of anyone in any party who even comes close.

[Crunchie]

I agree. That will change though the minute a referendum request by our democratically elected govt is turned down. At that point everything about our relationship changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't hold your breath, tricky nicky knows now is not the time. Did you see BBB at PM question time yesterday? I think it's the first time I've seen him not mention a referendum, he's been told to wind his neck in or end up like Cherry and co.

[weecounty hibby]

The last great leader I had any respect for was John Smith, I can't think of anyone in any party who even comes close.
Didn't answer the question

[WeeRussell]

Didn't answer the question

Of course he didn’t. There isn’t an old meaningless tory cliche to answer it with.

[Jones28]

Is that the one where they told us to vote remain otherwise we'd no longer be in the EU?

Yeah it'll be that one.

But he'll be happy because IIRC he's a No voting Leaver.

Still not answering the question.

[MartinfaePorty]

Don't hold your breath, tricky nicky knows now is not the time. Did you see BBB at PM question time yesterday? I think it's the first time I've seen him not mention a referendum, he's been told to wind his neck in or end up like Cherry and co.

If by BBB you mean Blackford, if you went back and looked through Hansard I'm pretty sure there have been many PMQs where he didn't mention the referendum (and perhaps even more occasions when Johnson and his cronies did bring it up), but happy to be proven wrong if you can provide evidence.

[He's here!]

Can you show us all, as you are clearly the expert, where in the Edinburgh agreement that is written. Remember your great leader once said he'd rather die in a ditch but he didn't. Rhetoric is exactly that just rhetoric. Nothing was ever negotiated nor agreed about this once in a generation nonsense.

Perhaps not negotiated, but expressed unequivocally:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

'Once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime'

[Peevemor]

Perhaps not negotiated, but expressed unequivocally:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

'Once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime'

Why do you people keep going on about this. Brexit changes everything, even you can't seriously try to deny that.

[CapitalGreen]

Perhaps not negotiated, but expressed unequivocally:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

'Once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime'

2021 is 7 years since the previous referendum so we are good to go John 👍

[weecounty hibby]

Perhaps not negotiated, but expressed unequivocally:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

'Once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime'

So that's OK then. As long as its expressed unequivocally. Like the time when Margaret Tgatcher said unequivocally that when Scotland returned a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster then we should be independent. That kind of unequivocally unnegotiated statement.

[Since90+2]

So that's OK then. As long as its expressed unequivocally. Like the time when Margaret Tgatcher said unequivocally that when Scotland returned a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster then we should be independent. That kind of unequivocally unnegotiated statement.

Bit odd that the poster seems to put more emphasis on the words of Alex Salmond than they do on a Former UK Prime Minister. Perhaps they actually want independence without realising it themselves.

[Moulin Yarns]

Perhaps not negotiated, but expressed unequivocally:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

'In my opinion this is a Once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime'

I've added the bit at the beginning that you seem to have missed 🤔

Is an opinion a cast iron guarantee? Is it cast in stone?

[weecounty hibby]

Bit odd that the poster seems to put more emphasis on the words of Alex Salmond than they do on a Former UK Prime Minister. Perhaps they actually want independence without realising it themselves.
Only when it suits them. Salmond used to be a hate figure for them, then he somehow turned into a bastion of truth and virtue and they all backed him. Same with Joanna Cherry. Looks like she is the new darling of the anti SNP brigade

[Kato]

Perhaps not negotiated,

What does "perhaps" mean in that context?



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Perhaps not negotiated, but expressed unequivocally:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

'Once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime'

Salmond is a bawbag, not quite as big a blowhard bawbag as Johnson, nevertheless a bawbag.

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

[He's here!]

Why do you people keep going on about this. Brexit changes everything, even you can't seriously try to deny that.

'You people' as in the other half of the Scottish electorate who don't support independence and are as much entitled to that view as SNP supporters (more than a third of whom voted for Brexit incidentally)?

I don't 'go on about this' either on here or in my day to day life, but it's clearly an uncomfortable truth for those who would prefer to wish it away if they could.

[He's here!]

What does "perhaps" mean in that context?



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

It means 'granted, it may not have been negotiated...'

Apologies if I've used the word in the wrong 'context' but I don't think such grammatical nit-picking does anything to diminish what Salmond stated.

[weecounty hibby]

It means 'granted, it may not have been negotiated...'

Apologies if I've used the word in the wrong 'context' but I don't think such grammatical nit-picking does anything to diminish what Salmond stated.

So it wasn't ever a negotiated nor an agreed time frame. In fact there was no time frame in the Edinburgh agreement. If Scotland keeps voting indy majorities into the Holyrood Parliament we should be within our rights to hold a referendum anytime we choose.
What about the unequivocal statement from Thatcher? You perhaps missed that question

[Peevemor]

'You people' as in the other half of the Scottish electorate who don't support independence and are as much entitled to that view as SNP supporters (more than a third of whom voted for Brexit incidentally)?

I don't 'go on about this' either on here or in my day to day life, but it's clearly an uncomfortable truth for those who would prefer to wish it away if they could.I'm not speaking about all those who voted no. "You people" are those who keep coming out with nonsense like "once in a generation" while completely ignoring major issues post indyref which have moved the goalposts in a huge way.

[He's here!]

Only when it suits them. Salmond used to be a hate figure for them, then he somehow turned into a bastion of truth and virtue and they all backed him. Same with Joanna Cherry. Looks like she is the new darling of the anti SNP brigade

Works both ways. Salmond's gone from being the toast of the nationalist cause to being airbrushed out of the picture by those who see him continuing to tread heavily of Sturgeon's toes.

Watching Salmond in that clip reminded of how big a player he was. I have no problem acknowledging that what he did to turn the SNP into a viable political force was remarkable and I was very concerned at the time that he might actually get a yes vote over the line. Where I think he started to unravel was in the head to head debates with Darling where he went from appearing reasoned and convincing to being shouty and unpleasant.

He's a bit of a sorry sight these days I'd say, although I can understand his disbelief that the SNP have closed ranks around those at the heart of the judicial review/court case fiasco. That nobody has been held responsible for that beggars belief.

[He's here!]

So it wasn't ever a negotiated nor an agreed time frame. In fact there was no time frame in the Edinburgh agreement. If Scotland keeps voting indy majorities into the Holyrood Parliament we should be within our rights to hold a referendum anytime we choose.
What about the unequivocal statement from Thatcher? You perhaps missed that question

I'm not aware of the Thatcher statement but happy to take a look into it. What I do know is that the SNP returned only two MPs when she came to power in 1979 (partly as punishment from those voters who switched to Labour in the wake of the 'Tartan Tories' episode), whereas I think circa 25 Scottish Tory MPs were returned so we're talking about a very different political climate.

[Moulin Yarns]

'You people' as in the other half of the Scottish electorate who don't support independence and are as much entitled to that view as SNP supporters (more than a third of whom voted for Brexit incidentally)?

I don't 'go on about this' either on here or in my day to day life, but it's clearly an uncomfortable truth for those who would prefer to wish it away if they could.

And some people (you people :wink:) ignore the fact that the same proportion of Labour voters also voted for Independence :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

It means 'granted, it may not have been negotiated...'

Apologies if I've used the word in the wrong 'context' but I don't think such grammatical nit-picking does anything to diminish what Salmond stated.

Salmond offered an opinion in an interview situation. :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

So it wasn't ever a negotiated nor an agreed time frame. In fact there was no time frame in the Edinburgh agreement. If Scotland keeps voting indy majorities into the Holyrood Parliament we should be within our rights to hold a referendum anytime we choose.
What about the unequivocal statement from Thatcher? You perhaps missed that question

Question? what question??? :greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

I'm not aware of the Thatcher statement but happy to take a look into it. What I do know is that the SNP returned only two MPs when she came to power in 1979 (partly as punishment from those voters who switched to Labour in the wake of the 'Tartan Tories' episode), whereas I think circa 25 Scottish Tory MPs were returned so we're talking about a very different political climate.

So that was a different political climate but nothing has changed since 2014? You are all over the olace

[weecounty hibby]

Works both ways. Salmond's gone from being the toast of the nationalist cause to being airbrushed out of the picture by those who see him continuing to tread heavily of Sturgeon's toes.

Watching Salmond in that clip reminded of how big a player he was. I have no problem acknowledging that what he did to turn the SNP into a viable political force was remarkable and I was very concerned at the time that he might actually get a yes vote over the line. Where I think he started to unravel was in the head to head debates with Darling where he went from appearing reasoned and convincing to being shouty and unpleasant.

He's a bit of a sorry sight these days I'd say, although I can understand his disbelief that the SNP have closed ranks around those at the heart of the judicial review/court case fiasco. That nobody has been held responsible for that beggars belief.

Salmond played a huge part in the SNP rise of that tgere is no doubt. He's not being airbrushed from history because he doesn't support NS. He has,for me anyway, blotted his copybook big time by his behaviours and his attitude towards giving no apology or even an acknowledgement that his behaviours were inappropriate. He was a tremendous politician but not a very nice person

[Kato]

It means 'granted, it may not have been negotiated...'



I mean it wasn't said as a major pronouncement which is now set in stone or part of any governmental legislation too.

A week is short time in politics, seven years is an age never mind a generation.

Salmond is no longer anywhere near power, whatever it was he stated is only taken seriously by those looking for a feeble slant. Another go around the houses.

Are there any other maxims from Salmond you hold up as, perhaps, sacrosanct?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

'You people' as in the other half of the Scottish electorate who don't support independence and are as much entitled to that view as SNP supporters (more than a third of whom voted for Brexit incidentally)?

I don't 'go on about this' either on here or in my day to day life, but it's clearly an uncomfortable truth for those who would prefer to wish it away if they could.

I took “you people” to mean incessant slavers rather than half the Scottish electorate.

[Ozyhibby]

I took “you people” to mean incessant slavers rather than half the Scottish electorate.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I took “you people” to mean incessant slavers rather than half the Scottish electorate.

🤣🤣🤣

[degenerated]

Only when it suits them. Salmond used to be a hate figure for them, then he somehow turned into a bastion of truth and virtue and they all backed him. Same with Joanna Cherry. Looks like she is the new darling of the anti SNP brigadeI thought it was Natalie mcgarry this week.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

'You people' as in the other half of the Scottish electorate who don't support independence and are as much entitled to that view as SNP supporters (more than a third of whom voted for Brexit incidentally)?

I don't 'go on about this' either on here or in my day to day life, but it's clearly an uncomfortable truth for those who would prefer to wish it away if they could.A bit short of half, as Gordon brown found out with his secret polling. Certainly panicked him into reaching out to Billy Battenburg for handers.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

I'm not speaking about all those who voted no. "You people" are those who keep coming out with nonsense like "once in a generation" while completely ignoring major issues post indyref which have moved the goalposts in a huge way."You people" could also be used to describe labourites who use the phrase "so called unionists" in inverted commas to try and convince themselves they aren't but at the same time vote conservative.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I mean it wasn't said as a major pronouncement which is now set in stone or part of any governmental legislation too.

A week is short time in politics, seven years is an age never mind a generation.

Salmond is no longer anywhere near power, whatever it was he stated is only taken seriously by those looking for a feeble slant. Another go around the houses.

Are there any other maxims from Salmond you hold up as, perhaps, sacrosanct?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

You're the one bringing up Persian and the Roman policy in an attempt to lend credence to nonsense claims that Scotland is a colony, so I'm surprised to see you dismiss seven years ago as ancient political history.

'Whatever it was he stated' is not some hard-to-find, ambiguous or throwaway line. It's an incontestable statement made by the then First Minister and leader of the independence movement at the height of the referendum campaign. The fact Salmond was so clear about what he said is what provokes such eye-popping rage among nationalists when anyone dares mention his 'once in a generation' pledge. Far from being a feeble slant, it remains an entirely valid point to raise.

In saying all that, what always riled me more about what Salmond said than the once in a generation thing was how immediately any pretence at respecting the result of the referendum was tossed aside. Salmond at least had the decency to accept defeat and resign, but the nationalist sulking and whinging that has dominated the Scottish political landscape ever since has drained the souls of many who assumed we could at least be spared the constitutional furore for at least a little while in the wake of the referendum. Sure, the reason the SNP exist is to champion the cause of independence, but (as I recall David Dimbleby asking an SNP panelist on Question Time), how much 'respect' would they have given to an endless campaign to rejoin the union had the result gone the other way in 2014?

[lapsedhibee]

You're the one bringing up Persian and the Roman policy in an attempt to lend credence to nonsense claims that Scotland is a colony, so I'm surprised to see you dismiss seven years ago as ancient political history.

'Whatever it was he stated' is not some hard-to-find, ambiguous or throwaway line. It's an incontestable statement made by the then First Minister and leader of the independence movement at the height of the referendum campaign. The fact Salmond was so clear about what he said is what provokes such eye-popping rage among nationalists when anyone dares mention his 'once in a generation' pledge. Far from being a feeble slant, it remains an entirely valid point to raise.

In saying all that, what always riled me more about what Salmond said than the once in a generation thing was how immediately any pretence at respecting the result of the referendum was tossed aside. Salmond at least had the decency to accept defeat and resign, but the nationalist sulking and whinging that has dominated the Scottish political landscape ever since has drained the souls of many who assumed we could at least be spared the constitutional furore for at least a little while in the wake of the referendum. Sure, the reason the SNP exist is to champion the cause of independence, but (as I recall David Dimbleby asking an SNP panelist on Question Time), how much 'respect' would they have given to an endless campaign to rejoin the union had the result gone the other way in 2014?

Nah, it's feeble.

[Kato]

You're the one bringing up Persian and the Roman policy in an attempt to lend credence to nonsense claims that Scotland is a colony, so I'm surprised to see you dismiss seven years ago as ancient political history.


'Whatever it was he stated' is not some hard-to-find, ambiguous or throwaway line. It's an incontestable statement made by the then First Minister and leader of the independence movement at the height of the referendum campaign. The fact Salmond was so clear about what he said is what provokes such eye-popping rage among nationalists when anyone dares mention his 'once in a generation' pledge. Far from being a feeble slant, it remains an entirely valid point to raise.

In saying all that, what always riled me more about what Salmond said than the once in a generation thing was how immediately any pretence at respecting the result of the referendum was tossed aside. Salmond at least had the decency to accept defeat and resign, but the nationalist sulking and whinging that has dominated the Scottish political landscape ever since has drained the souls of many who assumed we could at least be spared the constitutional furore for at least a little while in the wake of the referendum. Sure, the reason the SNP exist is to champion the cause of independence, but (as I recall David Dimbleby asking an SNP panelist on Question Time), how much 'respect' would they have given to an endless campaign to rejoin the union had the result gone the other way in 2014?

I brought up Persian and Roman policy on a recognised way in which to colonise a country. It was just an historical point in another discussion. Scotland are in a political union no doubt about that. If you can show that bribery wasn't used to get us into that union then, fair play.

Telescoping onto ancient history to show analogies is a tad different to the flux of ongoing constitutional affairs. I think that should be obvious to a discerning reader like yourself.

Your vision of where Salmond's statement stands in the history of those affairs is testament to your own version of sulking and whingeing.

:eye_popping_rage_emoji:

[660]

Why is the word “opportunity” always ignored in that quote? It completely changes the meaning of what he was saying.

[Just Alf]

You're the one bringing up Persian and the Roman policy in an attempt to lend credence to nonsense claims that Scotland is a colony, so I'm surprised to see you dismiss seven years ago as ancient political history.

'Whatever it was he stated' is not some hard-to-find, ambiguous or throwaway line. It's an incontestable statement made by the then First Minister and leader of the independence movement at the height of the referendum campaign. The fact Salmond was so clear about what he said is what provokes such eye-popping rage among nationalists when anyone dares mention his 'once in a generation' pledge. Far from being a feeble slant, it remains an entirely valid point to raise.

In saying all that, what always riled me more about what Salmond said than the once in a generation thing was how immediately any pretence at respecting the result of the referendum was tossed aside. Salmond at least had the decency to accept defeat and resign, but the nationalist sulking and whinging that has dominated the Scottish political landscape ever since has drained the souls of many who assumed we could at least be spared the constitutional furore for at least a little while in the wake of the referendum. Sure, the reason the SNP exist is to champion the cause of independence, but (as I recall David Dimbleby asking an SNP panelist on Question Time), how much 'respect' would they have given to an endless campaign to rejoin the union had the result gone the other way in 2014?

Bit in bold... thanks for confirming, you're right, it was indeed said as part of the drive to gain votes, it wasn't party policy, it wasn't part of any maifesto etc etc it was a campaigning tactic... .... just the same as Boris talked about being dead in a ditch, we'll wind Tories up about it but no one really believes he'd do that...... or Johann Lamont, leader of the Scottish Labour Party, who said "Scots are not genetically programmed to make political decisions."... that also was part of a campaigning discussion..... surely that's not what you genuinely think?

The above doesn't take away the fact that even if it WAS a party pledge, a party promise, a part of their manifesto... "vote no = you stay in the EU" when it actually meant to polar opposite blows it out the water and not allowing the question to be asked again would therefore be undemocratic.... I actually can't believe the number of people who argue to stop democracy rather than argue to show the benefits of their viewpoint, unless there's no real benefit to show?
In fact, someone on this very thread stated they abhor independence which proves my point, they cant show why they "like" the union in such a way as to persuade others to that point of view, they just don't like independence.

[Mon Dieu4]

We had a once in a generation referendum and lost, your once great leaders words.

If it's in the manifesto of the party that has the most votes then we should be able to have a vote every Tuesday if we want, that's democracy, doesn't matter what's been said before, the electorate have spoken

[WeeRussell]

If it's in the manifesto of the party that has the most votes then we should be able to have a vote every Tuesday if we want, that's democracy, doesn't matter what's been said before, the electorate have spoken

Yep - that used to be democracy anyway.

[Crunchie]

You're the one bringing up Persian and the Roman policy in an attempt to lend credence to nonsense claims that Scotland is a colony, so I'm surprised to see you dismiss seven years ago as ancient political history.

'Whatever it was he stated' is not some hard-to-find, ambiguous or throwaway line. It's an incontestable statement made by the then First Minister and leader of the independence movement at the height of the referendum campaign. The fact Salmond was so clear about what he said is what provokes such eye-popping rage among nationalists when anyone dares mention his 'once in a generation' pledge. Far from being a feeble slant, it remains an entirely valid point to raise.

In saying all that, what always riled me more about what Salmond said than the once in a generation thing was how immediately any pretence at respecting the result of the referendum was tossed aside. Salmond at least had the decency to accept defeat and resign, but the nationalist sulking and whinging that has dominated the Scottish political landscape ever since has drained the souls of many who assumed we could at least be spared the constitutional furore for at least a little while in the wake of the referendum. Sure, the reason the SNP exist is to champion the cause of independence, but (as I recall David Dimbleby asking an SNP panelist on Question Time), how much 'respect' would they have given to an endless campaign to rejoin the union had the result gone the other way in 2014?
:top marks
Outstanding post :aok:

[Skol]

Bit in bold... thanks for confirming, you're right, it was indeed said as part of the drive to gain votes, it wasn't party policy, it wasn't part of any maifesto etc etc it was a campaigning tactic... .... just the same as Boris talked about being dead in a ditch, we'll wind Tories up about it but no one really believes he'd do that...... or Johann Lamont, leader of the Scottish Labour Party, who said "Scots are not genetically programmed to make political decisions."... that also was part of a campaigning discussion..... surely that's not what you genuinely think?

The above doesn't take away the fact that even if it WAS a party pledge, a party promise, a part of their manifesto... "vote no = you stay in the EU" when it actually meant to polar opposite blows it out the water and not allowing the question to be asked again would therefore be undemocratic.... I actually can't believe the number of people who argue to stop democracy rather than argue to show the benefits of their viewpoint, unless there's no real benefit to show?
In fact, someone on this very thread stated they abhor independence which proves my point, they cant show why they "like" the union in such a way as to persuade others to that point of view, they just don't like independence.

It was in the white paper

[Ozyhibby]

It was in the white paper

It explicitly said in the white paper that it was the view of the current Scottish govt that it was a once in a generation opportunity.
So it was an opinion, not an agreement. And the opinion of a Scottish govt which has changed twice now.
Previous govts cannot tie the hands of the current govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

It explicitly said in the white paper that it was the view of the current Scottish govt that it was a once in a generation opportunity.
So it was an opinion, not an agreement. And the opinion of a Scottish govt which has changed twice now.
Previous govts cannot tie the hands of the current govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That being the key. At the time it was an one-off opportunity.

The circumstances have changed seismically since it was written.

[Peevemor]

That being the key. At the time it was an one-off opportunity.

The circumstances have changed seismically since it was written.

I can't believe these people still drag this up. They really are like a scratched record.

If the union is so great and "Nippy" and her SG are so bad, why are they worried about another referendum?

[Jones28]

I can't believe these people still drag this up. They really are like a scratched record.

If the union is so great and "Nippy" and her SG are so bad, why are they worried about another referendum?

And why are Westminster so desperate to keep the Union together if all it does is cost money that could be spent elsewhere?

Oh wait, they already do that, HS2.

[Ozyhibby]

One thing you never hear from unionists is a case for the union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

In saying all that, what always riled me more about what Salmond said than the once in a generation thing was how immediately any pretence at respecting the result of the referendum was tossed aside. Salmond at least had the decency to accept defeat and resign, but the nationalist sulking and whinging that has dominated the Scottish political landscape ever since has drained the souls of many who assumed we could at least be spared the constitutional furore for at least a little while in the wake of the referendum. Sure, the reason the SNP exist is to champion the cause of independence, but (as I recall David Dimbleby asking an SNP panelist on Question Time), how much 'respect' would they have given to an endless campaign to rejoin the union had the result gone the other way in 2014?

After the referendum, as a Yes voter, I actually thought that the SNP should have got the head down and tried to show how much better Scotland can be, even within the Union, using its devolved powers. Do that for a few elections and then pose the question again. Brexit changed that though. We were dragged out against our wishes and appear to have suffered more than England with our export markets the big losers in this Tory Omnishambles. It is almost impossible for parties who do support independence not to talk about it with morons like MRoss bringing it up regardless of what question asked.

My big worry is the SNP are not pushing hard enough for a second referendum and appear to be waiting for the perfect moment. I get their mandate is to wait until after Covid but I feel Sturgeon now sees she has more to lose than win. Unfortunately the Independence movement appears to be going the way of Labour and spending as much time fighting with itself as the opposition. The longer we go without demanding another referendum the bigger those splits will become. If Johnson can get into the PM position then an even bigger lying, crazy, far right nutter can and we need to get out of this union before the Tories take another massive jump to the right to please their xenophobic, self centred electorate.

I think Sturgeon made a massive error playing Covid along similar lines to Westminster with very similar atrocious results. It was a huge opportunity to show how much better we can do managing ourselves but the SNP have shown with Euro fanzones, at a time Covid is on the rise, that they bow to those with money and public health is secondary to power and influence. The more they are in power the more they will become like Westminster Governments. She needs to show how much more progressive we can be and I see far less signs of that than I did in earlier Scottish Governments

[Peevemor]

One thing you never hear from unionists is a case for the union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No need - once in a generation and all that...

[Jones28]

One thing you never hear from unionists is a case for the union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:agree:

[Ozyhibby]

After the referendum, as a Yes voter, I actually thought that the SNP should have got the head down and tried to show how much better Scotland can be, even within the Union, using its devolved powers. Do that for a few elections and then pose the question again. Brexit changed that though. We were dragged out against our wishes and appear to have suffered more than England with our export markets the big losers in this Tory Omnishambles. It is almost impossible for parties who do support independence not to talk about it with morons like MRoss bringing it up regardless of what question asked.

My big worry is the SNP are not pushing hard enough for a second referendum and appear to be waiting for the perfect moment. I get their mandate is to wait until after Covid but I feel Sturgeon now sees she has more to lose than win. Unfortunately the Independence movement appears to be going the way of Labour and spending as much time fighting with itself as the opposition. The longer we go without demanding another referendum the bigger those splits will become. If Johnson can get into the PM position then an even bigger lying, crazy, far right nutter can and we need to get out of this union before the Tories take another massive jump to the right to please their xenophobic, self centred electorate.

I think Sturgeon made a massive error playing Covid along similar lines to Westminster with very similar atrocious results. It was a huge opportunity to show how much better we can do managing ourselves but the SNP have shown with Euro fanzones, at a time Covid is on the rise, that they bow to those with money and public health is secondary to power and influence. The more they are in power the more they will become like Westminster Governments. She needs to show how much more progressive we can be and I see far less signs of that than I did in earlier Scottish Governments

That last paragraph just isn’t true. Deaths in Scotland from Covid are a lot lower than in England. Despite having no control over our borders the SG performed a lot better than the UK govt in saving Scottish lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

It was in the white paperThe white paper was rejected by the electorate, therefore, using your logic, you rejected the once in a generation bit as well

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Skol]

One thing you never hear from unionists is a case for the union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the case for Independence can wait until there is a referendum, why should the case for the union be made now ?

[degenerated]

That last paragraph just isn’t true. Deaths in Scotland from Covid are a lot lower than in England. Despite having no control over our borders the SG performed a lot better than the UK govt in saving Scottish lives.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkQuite considerably too, about 70% per 100k of population. 140 in Scotland compared to 200 in England.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Jack]

If the case for Independence can wait until there is a referendum, why should the case for the union be made now ?

Surely the case for the union is the status quo and how well that works for Scotland?

How well is that working now?

[Ozyhibby]

Quite considerably too, about 70% per 100k of population. 140 in Scotland compared to 200 in England.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

I hadn’t realised it was that big a difference. That represents a lot of lives saved by NS and The SG. And unionists say we should have followed the UK approach as well. Obviously they believe the union is worth dying for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I can't believe that no one has commented on the tory who said that parts of Scotland that vote against independence should be allowed to be part of the UK, so that everyone gets what they vote for.

I'm not sure but it sounds like something that should have been allowed for the Brexit referendum.

[Just Alf]

If the case for Independence can wait until there is a referendum, why should the case for the union be made now ?

in that case, let's leave the pro indy/pro union discussion for later.....

so on a completely separate issue, what's your stance on having an independence referendum?
I'm assuming with all the talk of manifesto's etc we can all at least agree that there's a parliamentary majority for having one seeing as it was in party manifesto's?

[Ozyhibby]

I can't believe that no one has commented on the tory who said that parts of Scotland that vote against independence should be allowed to be part of the UK, so that everyone gets what they vote for.

I'm not sure but it sounds like something that should have been allowed for the Brexit referendum.

Partition is an old favourite of the UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CloudSquall]

I can't believe that no one has commented on the tory who said that parts of Scotland that vote against independence should be allowed to be part of the UK, so that everyone gets what they vote for.

I'm not sure but it sounds like something that should have been allowed for the Brexit referendum.

It's always a favourite of mine, the "Shetland will stay in the UK and Scotland will have no oil!!!!" line, given that as an enclave Shetland would be left with no oil within it's borders.

[degenerated]

It's always a favourite of mine, the "Shetland will stay in the UK and Scotland will have no oil!!!!" line, given that as an enclave Shetland would be left with no oil within it's borders.I thought the oil had run out?

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I can't believe these people still drag this up. They really are like a scratched record.

If the union is so great and "Nippy" and her SG are so bad, why are they worried about another referendum?

Again with the 'these people' stuff. As though those who don't happen to support independence are some sort of odious extremist minority.

There appear to be a lot more folk on here falling over themselves to explain how the once in a generation thing is irrelevant than there are 'dragging it up'.

[He's here!]

I hadn’t realised it was that big a difference. That represents a lot of lives saved by NS and The SG. And unionists say we should have followed the UK approach as well. Obviously they believe the union is worth dying for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, that's obviously what any non-independence supporter believes.

That's a silly comment in my view.

[He's here!]

If the case for Independence can wait until there is a referendum, why should the case for the union be made now ?

The 'case' for the union for many who don't support independence is that they are unconvinced that it needs changing. It's harder to get worked into a lather about backing the status quo than it is when you're agitating for change.

As I explained at length a few pages back my own 'case' has always been non-political. I love the UK, have lived and worked across a great deal of it and relish the remarkable diversity of what is a relatively small part of the world. I hate the idea of breaking it up and think that an insistence Scotland must go it alone is a very narrow, constrictive way of thinking. From a political angle, I think the devolved administrations are a good thing and reflect the diversity I mentioned, but for me they should be focused on trying to work in greater harmony with Westminster than against it.

[Ozyhibby]

Yep, that's obviously what any non-independence supporter believes.

That's a silly comment in my view.

Do you think we should have followed the UK govt response? Or do you think that it was right for Scotland to choose its own response?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

It's harder to get worked into a lather about backing the status quo than it is when you're agitating for change.

Is everything hunky dory with the status quo in your opinion?


I hate the idea of breaking it up and think that an insistence Scotland must go it alone is a very narrow, constrictive way of thinking.

How narrow and constrictive is the UK's position post-Brexit? There are still a few "states of grace" in various parts of the economy so the effects won't kick-in until next year but where do you see the UK's position once that happens?


From a political angle, I think the devolved administrations are a good thing and reflect the diversity I mentioned, but for me they should be focused on trying to work in greater harmony with Westminster than against it.

Putting that harmony to the test - what do you think would happen if Scotland asked for it's diversity to be recognised in the way of diverging from the UK's immigration laws, which our economy and society needs? Is the diversity practical or is all just tokens towards identity politics?

[Peevemor]

Again with the 'these people' stuff. As though those who don't happen to support independence are some sort of odious extremist minority.

There appear to be a lot more folk on here falling over themselves to explain how the once in a generation thing is irrelevant than there are 'dragging it up'.In this case, "these people" are those who keep clutching the pathetic once-in-a-generation comfort blanket.

It's irrelevant.

[Jack]

What ever happened to Westminster taking the Scottish Government to court just before the election?

[Ozyhibby]

What ever happened to Westminster taking the Scottish Government to court just before the election?

Still pending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

I hadn’t realised it was that big a difference. That represents a lot of lives saved by NS and The SG. And unionists say we should have followed the UK approach as well. Obviously they believe the union is worth dying for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A lot of the people you band as unionists are no such thing, I don't know why you and your cabal continue with this rubbish.
I would love to see an independent Scotland some day but in the current climate I think it would be crazy, and a massive gamble, we'd be lumbered with a huge debt before our feet were off the ground.
Who would pay the massive public sector employment bill in such a scenario?

[wookie70]

That last paragraph just isn’t true. Deaths in Scotland from Covid are a lot lower than in England. Despite having no control over our borders the SG performed a lot better than the UK govt in saving Scottish lives.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWhy would I want to compare against one of the worst governments in the Western world. A toddler would do better than Johnson. Our record is nowhere near good enough considering the fairly strict lockdown. We are more than 3 times worse than NI and considerably worse than Wales from what I can see. It is a terrible performance from the Scottish Government.

[Ozyhibby]

A lot of the people you band as unionists are no such thing, I don't know why you and your cabal continue with this rubbish.
I would love to see an independent Scotland some day but in the current climate I think it would be crazy, and a massive gamble, we'd be lumbered with a huge debt before our feet were off the ground.
Who would pay the massive public sector employment bill in such a scenario?

How big would our debt be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Modfather]

A lot of the people you band as unionists are no such thing, I don't know why you and your cabal continue with this rubbish.
I would love to see an independent Scotland some day but in the current climate I think it would be crazy, and a massive gamble, we'd be lumbered with a huge debt before our feet were off the ground.
Who would pay the massive public sector employment bill in such a scenario?

What about the current UK debt today? We were billions in debt pre Covid, now trillions in debt I believe. Any concerns about the debt of the status quo option?

Independence is a gamble, but it’s no more a gamble than choosing to wait and see how the UK looks post Brexit in a few decades IMO.

[He's here!]

Is everything hunky dory with the status quo in your opinion?



How narrow and constrictive is the UK's position post-Brexit? There are still a few "states of grace" in various parts of the economy so the effects won't kick-in until next year but where do you see the UK's position once that happens?



Putting that harmony to the test - what do you think would happen if Scotland asked for it's diversity to be recognised in the way of diverging from the UK's immigration laws, which our economy and society needs? Is the diversity practical or is all just tokens towards identity politics?

These appear to be your opinions dressed up as questions.

Of course the status quo isn't hunky dory. It never has been and never will be, but warts and all I think it's a better way of doing things than breaking the country apart.

[He's here!]

Do you think we should have followed the UK govt response? Or do you think that it was right for Scotland to choose its own response?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sturgeon may attempt to dress it up otherwise but we didn't choose our own response or 'go our own way'. A core four-nations response was agreed, with the flexibility to reflect the inevitable fluctuations across parts of the country where population numbers and density are vastly different. A sensible enough approach in my view.

Nobody could claim it was initially successful, with the UK's pandemic journey following a horribly familiar path to most of the world. An alarming state of unpreparedness followed by a too early summer re-opening which fuelled an even more devastating second wave. Where we've stolen a march on the rest, however, has been the extraordinary nation-wide vaccine rollout and this is something which we can all be proud of.

At the height of the pandemic, Scotland's death rate was right up there among the worst in Europe and claims that we 'did better' than England struck me as a rather hollow boast and far from being some sort of badge of honour.

[StevieC]

I think it's a better way of doing things than breaking the country apart.

I see that you got Boris’ memo about calling the UK a country. 😉

[StevieC]

At the height of the pandemic, Scotland's death rate was right up there among the worst in Europe and claims that we 'did better' than England struck me as a rather hollow boast and far from being some sort of badge of honour.

Possibly, but it was certainly a bonus that under the constraints of the UK to be able to keep figures lower. Wales also suffered from those constraints, and were practically begging the UK government to allow them to implement the measures they needed to bring numbers down.

And let’s not forget, the BBC were more than willing to highlight any Scottish government failures (care homes) so why shouldn’t they take some credit for preventing deaths, regardless of how few that might have been.

[WeeRussell]

These appear to be your opinions dressed up as questions.

Of course the status quo isn't hunky dory. It never has been and never will be, but warts and all I think it's a better way of doing things than breaking the country apart.

Why is it a better way of doing things when you know it’s never going to be good? I thought your reason for being anti Indy was purely non-political 🤔

[Ozyhibby]

Why is it a better way of doing things when you know it’s never going to be good? I thought your reason for being anti Indy was purely non-political [emoji848]

Scotland is falling further and further behind Norway, Denmark, Ireland etc and there is no intention at all of try to close the gap or even to stop it getting wider. The plan is to keep the country on permanent subsidy to make us feel dependent on England. It’s sad that so many Scots are happy with the plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Scotland is falling further and further behind Norway, Denmark, Ireland etc and there is no intention at all of try to close the gap or even to stop it getting wider. The plan is to keep the country on permanent subsidy to make us feel dependent on England. It’s sad that so many Scots are happy with the plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd go further and suggest that everything is running for the benefit of the south east of England and everywhere else has to survive on the scraps. Build Back Better and Levelling Up are just slogans and the few areas that might benefit are those that the tories stole from Labour in England to appease the Brexit voters.

[Kato]

These appear to be your opinions dressed up as questions.

Of course the status quo isn't hunky dory. It never has been and never will be, but warts and all I think it's a better way of doing things than breaking the country apart.

Poor swerve.

[Kato]

Sturgeon may attempt to dress it up otherwise but we didn't choose our own response or 'go our own way'. A core four-nations response was agreed, with the flexibility to reflect the inevitable fluctuations across parts of the country where population numbers and density are vastly different. A sensible enough approach in my view.

Nobody could claim it was initially successful, with the UK's pandemic journey following a horribly familiar path to most of the world. An alarming state of unpreparedness followed by a too early summer re-opening which fuelled an even more devastating second wave. Where we've stolen a march on the rest, however, has been the extraordinary nation-wide vaccine rollout and this is something which we can all be proud of.

At the height of the pandemic, Scotland's death rate was right up there among the worst in Europe and claims that we 'did better' than England struck me as a rather hollow boast and far from being some sort of badge of honour.



Seems like you are willing to airbrush anything to do with the current Govt, mainly because you are "proud" to be British.

[Moulin Yarns]

Seems like you are willing to airbrush anything to do with the current Govt, mainly because you are "proud" to be British.

I bet he is even more proud at this


".@BorisJohnson announces he'll 'Transform' a billion kids lives by giving them 8p a year."

"Johnson announced £430m for kids education as part of the G7 summit - but critics said it added up to 43p per child over five years." @JoeBiden, @G7. 🧐

https://t.co/rWmQvryJps

[Kato]

Scotland is falling further and further behind Norway, Denmark, Ireland etc and there is no intention at all of try to close the gap or even to stop it getting wider. The plan is to keep the country on permanent subsidy to make us feel dependent on England. It’s sad that so many Scots are happy with the plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just your opinion dressed up as questions. Even though there isn't any opinion in there and they look very much like questions.

[Ozyhibby]

That's just your opinion dressed up as questions. Even though there isn't any opinion in there and they look very much like questions.

I guess I could be proved wrong by Scotland closing the gap on these countries? Any sign of this happening?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

I guess I could be proved wrong by Scotland closing the gap on these countries? Any sign of this happening?


Was it not established on here a few weeks back that Scotland will never catch up because Scottish people are too workshy?

[Ozyhibby]

Was it not established on here a few weeks back that Scotland will never catch up because Scottish people are too workshy?

Fair point. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G B Young]

This ferry row seems to have been rumbling on forever. Looks like it's finally going to end up in court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57459100

[Glory Lurker]

Good to see you back, GBY.

[Keith_M]

As the topic is 'SNP Nonsense', I thought it only fair to highlight the idiotic comment made by SNP MSP James Dornan.


“No-one has questioned Lothian Buses’ decision to cancel the evening buses on March 17. Edinburgh, our second largest city and our capital, was still in level three lockdown on St Patrick’s Day.

"Lothian Buses restricted travel for what could only be essential workers, commuting on a Tuesday evening.

“They mentioned a rise in anti-social behaviour as their reason, this was the only day that that action took place.

“I can only assume that Lothian Buses concluded that it was one of two things - that I’d be out celebrating my birthday or that Irish Catholics were to blame for this rise in anti-social behaviour.”

Mr Dornan added: “Why else cancel buses only for the night of an ubiquitous Irish Catholic holiday when pubs were not open and there was a stay at home order in place?

“Can you imagine if this has happened around July 12 or if it had happened around a Muslim festival or a Sikh festival? It is just not acceptable.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19370545.snp-msp-branded-fool-making-bigotry-edinburgh/?ref=ar



So, LRT cancelled their buses because they are ant-catholic/irish

:rolleyes:

[Jones28]

As the topic is 'SNP Nonsense', I thought it only fair to highlight the idiotic comment made by SNP MSP James Dornan.


“No-one has questioned Lothian Buses’ decision to cancel the evening buses on March 17. Edinburgh, our second largest city and our capital, was still in level three lockdown on St Patrick’s Day.

"Lothian Buses restricted travel for what could only be essential workers, commuting on a Tuesday evening.

“They mentioned a rise in anti-social behaviour as their reason, this was the only day that that action took place.

“I can only assume that Lothian Buses concluded that it was one of two things - that I’d be out celebrating my birthday or that Irish Catholics were to blame for this rise in anti-social behaviour.”

Mr Dornan added: “Why else cancel buses only for the night of an ubiquitous Irish Catholic holiday when pubs were not open and there was a stay at home order in place?

“Can you imagine if this has happened around July 12 or if it had happened around a Muslim festival or a Sikh festival? It is just not acceptable.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19370545.snp-msp-branded-fool-making-bigotry-edinburgh/?ref=ar



So, LRT cancelled their buses because they are ant-catholic/irish

:rolleyes:

What a crock of ****

[Moulin Yarns]

As the topic is 'SNP Nonsense', I thought it only fair to highlight the idiotic comment made by SNP MSP James Dornan.


“No-one has questioned Lothian Buses’ decision to cancel the evening buses on March 17. Edinburgh, our second largest city and our capital, was still in level three lockdown on St Patrick’s Day.

"Lothian Buses restricted travel for what could only be essential workers, commuting on a Tuesday evening.

“They mentioned a rise in anti-social behaviour as their reason, this was the only day that that action took place.

“I can only assume that Lothian Buses concluded that it was one of two things - that I’d be out celebrating my birthday or that Irish Catholics were to blame for this rise in anti-social behaviour.”

Mr Dornan added: “Why else cancel buses only for the night of an ubiquitous Irish Catholic holiday when pubs were not open and there was a stay at home order in place?

“Can you imagine if this has happened around July 12 or if it had happened around a Muslim festival or a Sikh festival? It is just not acceptable.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19370545.snp-msp-branded-fool-making-bigotry-edinburgh/?ref=ar



So, LRT cancelled their buses because they are ant-catholic/irish

:rolleyes:

Have you seen the colour of Edinburgh buses? 😉

[Keith_M]

What a crock of ****


I think that's doing a crock of **** a dis-service.


The SNP have to come out and publicly condemn this idiotic comment and I personally think the guy should be made to resign, as he's clearly unfit for office... and I voted SNP at the last election.

[Keith_M]

Have you seen the colour of Edinburgh buses? 😉


Well, I'll give you that... but even that lot aren't that bad.

[weecounty hibby]

I think that's doing a crock of **** a dis-service.


The SNP have to come out and publicly condemn this idiotic comment and I personally think the guy should be made to resign, as he's clearly unfit for office... and I voted SNP at the last election.
It is a very stupid comment but making politicians resign for talking ***** would mean by elections every other day! I mean actually breaking the law and breaching the ministerial code looks like a badge if honour at tye moment. Sad that our elected representatives aren't held to any kind of standards anymore

[Keith_M]

It is a very stupid comment but making politicians resign for talking ***** would mean by elections every other day! I mean actually breaking the law and breaching the ministerial code looks like a badge if honour at tye moment. Sad that our elected representatives aren't held to any kind of standards anymore


OK, that's maybe extreme, but the SNP have to distance themselves from this and, at the very least, make the guy apologise for his stupid comment.

This is **** stirring to the extreme, though I struggle to see what he was trying to achieve.

[weecounty hibby]

OK, that's maybe extreme, but the SNP have to distance themselves from this and, at the very least, make the guy apologise for his stupid comment.

This is **** stirring to the extreme, though I struggle to see what he was trying to achieve.

Agreed and is such a stupid comment to make I can't see any benefit of him making it. It just makes him look like a total arse. Surely no one actually believes that Lothian buses actually did that to wind up the Irish in the community?

[He's here!]

I think that's doing a crock of **** a dis-service.


The SNP have to come out and publicly condemn this idiotic comment and I personally think the guy should be made to resign, as he's clearly unfit for office... and I voted SNP at the last election.

Unlikely he'll resign if you bear in mind Margaret Ferrier is, unbelievably, still an MP. I know she's suspended from the SNP and would have to be voted out by her constituents but Sturgeon should have kept up the pressure on her to go.

[Ozyhibby]

Unlikely he'll resign if you bear in mind Margaret Ferrier is, unbelievably, still an MP. I know she's suspended from the SNP and would have to be voted out by her constituents but Sturgeon should have kept up the pressure on her to go.

She also needs to put pressure on Kim Jong Un to resign.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

What are the thoughts on the apparent lack of independence in PHS who were asked to carry out and independent review ?

This feels to me like another example where there would be an outcry if it was the tories, but doesnt seem to be of any real concern.

[Moulin Yarns]

What are the thoughts on the apparent lack of independence in PHS who were asked to carry out and independent review ?

This feels to me like another example where there would be an outcry if it was the tories, but doesnt seem to be of any real concern.

How is it not independent? It is accountable to both the Scottish Government and COSLA.

[Skol]

How is it not independent? It is accountable to both the Scottish Government and COSLA.

As I understand it, part of their remit is to ensure communications are not critical of the scottish government ministers.

[Moulin Yarns]

As I understand it, part of their remit is to ensure communications are not critical of the scottish government ministers.

Can you point out where this is written in their remit?

[Santa Cruz]

Can you point out where this is written in their remit?

Reported here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/watchdogs-remit-is-to-shield-snp-ministers-0wgpxsn5d

[lapsedhibee]

Reported here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/watchdogs-remit-is-to-shield-snp-ministers-0wgpxsn5d

The bit of that article that's free to view doesn't justify the headline. Is there more that does? :dunno:

[ronaldo7]

Reported here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/watchdogs-remit-is-to-shield-snp-ministers-0wgpxsn5d

I can't see that full "report". Do you have the actual remit?

[Moulin Yarns]

I can't see that full "report". Do you have the actual remit?

Me too. I've read the PHS website and it certainly doesn't say anything about protecting the Scottish Government or COSLA both of whom the PHS is answerable to.

I wonder if PHE are also supposed to be about protecting the government down south the same way?

[Moulin Yarns]

What are the thoughts on the apparent lack of independence in PHS who were asked to carry out and independent review ?

This feels to me like another example where there would be an outcry if it was the tories, but doesnt seem to be of any real concern.


As I understand it, part of their remit is to ensure communications are not critical of the scottish government ministers.


Reported here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/watchdogs-remit-is-to-shield-snp-ministers-0wgpxsn5d

Straight from the PHS

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj9r_bj5pnxAhXJjqQKHXYRBWUQFjABegQIBRAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.scot%2Fbinaries%2Fconten t%2Fdocuments%2Fgovscot%2Fpublications%2Fcorporate-report%2F2018%2F06%2Fscotlands-public-health-priorities%2Fdocuments%2F00536757-pdf%2F00536757-pdf%2Fgovscot%253Adocument%2F00536757.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1o7lMzLLKtTrK4NMsEDCYp

[Kato]

Straight from the PHS

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj9r_bj5pnxAhXJjqQKHXYRBWUQFjABegQIBRAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.scot%2Fbinaries%2Fconten t%2Fdocuments%2Fgovscot%2Fpublications%2Fcorporate-report%2F2018%2F06%2Fscotlands-public-health-priorities%2Fdocuments%2F00536757-pdf%2F00536757-pdf%2Fgovscot%253Adocument%2F00536757.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1o7lMzLLKtTrK4NMsEDCYpA 52page document. Is there maybe a way to narrow it down a bit?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

A 52page document. Is there maybe a way to narrow it down a bit?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

No, because the assertion that
part of their remit is to ensure communications are not critical of the scottish government ministers. is not mentioned once, it doesn't exist, it is a figment of those who want to knock the SNP's fertile imagination.

As it is a PDF you can search for the words you want.

[WeeRussell]

What are the thoughts on the apparent lack of independence in PHS who were asked to carry out and independent review ?

This feels to me like another example where there would be an outcry if it was the tories, but doesnt seem to be of any real concern.

It feels to me like something the tories would attempt in the same circumstances, but something someone would make-up because they don't like the Scottish Government...

And then likely ignore their wrong information/write it off as an innocent misunderstanding and then move on to their next attack without batting an eyelid.

[Kato]

No, because the assertion that is not mentioned once, it doesn't exist, it is a figment of those who want to knock the SNP's fertile imagination.

As it is a PDF you can search for the words you want.Ah, ok. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Kato]

As I understand it, part of their remit is to ensure communications are not critical of the scottish government ministers.Bollards

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

What are the thoughts on the apparent lack of independence in PHS who were asked to carry out and independent review ?

This feels to me like another example where there would be an outcry if it was the tories, but doesnt seem to be of any real concern.

Different Covid-related controversy relating to the Scottish government, but this was on the front page of the Herald last week:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19351930.scots-public-bodies-awarded-500m-worth-covid-contracts-approved-without-scrutiny/

I don't have access to the full story, but as you says it's the sort of cronyism allegation that would prompt outrage from the SNP if it was Westminster-related.

[Kato]

Different Covid-related controversy relating to the Scottish government, but this was on the front page of the Herald last week:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19351930.scots-public-bodies-awarded-500m-worth-covid-contracts-approved-without-scrutiny/

I don't have access to the full story, but as you says it's the sort of cronyism allegation that would prompt outrage from the SNP if it was Westminster-related.Allegation as opposed to actual cronyism.

Is there evidence that people in the Scottish Govt have given contracts to friends/family/local chummy pub landlord/themselves/blokes they met on holiday?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Skol]

According to the article the evidence was in a document obtained under FOI and not the publicly available document.

The Scottish government declined to comment rather than issued a denial.

[Moulin Yarns]

According to the article the evidence was in a document obtained under FOI and not the publicly available document.

The Scottish government declined to comment rather than issued a denial.

So speculation, but also unlikely to be any different from the PHE communications policy in relation to the UK government. As I mentioned PHS are answerable to both the Scottish government and COSLA so maybe a three way agreement

[He's here!]

Allegation as opposed to actual cronyism.

Is there evidence that people in the Scottish Govt have given contracts to friends/family/local chummy pub landlord/themselves/blokes they met on holiday?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

If, from the limited amount of the article we can see without a Herald subscription, there was 'no scrutiny' of the contract awards then I guess we don't know the answer to your question.

[Peevemor]

Is this yet another smoking gun that's going to bring down the SNP? How many's that now?

[Kato]

If, from the limited amount of the article we can see without a Herald subscription, there was 'no scrutiny' of the contract awards then I guess we don't know the answer to your question.

I'm sure you will keep an eye on things.

[degenerated]

Is this yet another smoking gun that's going to bring down the SNP? How many's that now?This gun smokes more than the Marlboro Man, it'll be a gonner long before the SNP at this rate.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I hope that if any SNP MSP is found to be guilty of cronyism i.e. lining the pockets of their friends/relatives or making profit from the pandemic due their government position that they get jail time. If it were to be found that such cronyism was widespread and organised then the SNP should be censured and investigated by the police and heavily punished.

Same goes for any political party/MPs/MSPs in positions of power.

All the evidence of that type of wrong-doing should be handed to the police and the any suspects with evidence against them should arrested and charged.

[Just Alf]

I hope that if any SNP MSP is found to be guilty of cronyism i.e. lining the pockets of their friends/relatives or making profit from the pandemic due their government position that they get jail time. If it were to be found that such cronyism was widespread and organised then the SNP should be censured and investigated by the police and heavily punished.

Same goes for any political party/MPs/MSPs in positions of power.

All the evidence of that type of wrong-doing should be handed to the police and the any suspects with evidence against them should arrested and charged.The deals made outside the tendering process as mentioned in the article all relate short term ones made right at the start of the pandemic under the emergency powers, the later longer term deals were tendered.
The UK government did exactly the same at the start with all party support, where they're (UK Gov) now coming unstuck is some longer term deals were also made but with the same no tendering process.




Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

The deals made outside the tendering process as mentioned in the article all relate short term ones made right at the start of the pandemic under the emergency powers, the later longer term deals were tendered.
The UK government did exactly the same at the start with all party support, where they're now coming unstuck is some longer term deals were also made but with the same no tendering process.




Sent from my SM-G935F using TapatalkAnd they're not just government contracts, but also NHS & local authorities too.

But the SNP are obviously at it...

[Kato]

The deals made outside the tendering process as mentioned in the article all relate short term ones made right at the start of the pandemic under the emergency powers, the later longer term deals were tendered.
The UK government did exactly the same at the start with all party support, where they're (UK Gov) now coming unstuck is some longer term deals were also made but with the same no tendering process.



Thanks for the detail, JA.

Short term deals or one offs make sense in such an emergency situation but handing them out to friends, family and acquaintances is still suspect. Hopefully all the contracts handed out by all the governing parties are scrutinised to the full and all the evidence is made available.

There have already been court proceedings which have uncovered illegal actions by two Conservative MP's surrounding contracts handed out to "friends", i.e. Gove and Hancock. (Skol and He's Here take note, evidence in court and a court proceeding finding them guilty not snidely worded articles in the press or words on a football forum. )

If there is any, actual evidence of the SNP doing similar then hopefully it comes out soon. Smoke doesn't cut it.

[Kato]

Then of course there is this matter of a mere £37Billion..


https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1402170499153682433


When Harding was appointed to test and trace, without competition, she was best known for being the chief executive of TalkTalk when it was fined £400,000 for a massive personal data breach in 2015. Harding, an Oxford friend of David Cameron (who gave her a peerage), is married to a Tory MP and sits on the board of the Jockey Club in Matt Hancock’s Newmarket constituency: the pair go riding together. Horse owners and trainers are generous donors to Hancock.

[Moulin Yarns]

This gun smokes more than the Marlboro Man, it'll be a gonner long before the SNP at this rate.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

Another failure of the SNP health service

[ronaldo7]

Another failure of the SNP health service

Someone will post a link to an article proving it soon enough. 😉

[Peevemor]

Someone will post a link to an article proving it soon enough. [emoji6]The Spectator are on it already!

[WeeRussell]

I hope that if any SNP MSP is found to be guilty of cronyism i.e. lining the pockets of their friends/relatives or making profit from the pandemic due their government position that they get jail time. If it were to be found that such cronyism was widespread and organised then the SNP should be censured and investigated by the police and heavily punished.

Same goes for any political party/MPs/MSPs in positions of power.

All the evidence of that type of wrong-doing should be handed to the police and the any suspects with evidence against them should arrested and charged.

I second this. Enjoying your work again, Kato 😎

[WeeRussell]

The Spectator are on it already!

But if it was the tories that weren’t related to this thing that never happened, the SNP and all of us would be going radge. Typical.

[Skol]

Thanks for the detail, JA.

Short term deals or one offs make sense in such an emergency situation but handing them out to friends, family and acquaintances is still suspect. Hopefully all the contracts handed out by all the governing parties are scrutinised to the full and all the evidence is made available.

There have already been court proceedings which have uncovered illegal actions by two Conservative MP's surrounding contracts handed out to "friends", i.e. Gove and Hancock. (Skol and He's Here take note, evidence in court and a court proceeding finding them guilty not snidely worded articles in the press or words on a football forum. )

If there is any, actual evidence of the SNP doing similar then hopefully it comes out soon. Smoke doesn't cut it.

Kato. This is standard tactic when any possible criticism of the snp is found. Bring up something different that the tories have done to make it all ok.

Yes the tories have lots to answer for but that shouldn’t be used to deflect questions about the snp.

I know you want to believe they are whiter than white. I don’t believe they are and there is plenty of doubt out there.

[WeeRussell]

Kato. This is standard tactic when any possible criticism of the snp is found. Bring up something different that the tories have done to make it all ok.

Yes the tories have lots to answer for but that shouldn’t be used to deflect questions about the snp.

I know you want to believe they are whiter than white. I don’t believe they are and there is plenty of doubt out there.

What question has he or anyone else on the so far non-story you brought up deflected?

[Peevemor]

Kato. This is standard tactic when any possible criticism of the snp is found. Bring up something different that the tories have done to make it all ok.

Yes the tories have lots to answer for but that shouldn’t be used to deflect questions about the snp.

I know you want to believe they are whiter than white. I don’t believe they are and there is plenty of doubt out there.Show us something solid then. Prove us wrong.

[Kato]

Kato. This is standard tactic when any possible criticism of the snp is found. Bring up something different that the tories have done to make it all ok.

Yes the tories have lots to answer for but that shouldn’t be used to deflect questions about the snp.

I know you want to believe they are whiter than white. I don’t believe they are and there is plenty of doubt out there.

I applied it across the board. I have voted SNP once in ma puff, so I've very little loyalty to them.

I'll repeat- if there is any fire to the smoke surrounding contracts in Scotland, prosecute the people involved.

If I've given examples of the Tory wrongdoing it because they are in the public domain and the courts have given their decision.

If there is any evidence of the SNP doing similar, let's see it.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Future17]

I applied it across the board. I have voted SNP once in ma puff, so I've very little loyalty to them.

I'll repeat- if there is any fire to the smoke surrounding contracts in Scotland, prosecute the people involved.

If I've given examples of the Tory wrongdoing it because they are in the public domain and the courts have given their decision.

If there is any evidence of the SNP doing similar, let's see it.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Out of interest, what specific crime would you want them prosecuted for?

[Kato]

Out of interest, what specific crime would you want them prosecuted for?Good question. I know the goal-posts have been moved around so much in that political working environment that they would just say something like " that post no longer exists and the post-holder has moved" or some-such bullcrap.

When Edinburgh Council went through the whole statutory repairs scandal a few years ago "post-holders" were moved around and that was given as an excuse to allow people off with fraud and thieving.

Fraud and thieving sounds about right.

(BTW the chances of anyone being charged is nil, I do realise that)

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[northstandhibby]

Good question. I know the goal-posts have been moved around so much in that political working environment that they would just say something like " that post no longer exists and the post-holder has moved" or some-such bullcrap.

When Edinburgh Council went through the whole statutory repairs scandal a few years ago "post-holders" were moved around and that was given as an excuse to allow people off with fraud and thieving.

Fraud and thieving sounds about right.

(BTW the chances of anyone being charged is nil, I do realise that)

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

I'd love for a truly new party to emerge. One free of Trade Unionists and Free Masons that blacklist and hold the plebs beneath contempt. A party that is both aspirational and responsible to its civic and social duties. We can but dream.

[Future17]

I'd love for a truly new party to emerge. One free of Trade Unionists and Free Masons that blacklist and hold the plebs beneath contempt. A party that is both aspirational and responsible to its civic and social duties. We can but dream.

Would members of this party just be excluded from membership of the Freemasons and trade unions, or any other collective which might be seen by others to create a conflict of interest?

[northstandhibby]

Would members of this party just be excluded from membership of the Freemasons and trade unions, or any other collective which might be seen by others to create a conflict of interest?

Simply being legally obliged to state membership of such organisations would be a monumental kick start to the genesis of outlawing unaccountable blacklisting of the 'plebs' and a big healthy kick in the baws to snobbish elitism that exists within Scottish hierarchy.

[northstandhibby]

Would members of this party just be excluded from membership of the Freemasons and trade unions, or any other collective which might be seen by others to create a conflict of interest?

What's your interest as such. You know mine. I wish to begin the process of at least outing which membership organisations those who work in the public sector institutions belong to. Why are you so against?

[northstandhibby]

Its sad to see not a single response from snp fandans. They don't seem to have any expectations post their wished for goal and will settle for anything it seems. Really mental considering. They don't seem to care what Scotland would be post independence and what it would look like afterwards. Crazy maybe.

[northstandhibby]

Is this yet another smoking gun that's going to bring down the SNP? How many's that now?

It won't need a 'smoking gun' to bring down the snp. It will be snp sameness, lameless and jadedness that will bring them down. The people that vote for the snp want change as in the Daniel Morgan report that shames the police freemasons and other such elitist blackballing organisations. What are the snp going to do about it?

[CloudSquall]

Its sad to see not a single response from snp fandans.

After a rather crap start to the week the reappearance of the word fandan has sparked a turnaround :greengrin.