SNP are lying b******s as well !

[grunt]

My view is that we live in the UK.
I'm not interested in who said what and whether the SNP talked about rUK. Of course using the term rUK doesn't stop Scotland being a country.

My interest was in what you would say to someone who asked you, for example if you were on holiday overseas, what country you lived in. And you'd say you live in the UK. Interesting.

[archie]

I'm not interested in who said what and whether the SNP talked about rUK. Of course using the term rUK doesn't stop Scotland being a country.

My interest was in what you would say to someone who asked you, for example if you were on holiday overseas, what country you lived in. And you'd say you live in the UK. Interesting.

That's not the question you asked. It would depend - Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. I think you are using a loose definition of country. I think that's OK for general chat, but I'm sure you will agree that, in important matters like the constitution, it's vital to be accurate.

[He's here!]

How do you know they're content? Have you asked them? Course not, that's not allowed.

We'd have become independent had a majority been discontented to be part of the UK. Since 2014 there's been next to nothing poll-wise to indicate a change in that respect.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

We'd have become independent had a majority been discontented to be part of the UK. Since 2014 there's been next to nothing poll-wise to indicate a change in that respect.

Uncertainty over independence doesn't automatically equate to being content as part of the UK.

[He's here!]

some people just despise the thought of an independent Scotland eh

they'd rather the name Scotland didn't exist


the Britnats are here to set us straight

Nobody on here would rather that as far as I can see.

And I doubt anyone on here would define themselves as a 'britnat'. Another disparaging moniker for anyone who doesn't think independence is a good idea.

You can be proud to be Scottish but perfectly happy to be British too.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You can be proud to be Scottish but perfectly happy to be British too.

But not European. That's a step too far.

[Ozyhibby]

The people of Scotland are no more nor less stupid than people anywhere else. Lying for political gain, and a certain amount of people being taken in by it, is a sad fact all over.

Aren’t we the most educated country in Europe? So we have something about us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Aren’t we the most educated country in Europe? So we have something about us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. That might explain the choices we make?

[archie]

But not European. That's a step too far.

Why?

[JeMeSouviens]

Aren’t we the most educated country in Europe? So we have something about us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We live in a society that has historically venerated education, but our raw ingredients are no more nor less intelligent.

[CropleyWasGod]

Aren’t we the most educated country in Europe? So we have something about us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which country? I can't keep up.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Aren’t we the most educated country in Europe?


Indeed.

So you agree that Scotland is a country?

[JeMeSouviens]

Indeed. That might explain the choices we make?

"Our"* country keeps choosing the ****** Tories!


* we agreed on that, right? :wink:

[McD]

But not European. That's a step too far.


how do you square that with the snp voters who voted to leave the EU?


also, I’m sure many would be happy to say Scottish, British, European, or maybe they just aren’t bothered about labelling themselves and want to get on with their lives

[He's here!]

Aren’t we the most educated country in Europe? So we have something about us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apart from the idiots?

[archie]

So you agree that Scotland is a country?

You've got me - the house of cards has collapsed around me. Scotland stands ready to take its place in the UN, the G7 etc. etc.

Or in the real world it's a prime example of conversational usage that you are using to try and make an entirely unsubstantiated point about Scotland's constitutional status.

[archie]

"Our"* country keeps choosing the ****** Tories!


* we agreed on that, right? :wink:

Well we live in a democratic society. I don't like how recent elections have turned out, but there you go.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

how do you square that with the snp voters who voted to leave the EU?


also, I’m sure many would be happy to say Scottish, British, European, or maybe they just aren’t bothered about labelling themselves and want to get on with their lives

I square it with the majority who voted to remain in the EU, along with the majority of the Scottish electorate. Getting on with our lives would be great. Political decisions can have a major impact on how we go about doing that though.

[archie]

I square it with the majority who voted to remain in the EU, along with the majority of the Scottish electorate. Getting on with our lives would be great. Political decisions can have a major impact on how we go about doing that though.

So you accept the 2014 referendum?

[McD]

I square it with the majority who voted to remain in the EU, along with the majority of the Scottish electorate. Getting on with our lives would be great. Political decisions can have a major impact on how we go about doing that though.


So yes voter votes out of Europe, all good

No voter votes or of Europe, bad

got You :aok:

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So you accept the 2014 referendum?

The 2014 result was accepted. I don't recall the ballot paper saying that the question could never be asked again though.


So yes voter votes out of Europe, all good

No voter votes or of Europe, bad

got You :aok:

My post doesn't imply this at all.

[Moulin Yarns]

The UK is a unitary state. The vast majority of unitary states do not allow secession. Your misframing of the constitutional position suggests a weakness in your 'argument'.

The United Kingdom (UK) is an asymmetrically decentralised unitary state, comprised of England and three countries with devolved governments: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although the UK Parliament[1] retains absolute sovereignty, the Scottish Parliament (Pàrlamaid na h-Alba) [2], the Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru – prior to May 2020 known as the National Assembly for Wales)[3] and the Northern Ireland Assembly[4] have acquired varying degrees of legislative powers since devolution in 1999. The arrangements established by the respective devolution Acts are not symmetrical – the powers of the three bodies have varied in nature and scope. There are generally speaking no formal positive lists of devolved powers. These are taken to be those powers that are not specified as “reserved matters" (or “excepted matters") of the UK Parliament.

[archie]

The 2014 result was accepted. I don't recall the ballot paper saying that the question could never be asked again though.



My post doesn't imply this at all.

The Edinburgh Agreement was clear that this was for one referendum.

[McD]

The 2014 result was accepted. I don't recall the ballot paper saying that the question could never be asked again though.



My post doesn't imply this at all.


multiple posts of yours do imply that over the piece.

you stated that someone who considers themselves Scottish and British would see it as too far to describe themselves as European.

then when I asked how you squared that with snp voters who voted for brexit, you said the majority voted to remain - from this, it’s fair to imply that you feel it’s fine for yes people to vote leave whilst criticising no voters for doing the same, due to your lack of criticism of the yes voters in the same topic.

you aimed the criticism only at no voters initially, then breezed by people who voted yes doing the same thing when queried.

[JeMeSouviens]

The United Kingdom (UK) is an asymmetrically decentralised unitary state, comprised of England and three countries with devolved governments: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although the UK Parliament[1] retains absolute sovereignty, the Scottish Parliament (Pàrlamaid na h-Alba) [2], the Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru – prior to May 2020 known as the National Assembly for Wales)[3] and the Northern Ireland Assembly[4] have acquired varying degrees of legislative powers since devolution in 1999. The arrangements established by the respective devolution Acts are not symmetrical – the powers of the three bodies have varied in nature and scope. There are generally speaking no formal positive lists of devolved powers. These are taken to be those powers that are not specified as “reserved matters" (or “excepted matters") of the UK Parliament.

All true, but none of which contradicts anything he said.

[He's here!]

how do you square that with the snp voters who voted to leave the EU?


also, I’m sure many would be happy to say Scottish, British, European, or maybe they just aren’t bothered about labelling themselves and want to get on with their lives

It struck me at the time that their stance was more true to the philosophy of nationalism (ie why leave the UK if you're only going to cede your sovereignty to Brussels?) than those who (privately) saw Brexit simply as a way to stoke up support for a second referendum. In fact I'm pretty sure the SNP as a party were historically strongly anti-European.

I voted remain because, on balance, I felt it made more practical sense to be part of the EU, but being a 'proud European' was hardly a phrase bandied around pre-Brexit.

[archie]

The United Kingdom (UK) is an asymmetrically decentralised unitary state, comprised of England and three countries with devolved governments: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although the UK Parliament[1] retains absolute sovereignty, the Scottish Parliament (Pàrlamaid na h-Alba) [2], the Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru – prior to May 2020 known as the National Assembly for Wales)[3] and the Northern Ireland Assembly[4] have acquired varying degrees of legislative powers since devolution in 1999. The arrangements established by the respective devolution Acts are not symmetrical – the powers of the three bodies have varied in nature and scope. There are generally speaking no formal positive lists of devolved powers. These are taken to be those powers that are not specified as “reserved matters" (or “excepted matters") of the UK Parliament.

Note the bold. It's helpful to name or post a link to the source.

[McD]

It struck me at the time that their stance was more true to the philosophy of nationalism (ie why leave the UK if you're only going to cede your sovereignty to Brussels?) than those who (privately) saw Brexit simply as a way to stoke up support for a second referendum. In fact I'm pretty sure the SNP as a party were historically strongly anti-European.

I voted remain because, on balance, I felt it made more practical sense to be part of the EU, but being a 'proud European' was hardly a phrase bandied around pre-Brexit.


I think in decades past this was possibly the case, however I think it’s fair to say the snp have made it clear they are strongly in favour of the EU and would (whilst in power) seek to rejoin the EU.

I also voted remain and would do so again, and would to rejoin, but I wouldn’t generally use European as my first self description.

[archie]

It struck me at the time that their stance was more true to the philosophy of nationalism (ie why leave the UK if you're only going to cede your sovereignty to Brussels?) than those who (privately) saw Brexit simply as a way to stoke up support for a second referendum. In fact I'm pretty sure the SNP as a party were historically strongly anti-European.

I voted remain because, on balance, I felt it made more practical sense to be part of the EU, but being a 'proud European' was hardly a phrase bandied around pre-Brexit.

The SNP was ferociously anti EU in the past, but clearly that's not the case now. I do think that, paradoxically, Brexit has made the SNPs case harder. In the EU a lot of the pressure point issues, such as borders, were dealt with by freedom of movement etc. That's not the case now.

[Moulin Yarns]

Note the bold. It's helpful to name or post a link to the source.

My bad. Will you do the same? Anyways, the source is the EU Council of Regions.

[Kato]

The United Kingdom (UK) is an asymmetrically decentralised unitary state, comprised of England and three countries with devolved governments: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although the UK Parliament[1] retains absolute sovereignty, the Scottish Parliament (Pàrlamaid na h-Alba) [2], the Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru – prior to May 2020 known as the National Assembly for Wales)[3] and the Northern Ireland Assembly[4] have acquired varying degrees of legislative powers since devolution in 1999. The arrangements established by the respective devolution Acts are not symmetrical – the powers of the three bodies have varied in nature and scope. There are generally speaking no formal positive lists of devolved powers. These are taken to be those powers that are not specified as “reserved matters" (or “excepted matters") of the UK Parliament.The City of London always flies under the radar here, its own Govt, Mayor and Police Force. Different rules for most of their governance altogether seperate from UK law. In fact their Government is older than Westminster.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

My bad. Will you do the same? Anyways, the source is the EU Council of Regions.

Thanks. I generally do

[Kato]

It struck me at the time that their stance was more true to the philosophy of nationalism (ie why leave the UK if you're only going to cede your sovereignty to Brussels?) than those who (privately) saw Brexit simply as a way to stoke up support for a second referendum. In fact I'm pretty sure the SNP as a party were historically strongly anti-European.

I voted remain because, on balance, I felt it made more practical sense to be part of the EU, but being a 'proud European' was hardly a phrase bandied around pre-Brexit.The Tory Party in the 1980's were very pro-EU.

Parties change, go figure.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

We live in a society that has historically venerated education, but our raw ingredients are no more nor less intelligent.

I know, I was joking.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I know, I was joking.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah right, got you. I was being a bit thick. :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Ah right, got you. I was being a bit thick. :greengrin

It’s cool. Trying to stay out of that convo as it’s been done to death and I can’t see half it because I’ve blocked one of the participants. It’s the sort of thing that will get the board shut (the reason I blocked in first place).
Will return when it gets back to issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The Tory Party in the 1980's were very pro-EU.

Parties change, go figure.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yep and so were Labour. But like you say, parties change.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yep and so were Labour..

That’s completely untrue.

There was nothing pro-Europe about Labour in the 1980s, outside of some of the intelligentsia who recognised a need for change.

The membership and the movement were very anti-Europe until the reformers started getting traction in the closing years of the decade.

Conference routinely backed motions to leave the EEC by 70-30 or 80-20.

There were two manifestos in the 80s. One committed Labour to leaving the EEC immediately, the other fudged it but was nonetheless very hostile towards the EEC and its ‘interference’.

Saying Labour was pro-Europe in the 80s is palpably wrong. The movement hadn’t trusted the idea of European institutions since Attlee, the fear was that they were just another way of exploiting workers and diluting the power of nation states to deliver ‘true’ socialism.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That’s completely untrue.

There was nothing pro-Europe about Labour in the 1980s, outside of some of the intelligentsia who recognised a need for change.

The membership and the movement were very anti-Europe until the reformers started getting traction in the closing years of the decade.

Conference routinely backed motions to leave the EEC by 70-30 or 80-20.

There were two manifestos in the 80s. One committed Labour to leaving the EEC immediately, the other fudged it but was nonetheless very hostile towards the EEC and its ‘interference’.

Saying Labour was pro-Europe in the 80s is palpably wrong. The movement hadn’t trusted the idea of European institutions since Attlee, the fear was that they were just another way of exploiting workers and diluting the power of nation states to deliver ‘true’ socialism.

Not completely untrue. Although it's true to point out that Labour were a more Euro-sceptic party going into the 80s. This changed over the course of the 80s. Unfortunately it appears to have changed back again in recent years. The EU must be too socialist for the party that backs the 2 child tax credit limit and cramming foreigners onto barges and I'm not talking about the party that's currently in Government.

Nice to see you back btw. I was concerned that you were finally through defending Keir Starmer.

[He's here!]

Nicola Sturgeon rules out reconciliation with Alex Salmond - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66465466)

Mischief making from Salmond to suggest such a reconciliation would be possible surely? Definitely get the sense he's probing for a way back to a meaningful role with some of the olive branch rhetoric of recent weeks.

Interesting to see the quote from Sturgeon about thinking "I wish that was me" when Jacinda Ardern quit. At the time she was quick to claim she still had 'plenty in the tank'. I guess it makes a better exit story than saying she was aware of the carnage about to hit her party.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Nicola Sturgeon rules out reconciliation with Alex Salmond - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66465466)

Mischief making from Salmond to suggest such a reconciliation would be possible surely? Definitely get the sense he's probing for a way back to a meaningful role with some of the olive branch rhetoric of recent weeks.

Interesting to see the quote from Sturgeon about thinking "I wish that was me" when Jacinda Ardern quit. At the time she was quick to claim she still had 'plenty in the tank'. I guess it makes a better exit story than saying she was aware of the carnage about to hit her party.

What carnage is that? Despite all of the media hype for months on end, there still hasn't been any charges. Any "carnage" so far has been purely in the headlines.

[Ozyhibby]

What carnage is that? Despite all of the media hype for months on end, there still hasn't been any charges. Any "carnage" so far has been purely in the headlines.

As far as I can see, the SNP still lead in the polls in Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Well we live in a democratic society. I don't like how recent elections have turned out, but there you go.

But you do agree that having to suffer decades of Tory rule is a price worth paying for staying in the union.

[He's here!]

MP Angus MacNeil expelled from SNP after saying party 'clueless' about independence | STV News (https://news.stv.tv/politics/mp-angus-macneil-expelled-from-snp-after-saying-party-clueless-about-independence)

Let me guess...more 'good news'?

[Ozyhibby]

MP Angus MacNeil expelled from SNP after saying party 'clueless' about independence | STV News (https://news.stv.tv/politics/mp-angus-macneil-expelled-from-snp-after-saying-party-clueless-about-independence)

Let me guess...more 'good news'?

I think so and have been saying so for a long time. He’s like a child constantly throwing a tantrum, ‘nobody wants Indy as much as me’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

But you do agree that having to suffer decades of Tory rule is a price worth paying for staying in the union.

The problem with this approach is that it assumes that politicians make decisions and then things just happen. Liz Truss proved that magical thinking doesn't cut it in the real world. My opposition to independence is that I think it will make things worse for the people of Scotland. That might change over time and we could become this social democratic paragon. But it might not. I suspect you think that risk is a price worth paying.

[Kato]

The problem with this approach is that it assumes that politicians make decisions and then things just happen. Liz Truss proved that magical thinking doesn't cut it in the real world. My opposition to independence is that I think it will make things worse for the people of Scotland. That might change over time and we could become this social democratic paragon. But it might not. I suspect you think that risk is a price worth paying.The model Westminster employs ensures that things get worse for ordinary people. Incrementally nibbling away at wages and the fabric of the country outside the South Easts' mono-economy.

It's a downward slide all the way.

How does that benefit Scotland?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The problem with this approach is that it assumes that politicians make decisions and then things just happen. Liz Truss proved that magical thinking doesn't cut it in the real world. My opposition to independence is that I think it will make things worse for the people of Scotland. That might change over time and we could become this social democratic paragon. But it might not. I suspect you think that risk is a price worth paying.

Will you ever honestly think that it's a price worth paying, regardless of how far living standards drop and inequality rises in the UK? This tory Government has been fully committed to this agenda for over 13 years and the so called "opposition" is now showing their commitment to the same agenda. Just how bad do things have to become before you consider it a price worth paying?

[archie]

Will you ever honestly think that it's a price worth paying, regardless of how far living standards drop and inequality rises in the UK? This tory Government has been fully committed to this agenda for over 13 years and the so called "opposition" is now showing their commitment to the same agenda. Just how bad do things have to become before you consider it a price worth paying?
I'm glad you acknowledge that independence will come at a price. What do you think that price will be?

[Kato]

I'm glad you acknowledge that independence will come at a price. What do you think that price will be?Answering a question with a question again.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I'm glad you acknowledge that independence will come at a price. What do you think that price will be?

Less of a price than if we continue down the same path.

[grunt]

Will you ever honestly think that it's a price worth paying, regardless of how far living standards drop and inequality rises in the UK? This tory Government has been fully committed to this agenda for over 13 years and the so called "opposition" is now showing their commitment to the same agenda. Just how bad do things have to become before you consider it a price worth paying?


I'm glad you acknowledge that independence will come at a price. What do you think that price will be?

Put it another way then. Just how bad do things have to become before you consider it a risk worth taking?

[Jack]

Living under the most morally and financially corrupt UK government, ever, with nothing to indicate it won't be rinse and repeat well into the future it's frightening there are those that walk amongst us seem content with this.

The only growth industries in the UK are food banks and those trying to mitigate poverty. Sad.

[He's here!]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/C74E/production/_130722015_mediaitem130722014.jpg

Yousaf a bigger catalyst for SNP's declining popularity than finances scandal according to Curtice.

[He's here!]

I think so and have been saying so for a long time. He’s like a child constantly throwing a tantrum, ‘nobody wants Indy as much as me’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


MP Angus MacNeil expelled by SNP after chief whip row - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66470026)

By standing as an independent at the next election does it not pose an issue for the SNP in terms of the vote being split, especially if (as the analysis here claims) the Labour candidate is popular locally?

[Ozyhibby]

MP Angus MacNeil expelled by SNP after chief whip row - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66470026)

By standing as an independent at the next election does it not pose an issue for the SNP in terms of the vote being split, especially if (as the analysis here claims) the Labour candidate is popular locally?

Probably but there is nothing can be done about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/C74E/production/_130722015_mediaitem130722014.jpg

Yousaf a bigger catalyst for SNP's declining popularity than finances scandal according to Curtice.

Where are the details of this analysis?

[grunt]

Yousaf a bigger catalyst for SNP's declining popularity than finances scandal according to Curtice.
What he actually says is that Yousaf is not as popular as Sturgeon was. I don't think anyone would dispute that. He also goes on to say that support for independence remains stable.

It's always interesting to see how people can twist stories to suit their own agenda. And I include myself in that.

[grunt]

Where are the details of this analysis?

https://bylines.scot/politics/what-really-lies-behind-the-snps-slip-in-the-polls/

[Ozyhibby]

https://bylines.scot/politics/what-really-lies-behind-the-snps-slip-in-the-polls/

Doesn’t make great reading for Yousaf. He is going to have to start defining himself pretty soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://bylines.scot/politics/what-really-lies-behind-the-snps-slip-in-the-polls/

Thanks. When Yousaf first came in I had a suspicion that he would be the fall guy. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see him replaced following the general election. Hopefully by Flynn.

[Ozyhibby]

Thanks. When Yousaf first came in I had a suspicion that he would be the fall guy. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see him replaced following the general election. Hopefully by Flynn.

He’s only the fall guy if he lets himself be that. So far he has acted to get rid of unpopular policies but he needs to now say what it is that he wants to achieve as FM. He needs to chart a course pretty soon or else others will try do it for him.

As for Flynn, I think it’s almost certain he will be leader at some point. Very impressive so far. And ambitious. If Yousaf falls then there is a ready made replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

Thanks. When Yousaf first came in I had a suspicion that he would be the fall guy. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see him replaced following the general election. Hopefully by Flynn.


I think there was always likely to be a ‘who follows Fergie’ type scenario, whether by happenstance or by design.

NS wielded a lot of power within the party, controlled a lot of the narrative, and is seen as a dominant figure in the SNP (none of that is meant to come across as a dig at her btw). As usually happens when a powerful person steps down/departs, the power vacuum needs time to reset and be filled, and the next in line is rarely as dominant due to various competing parties seeking to step up/forward, and it can often be even longer than the next again person. It’s been seen at Man Utd a few times, and will quite possibly happen at Man City and Liverpool when Pep and Klopp move on. The people who worked under the previous leader in any environment often either seek more power/position/advancement for themselves, or don’t have the same loyalty to the new person.

I’d actually say it’s to NS’s credit that she came after a powerful individual in AS, and still had as much power across the party. As contrast, I don’t think Cameron, Theresa May, Boris, Truss or Sunak (as the various PMs during her tenure) have ever had anything like the party loyalty/toeing the line that Sturgeon did.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I think there was always likely to be a ‘who follows Fergie’ type scenario, whether by happenstance or by design.

NS wielded a lot of power within the party, controlled a lot of the narrative, and is seen as a dominant figure in the SNP (none of that is meant to come across as a dig at her btw). As usually happens when a powerful person steps down/departs, the power vacuum needs time to reset and be filled, and the next in line is rarely as dominant due to various competing parties seeking to step up/forward, and it can often be even longer than the next again person. It’s been seen at Man Utd a few times, and will quite possibly happen at Man City and Liverpool when Pep and Klopp move on. The people who worked under the previous leader in any environment often either seek more power/position/advancement for themselves, or don’t have the same loyalty to the new person.

I’d actually say it’s to NS’s credit that she came after a powerful individual in AS, and still had as much power across the party. As contrast, I don’t think Cameron, Theresa May, Boris, Truss or Sunak (as the various PMs during her tenure) have ever had anything like the party loyalty/toeing the line that Sturgeon did.

That's a very good point. Yousaf has exceptionally large boots to fill and I don't see him being up to the task. But I don't think circumstances have helped him much either, which is why I suspect that he was brought in as a stop gap until things move on. Then a new leader can be brought in with a cleaner slate.

[Stairway 2 7]

Polls showed support for snp was plummeting in the last 5 months of NS, membership numbers too it turned out.

Yousaf came in saying I'm the continuity candidate. In any other business the person who picked the continuity candidate in a failing business would get the sack correctly. This was a vote so people got what they wanted continuity. Snps have Polls continued to fall and the middle ground the only show in town haven't been won back

[archie]

Living under the most morally and financially corrupt UK government, ever, with nothing to indicate it won't be rinse and repeat well into the future it's frightening there are those that walk amongst us seem content with this.

The only growth industries in the UK are food banks and those trying to mitigate poverty. Sad.

No one is happy with it. It's just different visions as to the resolution.

[archie]

Less of a price than if we continue down the same path.

You can't know that. What is a price worth paying?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You can't know that. What is a price worth paying?

I know the current path is going to get progressively worse by design. So it stands to reason that there's going to come a point where the price of independence clearly won't be as bad.

[Hibrandenburg]

The problem with this approach is that it assumes that politicians make decisions and then things just happen. Liz Truss proved that magical thinking doesn't cut it in the real world. My opposition to independence is that I think it will make things worse for the people of Scotland. That might change over time and we could become this social democratic paragon. But it might not. I suspect you think that risk is a price worth paying.

When I look around at other independent small nations in our region of the world then I see no risk long term. I will probably not survive to see the long term benefits that independence will bring but I'd like to see Scotland's young folks given the opportunity to take advantage of them.

Living under the control of a government that has to prioritise other regions of the UK to ensure it gets reelected or even elected in the first place cannot be the way forward for Scotland or the Scottish people, certainly not when there is the chance of an alternative.

But I'll assume your answer to my question was yes.

[Stairway 2 7]

Do people believe that we're being engineered to be worse off. We're things better as we go back the decades. Medium and mean income has doubled in 30 years. The mean and medium disposable income is up 1.5x in 30 years. The average hours worked by uk public is down 10% in 10 years. The most important poverty has went from 49% in 1993 to 21% now

Things are brutal for many now, we've had a pandemic that was brutal and many things have stagnated. But is there an exceptionalism nowadays or nostalgia. How great was the mid 90s when 41% were in poverty?

[archie]

When I look around at other independent small nations in our region of the world then I see no risk long term. I will probably not survive to see the long term benefits that independence will bring but I'd like to see Scotland's young folks given the opportunity to take advantage of them.

Living under the control of a government that has to prioritise other regions of the UK to ensure it gets reelected or even elected in the first place cannot be the way forward for Scotland or the Scottish people, certainly not when there is the chance of an alternative.

But I'll assume your answer to my question was yes.

I mean you might be right. Maybe Scotland would be better off in time. The objective evidence is that it would be quite a struggle to get there. Not because of any inherant failing, but change like setting up a new country would be convulsive. Having had Brexit, Covid and Ukraine, would anyone argue that there wouldn't be at least short term impacts? The nearest to an analysis by the SNP was the Growth commission report. Oddly, it's not easy to find it as the Growth Commission site no longer exists. At the time there was a lot of criticism from left nationalists that it suggested a 10 year period of austerity. TBF the Commission denied this. Here's an analysis by the IFS https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44506458 https://ifs.org.uk/articles/weak-public-finance-position-implies-more-austerity-independent-scotland

Added to that is the process for joining the EU. We'd have to meet the Copenhagen criteria. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/accession-criteria-copenhagen-criteria.html

None of that says that Scotland couldn't be better off in the long term, but it does suggest an extended period of pain with no certainty as to the outcome. Would that pain be worth it? Maybe - maybe not.

Add to that the pent up expectations post independence and it could be a pretty combustable mix. Even among independence supporters here, their vision ranges from a Scotland that is not 'neo Liberal' to a low tax business friendly economy. It can't be both, so that's further tension to play out.

So while the prevailing view here appears to be that people voting no bottled it or were lied to, I suspect for most people it was a much more considered position on whether the risks were worth it.

[grunt]

I want independence. If not for me, for my children or my children's children.

Independence is normal.

We have to get away from being governed by people we don't vote for. It's not democratic, it's not natural, it's not healthy and it's not economically in our interest.

[Stairway 2 7]

I want independence. If not for me, for my children or my children's children.

Independence is normal.

We have to get away from being governed by people we don't vote for. It's not democratic, it's not natural, it's not healthy and it's not economically in our interest.

Agree with the the first two disagree with the third. We vote as part for the uk we voted for that to continue 9 years ago. Some states in America constantly voted Democrats but get Republicans for example but they are still part of it. Think I read in the last 15 elections 4 were decided by Scotland votes.

I would prefer us not to be a part of Westminster but we are just now.

[He's here!]

Polls showed support for snp was plummeting in the last 5 months of NS, membership numbers too it turned out.

Yousaf came in saying I'm the continuity candidate. In any other business the person who picked the continuity candidate in a failing business would get the sack correctly. This was a vote so people got what they wanted continuity. Snps have Polls continued to fall and the middle ground the only show in town haven't been won back

Exactly. The Murrells' stranglehold was far from healthy and they were lying about the membership figures as far back as the accounts published in 2021 when numbers were actually 30k down on those officially stated.

[archie]

I want independence. If not for me, for my children or my children's children.

Independence is normal.

We have to get away from being governed by people we don't vote for. It's not democratic, it's not natural, it's not healthy and it's not economically in our interest.

Ok, but the current constitutional arrangements are normal too. And in a democracy you will always have a swathe of people who didn't get who they voted for.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Ok, but the current constitutional arrangements are normal too.

No they're not. Which is why the UK Government is consistently guilty of human right violations and breaking international laws. There is nothing normal about where the UK finds itself now.

[archie]

No they're not. Which is why the UK Government is consistently guilty of human right violations and breaking international laws. There is nothing normal about where the UK finds itself now.

They really are. Please show me where the current constitutional arrangements are not normal.

[Ozyhibby]

Think I read in the last 15 elections 4 were decided by Scotland votes.


I doubt that is true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

They really are. Please show me where the current constitutional arrangements are not normal.

The UK Government over stepping the mark on devolution to undermine the devolved government. Manipulating the court system to interpret laws differently to force more favourable outcomes. Using the manipulated court system to bypass the lords and international law agreements. We're very much under a fascist dictatorship in the UK, it's not even in question. The reality just hasn't sunk in yet for a lot of people. 13 years of gas-lighting has prevented people from seeing what is right in front of them.

[archie]

The UK Government over stepping the mark on devolution to undermine the devolved government. Manipulating the court system to interpret laws differently to force more favourable outcomes. Using the manipulated court system to bypass the lords and international law agreements. We're very much under a fascist dictatorship in the UK, it's not even in question. The reality just hasn't sunk in yet for a lot of people. 13 years of gas-lighting has prevented people from seeing what is right in front of them.
Right...

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Right...

You can't dispute any of those things, as they have literally been going on.

[degenerated]

I doubt that is true?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkOnly once since ww2 has the Scottish vote effectively changed what would have been the party of government, 1964. The other 3 didn't really change the party of power.

1964 Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————
Labour majority: 4
Without Scottish MPs: -11
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY OF 1
(Con 280, Lab 274, Lib 5)

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————————
Labour majority: -33
Without Scottish MPs: -42
POSSIBLE CHANGE – LABOUR MINORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MINORITY
(Without Scots: Con 276, Lab 261, Lib 11, Others 16)


1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)
—————————————————–
Labour majority: 3
Without Scottish MPs: -8
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO LABOUR MINORITY
(Lab 278 Con 261 Lib 10 others 15)

2010 Coalition govt (Cameron)
——————————————
Conservative majority: -38
Without Scottish MPs: 19
CHANGE: CON-LIB COALITION TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY

[He's here!]

You can't dispute any of those things, as they have literally been going on.

I would dispute all of them.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I would dispute all of them.

Then go ahead.

[He's here!]

Then go ahead.

None if them are factually correct. They're subjective interpretations, in particular the fascist dictatorship bit.

[Stairway 2 7]

I doubt that is true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having re read its not much and not full swings, 2 definitely. The same could be said for many regions. It'll definitely be harder for Labour in future without Scotland

64 Labour won by 4 con win without Scotland, 74 spring would have been hung parliament but tories might have got minority government through so not conclusive, 74 autumn Labour win tories would have won without scot mps, 2010 tories would have had majority without coalition by treacherous lib dems

[Stairway 2 7]

Only once since ww2 has the Scottish vote effectively changed what would have been the party of government, 1964. The other 3 didn't really change the party of power.

1964 Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————
Labour majority: 4
Without Scottish MPs: -11
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY OF 1
(Con 280, Lab 274, Lib 5)

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————————
Labour majority: -33
Without Scottish MPs: -42
POSSIBLE CHANGE – LABOUR MINORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MINORITY
(Without Scots: Con 276, Lab 261, Lib 11, Others 16)


1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)
—————————————————–
Labour majority: 3
Without Scottish MPs: -8
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO LABOUR MINORITY
(Lab 278 Con 261 Lib 10 others 15)

2010 Coalition govt (Cameron)
——————————————
Conservative majority: -38
Without Scottish MPs: 19
CHANGE: CON-LIB COALITION TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY

Your right second 74 would have been minority. Never knew there was a year with 2 elections. Guess they couldn't rule in minority?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

None if them are factually correct. They're subjective interpretations, in particular the fascist dictatorship bit.

Going by that logic, everything is a subjective interpretation and you can simply interpret things as you see fit if you don't want to face the reality of what's been going on.

[Ozyhibby]

Having re read its not much and not full swings, 2 definitely. The same could be said for many regions. It'll definitely be harder for Labour in future without Scotland

64 Labour won by 4 con win without Scotland, 74 spring would have been hung parliament but tories might have got minority government through so not conclusive, 74 autumn Labour win tories would have won without scot mps, 2010 tories would have had majority without coalition by treacherous lib dems

If the snp win next GE in Scotland then it will be 20 years without a uk govt the majority of Scot’s voted for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

If the snp win next GE in Scotland then it will be 20 years without a uk govt the majority of Scot’s voted for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's daft if we vote for snp this time and they have no chance in the uk, also 20 years of tories. If Labour win in Scotland it'll be 2 in 21

New York has been democrat for 100 years they don't shout injustice when reps win. They are Part of the whole. Swing states/seats matter only in most nations.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That's daft if we vote for snp this time and they have no chance in the uk, also 20 years of tories. If Labour win in Scotland it'll be 2 in 21

New York has been democrat for 100 years they don't shout injustice when reps win. They are Part of the whole. Swing states/seats matter only in most nations.

So it's daft to vote for who we want to vote for and we should only vote for parties that can win a UK election, even if the polices of that party don't reflect the political views of the voters in Scotland?

If Labour win in Scotland, it won't be 2 in 21, as they're likely to win without Scotland anyway and in the unlikely scenario where seats in Scotland did push them into a majority, this isn't good for Scotland either. Better for Scotland if they have a minority and are forced into forging an alliance with the SNP. Labour won't have to make any concessions to Scotland if they have a majority.

[Stairway 2 7]

So it's daft to vote for who we want to vote for and we should only vote for parties that can win a UK election, even if the polices of that party don't reflect the political views of the voters in Scotland?

If Labour win in Scotland, it won't be 2 in 21, as they're likely to win without Scotland anyway and in the unlikely scenario where seats in Scotland did push them into a majority, this isn't good for Scotland either. Better for Scotland if they have a minority and are forced into forging an alliance with the SNP. Labour won't have to make any concessions to Scotland if they have a majority.

First paragraph isn't nearly what I said and just made up in your head.

Second paragraph first part is just like new York getting Republicans, we voted to be a part of the whole. Second part is just your random opinion

[TrumpIsAPeado]

First paragraph isn't nearly what I said and just made up in your head.

Second paragraph first part is just like new York getting Republicans, we voted to be a part of the whole. Second part is just your random opinion

This is literally what you said:

That's daft if we vote for snp this time and they have no chance in the uk

Apologies if i've somehow misunderstood what you meant by this.

Scotland is not a state. This has been done to death already, so i'm not going to drag myself into another debate on this.

It's not my random opinion either, it's logic. A majority Labour Government is under no pressure whatsoever to make concessions for Scotland. Particularly if they can make up the numbers without Scottish voters anyway. But even with Scottish voters on their side, they're in Government. The SNP and other smaller parties can simply be ignored. Which isn't great for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

[Stairway 2 7]

This is literally what you said:


Apologies if i've somehow misunderstood what you meant by this.

Scotland is not a state. This has been done to death already, so i'm not going to drag myself into another debate on this.

It's not my random opinion either, it's logic. A majority Labour Government is under no pressure whatsoever to make concessions for Scotland. Particularly if they can make up the numbers without Scottish voters anyway. But even with Scottish voters on their side, they're in Government. The SNP and other smaller parties can simply be ignored. Which isn't great for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

You think you're logic is definitely correct always even when wrong and I think it's often wildly wrong ho hum. I'm often wrong too but I don't say to people they are definitely wrong and I am right, especially on matters of opinion

I didn't say we should vote one way or the other just the statement doesn't work

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You think you're logic is definitely correct always even when wrong and I think it's often wildly wrong ho hum. I'm often wrong too but I don't say to people they are definitely wrong and I am right, especially on matters of opinion

I didn't say we should vote one way or the other just the statement doesn't work

I've explained why I think it's logical. If you're going to disagree that's fine. You're perfectly entitled to do so. But it would be beneficial if you explained why you disagree, rather than simply saying that you do.

[Stairway 2 7]

I've explained why I think it's logical. If you're going to disagree that's fine. You're perfectly entitled to do so. But it would be beneficial if you explained why you disagree, rather than simply saying that you do.

What get into an argument that you want about why I think Labour get a majority, nah your alright.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What get into an argument that you want about why I think Labour get a majority, nah your alright.

Nobody is arguing here. Giving reason behind one's own conclusions is imperative to a healthy debate. Wouldn't you agree?

[Stairway 2 7]

Nobody is arguing here. Giving reason behind one's own conclusions is imperative to a healthy debate. Wouldn't you agree?

See what your doing trying to get me to argue about whether it's good to argue. Not getting me like that ya scamp.

Is there any real news out there?

[RyeSloan]

See what your doing trying to get me to argue about whether it's good to argue. Not getting me like that ya scamp.

Is there any real news out there?

What? Like the news that a Fascist Dictator has occupied Scotland is not good enough for ya? [emoji2957]

[CropleyWasGod]

The UK Government over stepping the mark on devolution to undermine the devolved government. Manipulating the court system to interpret laws differently to force more favourable outcomes. Using the manipulated court system to bypass the lords and international law agreements. We're very much under a fascist dictatorship in the UK, it's not even in question. The reality just hasn't sunk in yet for a lot of people. 13 years of gaslighting has prevented people from seeing what is right in front of them.


Think we might just have jumped a shark :greengrin

[He's here!]

Alex Salmond says Nicola Sturgeon a 'sad figure' who should keep quiet | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23715754.alex-salmond-says-nicola-sturgeon-sad-figure-keep-quiet/)

His reconciliation chat didn't last long...

[grunt]

Alex Salmond says Nicola Sturgeon a 'sad figure' who should keep quiet | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23715754.alex-salmond-says-nicola-sturgeon-sad-figure-keep-quiet/)

His reconciliation chat didn't last long...
I'm not even going to read the article, but that headline screams "projection" to me.
Either that or they've just got the names the wrong way round.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Think we might just have jumped a shark :greengrin

Ok, there's no question in my own mind that they are a fascist regime. The way they have created class warfare, played on an undercurrent of racism towards foreigners, targeted the vulnerable. The way they have manipulated the courts through draconian legislation, ignored warnings from human right advocates and think tanks. Their anti-union legislation. Their clamping down on protests. Not to mention their downright nasty and divisive rhetoric at every opportunity and a compliant media helping them to stir the pot of hatred.

I call them fascist because I don't know what else they could be called based on this. Fascism is the conclusion i'm drawn to when I factor in the combination of their actions and behaviours.

I've given my reason why I think they're a fascist regime. Anybody who disagrees is more than welcome to explain why they disagree with this conclusion.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not even going to read the article, but that headline screams "projection" to me.
Either that or they've just got the names the wrong way round.

The article has a couple of digs about AS struggling to sell tickets. It's probably more of an attack on him tbf.

[grunt]

The article has a couple of digs about AS struggling to sell tickets. It's probably more of an attack on him tbf.
I saw an AS show at the Fringe some years ago. He had a series of political guests - it was Mary McAleese I think when I went - and the show was really good, he was clever, entertaining, eloquent. Something has made AS change in the intervening years, I know not what.

[archie]

Ok, there's no question in my own mind that they are a fascist regime. The way they have created class warfare, played on an undercurrent of racism towards foreigners, targeted the vulnerable. The way they have manipulated the courts through draconian legislation, ignored warnings from human right advocates and think tanks. Their anti-union legislation. Their clamping down on protests. Not to mention their downright nasty and divisive rhetoric at every opportunity and a compliant media helping them to stir the pot of hatred.

I call them fascist because I don't know what else they could be called based on this. Fascism is the conclusion i'm drawn to when I factor in the combination of their actions and behaviours.

I've given my reason why I think they're a fascist regime. Anybody who disagrees is more than welcome to explain why they disagree with this conclusion.

OK. If the Tories lose the next election do you think they will step down?

Also, the SNP want to introduce juryless trials. Does that make them fascist?

[Ozyhibby]

That's daft if we vote for snp this time and they have no chance in the uk, also 20 years of tories. If Labour win in Scotland it'll be 2 in 21

New York has been democrat for 100 years they don't shout injustice when reps win. They are Part of the whole. Swing states/seats matter only in most nations.

And the vast majority of people in New York want to be part of that whole. That’s not the case in Scotland. And have New York ever went 20 years without a Dems win?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Alex Salmond says Nicola Sturgeon a 'sad figure' who should keep quiet | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23715754.alex-salmond-says-nicola-sturgeon-sad-figure-keep-quiet/)

His reconciliation chat didn't last long...

Only you pay any attention to him these days.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

OK. If the Tories lose the next election do you think they will step down?Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But they've been doing a a lot of work to improve their chances of winning - voter ID, constituency changes, increasing amounts which can be donated to political parties. Wouldn't surprise me to see them making moves to stay on.


Also, the SNP want to introduce juryless trials. Does that make them fascist?No.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

OK. If the Tories lose the next election do you think they will step down?

Also, the SNP want to introduce juryless trials. Does that make them fascist?

I would hope so. But let's not forget that this was the same party that shut down parliament for 5 weeks to prevent brexit from being debated on, so who know's what they're capable of.

From what I understand the Scottish Government wish to pilot a juryless trial scheme for rape victims in an attempt to improve low conviction rates. A scheme that was recommended by Lady Leeona Dorrian, one of Scotland's most senior judges. For me, it's all about getting to the correct verdict, jury or not. Whether this has a positive or negative impact remains to be seen. But this can't be described as "fascism", as it's ultimately the judge that makes the final decision, regardless of whether there is a jury present or not and is independent of Government influence.

[McD]

If the snp win next GE in Scotland then it will be 20 years without a uk govt the majority of Scot’s voted for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's daft if we vote for snp this time and they have no chance in the uk, also 20 years of tories. If Labour win in Scotland it'll be 2 in 21

New York has been democrat for 100 years they don't shout injustice when reps win. They are Part of the whole. Swing states/seats matter only in most nations.


And the vast majority of people in New York want to be part of that whole. That’s not the case in Scotland. And have New York ever went 20 years without a Dems win?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


i took S27’s point to be that the SNP don’t stand in enough seats to ever be in power at Westminster, ergo anyone voting for them in a general election will never see them be the governing party.

[McD]

Ok, there's no question in my own mind that they are a fascist regime. The way they have created class warfare, played on an undercurrent of racism towards foreigners, targeted the vulnerable. The way they have manipulated the courts through draconian legislation, ignored warnings from human right advocates and think tanks. Their anti-union legislation. Their clamping down on protests. Not to mention their downright nasty and divisive rhetoric at every opportunity and a compliant media helping them to stir the pot of hatred.

I call them fascist because I don't know what else they could be called based on this. Fascism is the conclusion i'm drawn to when I factor in the combination of their actions and behaviours.

I've given my reason why I think they're a fascist regime. Anybody who disagrees is more than welcome to explain why they disagree with this conclusion.


so where’s the dictator?

[Ozyhibby]

i took S27’s point to be that the SNP don’t stand in enough seats to ever be in power at Westminster, ergo anyone voting for them in a general election will never see them be the governing party.

And the longer Scottish voters are not represented in UK govt the shakier the union becomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

so where’s the dictator?

It could be argued that they are a collective dictatorship rather than a single face. They dictate through the use of draconian legislation which takes advantage over other draconian legislation which allows it to bypass the House of Lords and any legal scrutiny by the courts.

[McD]

It could be argued that they are a collective dictatorship rather than a single face. They dictate through the use of draconian legislation which takes advantage over other draconian legislation which allows it to bypass the House of Lords and any legal scrutiny by the courts.


Could be more easily argued that it’s daft hyperbole, just like them being an occupying country


you really do your good points of view a disservice when you use such nonsensical language and then tie yourself in knots trying to justify it, it distracts from the points you make that contribute to the conversation

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Could be more easily argued that it’s daft hyperbole, just like them being an occupying country


you really do your good points of view a disservice when you use such nonsensical language and then tie yourself in knots trying to justify it, it distracts from the points you make that contribute to the conversation

But it's not hyperbole. They can bypass the courts and the House of Lords and have already done so in order to get legislation through that would otherwise be blocked on the grounds of legality or a violation of human rights. That's not hyperbole, that's quite literally what is happening. It's not my fault if you weren't aware of this already.

[Stairway 2 7]

i took S27’s point to be that the SNP don’t stand in enough seats to ever be in power at Westminster, ergo anyone voting for them in a general election will never see them be the governing party.

Yes

[McD]

But it's not hyperbole. They can bypass the courts and the House of Lords and have already done so in order to get legislation through that would otherwise be blocked on the grounds of legality or a violation of human rights. That's not hyperbole, that's quite literally what is happening. It's not my fault if you weren't aware of this already.


I wasn’t referring to any of that, but I’m sure you knew that. The word dictatorship is hyperbole. As is the phrase ‘occupying country’.

it’s not my fault you’re unaware of the actual meaning of these words, but on a public forum any time you post your inviting a reply.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I wasn’t referring to any of that, but I’m sure you knew that. The word dictatorship is hyperbole. As is the phrase ‘occupying country’.

it’s not my fault you’re unaware of the actual meaning of these words, but on a public forum any time you post your inviting a reply.

If a Government having the power to overrule the courts in order to implement policies that directly contradict the democratic foundations of the country isn't what you would consider a dictatorship. Then what would you call it? I genuinely don't understand why you would consider the term dictatorship to be hyperbole here. You're entitled to believe that, but I don't understand it.

[Stairway 2 7]

And the vast majority of people in New York want to be part of that whole. That’s not the case in Scotland. And have New York ever went 20 years without a Dems win?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's been spells of 20 and 30 years where both rep and dems won. Dems from 1933 to 53 most recently, states like Vermont voted rep everyone.

Yes the majority their want that status quo but we voted the same 9 years ago. As things are we are a part of a whole and have votes and MPs we chose towards that. We should and will have more in my opinion but there isn't a conspiracy.

As for occupation and fascist dictatorships, I'm sure that's just a wind up

[Ozyhibby]

There's been spells of 20 and 30 years where both rep and dems won. Dems from 1933 to 53 most recently, states like Vermont voted rep everyone.

Yes the majority their want that status quo but we voted the same 9 years ago. As things are we are a part of a whole and have votes and MPs we chose towards that. We should and will have more in my opinion but there isn't a conspiracy.

As for occupation and fascist dictatorships, I'm sure that's just a wind up

Sorry, I’m not talking about dictatorships. I’m just pointing out that 20 years of Scotland not being represented in govt isn’t really healthy for the union. Could that turn into 40?
Govt will soon become something England chooses for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

If a Government having the power to overrule the courts in order to implement policies that directly contradict the democratic foundations of the country isn't what you would consider a dictatorship. Then what would you call it? I genuinely don't understand why you would consider the term dictatorship to be hyperbole here. You're entitled to believe that, but I don't understand it.


because I understand what the word means, not just trying to be sensationalist in posting on a sub forum of a football fans website.


let’s consider some facts - if this were a true dictatorship, Boris would still be in power, Truss would never have been ousted, we wouldn’t be going through an investigation into actions taken by some government individuals during covid restrictions, the brexit proroguing would never have been challenged, we wouldn’t have the level of information about government officials and their shenanigans, and so on. Now, are these things enough to be holding a shambles of a government to the levels they should be held to? Not even close. Are they pushing for powers they shouldn’t have? Yes. Is there layers of corruption? Absolutely!

But they are not a dictatorship. Have a look at Russia or North Korea.

if you really can’t draw distinctions between these situations and what is happening here, then there’s no point in continuing to discuss reality versus what you are seeing.

[McD]

Sorry, I’m not talking about dictatorships. I’m just pointing out that 20 years of Scotland not being represented in govt isn’t really healthy for the union. Could that turn into 40?
Govt will soon become something England chooses for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


isn’t that the case just now? In that if England voted heavily behind the tories, Labour, Lib Dem’s, or whoever they want, then the rest of the MPs from Scotland, wales and Northern Ireland would be overwhelmingly outvoted?

[Stairway 2 7]

Sorry, I’m not talking about dictatorships. I’m just pointing out that 20 years of Scotland not being represented in govt isn’t really healthy for the union. Could that turn into 40?
Govt will soon become something England chooses for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are represented you'll notice Flynn talk third after Starmer. Our MPs can vote in any vote at Westminster whichever way they wish. It's a parliament where each region in the uk picks an MP and they go to Westminster. We voted to keep that, the polls consistently say they want to keep that.

[archie]

If a Government having the power to overrule the courts in order to implement policies that directly contradict the democratic foundations of the country isn't what you would consider a dictatorship. Then what would you call it? I genuinely don't understand why you would consider the term dictatorship to be hyperbole here. You're entitled to believe that, but I don't understand it.
But you accept that the Tories will leave power if they lose the election. That's hardly fascist.

[McD]

But you accept that the Tories will leave power if they lose the election. That's hardly fascist.


or dictatorial - kinda the opposite

[TrumpIsAPeado]

because I understand what the word means, not just trying to be sensationalist in posting on a sub forum of a football fans website.


let’s consider some facts - if this were a true dictatorship, Boris would still be in power, Truss would never have been ousted, we wouldn’t be going through an investigation into actions taken by some government individuals during covid restrictions, the brexit proroguing would never have been challenged, we wouldn’t have the level of information about government officials and their shenanigans, and so on. Now, are these things enough to be holding a shambles of a government to the levels they should be held to? Not even close. Are they pushing for powers they shouldn’t have? Yes. Is there layers of corruption? Absolutely!

But they are not a dictatorship. Have a look at Russia or North Korea.

if you really can’t draw distinctions between these situations and what is happening here, then there’s no point in continuing to discuss reality versus what you are seeing.

Dictatorships aren't all people standing up on podiums shouting and pointing fingers. (Although I'm sure someone like Braverman would get her kicks out of doing just that). That's just one form a dictatorship can take. Dictatorships can also be established through exploits in legislative processes behind the scenes without much public notice and that's what the Conservatives have done here.

They aren't pushing for more powers than they should have. They've already succeeded in that regard. They have complete authority over the court system. They can overrule any verdict as they see fit. This can make it impossible for people to sue them on human right violations or to hold them under any legal scrutiny. They can kick out court cases that call any of their legislation into question.

Not all dictatorships are a single unmovable face. If the exits of Boris and Truss have shown us anything, it's that they'll continue to plow away in the background regardless of the face in place and that makes them a potentially more dangerous dictatorship.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But you accept that the Tories will leave power if they lose the election. That's hardly fascist.

Will they? Or will the same dictatorial agenda remain in place, simply under a different name?

[Stairway 2 7]

Will they? Or will the same dictatorial agenda remain in place, simply under a different name?

George Soros and the World economic forums mucky paws all over this and the Rotarians actually

[archie]

Dictatorships aren't all people standing up on podiums shouting and pointing fingers. (Although I'm sure someone like Braverman would get her kicks out of doing just that). That's just one form a dictatorship can take. Dictatorships can also be established through exploits in legislative processes behind the scenes without much public notice and that's what the Conservatives have done here.

They aren't pushing for more powers than they should have. They've already succeeded in that regard. They have complete authority over the court system. They can overrule any verdict as they see fit. This can make it impossible for people to sue them on human right violations or to hold them under any legal scrutiny. They can kick out court cases that call any of their legislation into question.

Not all dictatorships are a single unmovable face. If the exits of Boris and Truss have shown us anything, it's that they'll continue to plow away in the background regardless of the face in place and that makes them a potentially more dangerous dictatorship.

I think you are mixing up a number of things here. Right wing government, even authoritarian government doesn't, in itself equate to fascism or dictatorship. The key test of a dictatorship is whether it allows elections and will voluntarily stand down should they lose. Clearly this is not the UK. Fascism is not a synonym for things you don't like.

[archie]

Will they? Or will the same dictatorial agenda remain in place, simply under a different name?

Good grief - Labour are fascists now?

[McD]

I think you are mixing up a number of things here. Right wing government, even authoritarian government doesn't, in itself equate to fascism or dictatorship. The key test of a dictatorship is whether it allows elections and will voluntarily stand down should they lose. Clearly this is not the UK. Fascism is not a synonym for things you don't like.


thank you for making my point more eloquently :aok:

[Ozyhibby]

We are represented you'll notice Flynn talk third after Starmer. Our MPs can vote in any vote at Westminster whichever way they wish. It's a parliament where each region in the uk picks an MP and they go to Westminster. We voted to keep that, the polls consistently say they want to keep that.

You can be technically correct but at the same time I’m saying that people may tire of never seeing the party they elect in govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Bit unwise from Flynn to take these I think

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/4632340/snp-stephen-flynn-wimbledon-bp/?utm_source=twitter

SNP Westminster group lead Stephen Flynn received exclusive tickets to Wimbledon paid for by oil giant BP

[McD]

Dictatorships aren't all people standing up on podiums shouting and pointing fingers. (Although I'm sure someone like Braverman would get her kicks out of doing just that). That's just one form a dictatorship can take. Dictatorships can also be established through exploits in legislative processes behind the scenes without much public notice and that's what the Conservatives have done here.

They aren't pushing for more powers than they should have. They've already succeeded in that regard. They have complete authority over the court system. They can overrule any verdict as they see fit. This can make it impossible for people to sue them on human right violations or to hold them under any legal scrutiny. They can kick out court cases that call any of their legislation into question.

Not all dictatorships are a single unmovable face. If the exits of Boris and Truss have shown us anything, it's that they'll continue to plow away in the background regardless of the face in place and that makes them a potentially more dangerous dictatorship.


ffs… Boris was put in a position of either resigning pathetically or being humiliated by parliament in his punishment for wrong doing - the same parliament that is overwhelmingly run by the conservatives, many of whom hold Boris in high regard. They’re not very good at this dictatorship stuff if their figurehead can be brought down in such a straightforward manner, when they have a large majority.

this version of the Tory party is much further right than some of its predecessors, and they have done and continue to do some despicable things. However, the above is just one example of why it’s not a dictatorship, general elections are another huge one. If they were a dictatorship, they wouldn’t bother being in parliament, carrying out parliamentary and government business, and they wouldn’t be worried about the next general election.

[Ozyhibby]

Bit unwise from Flynn to take these I think

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/4632340/snp-stephen-flynn-wimbledon-bp/?utm_source=twitter

SNP Westminster group lead Stephen Flynn received exclusive tickets to Wimbledon paid for by oil giant BP

Totally agree. It should be impossible for him to accept gifts like this. It’s part of the endemic corruption that is Westminster. It’s a black mark against Flynn personally as well with a bullcrap excuse. If he wants to speak to BP then he arranges a meeting, not a jolly at the tennis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

thank you for making my point more eloquently :aok:

Thank you. I'll take the rest of the day off!

[McD]

Thank you. I'll take the rest of the day off!


:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Could be more easily argued that it’s daft hyperbole, just like them being an occupying country


you really do your good points of view a disservice when you use such nonsensical language and then tie yourself in knots trying to justify it, it distracts from the points you make that contribute to the conversation

The Oxford Dictionary definition of fascism. This Tory government tick all the boxes.

fascism noun [mass noun] an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
▪ derogatory extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behaviour:

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The Oxford Dictionary definition of fascism. This Tory government tick all the boxes.

fascism noun [mass noun] an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
▪ derogatory extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behaviour:

You're wasting your time. It's evident that they match this description. I've produced more than enough examples that put them directly into this category, but there are still those who will continue to deny it.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've given up on reading the political threads, it's just as boring as a practice knock about at tennis. The ball is knocked backwards and forwards between the same players. And I don't think any will qualify for a major tournament.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I've given up on reading the political threads, it's just as boring as a practice knock about at tennis. The ball is knocked backwards and forwards between the same players. And I don't think any will qualify for a major tournament.

Honestly, what do you expect? When people debate things, the ball does tend to go back and forth. That's how debates operate. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any debate going on. If the topic of discussion bores you, there's nothing preventing you from providing your own topics of discussion.

[Stairway 2 7]

The Oxford Dictionary definition of fascism. This Tory government tick all the boxes.

fascism noun [mass noun] an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
▪ derogatory extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behaviour:

Looking at a dictionary definition isn't very nuanced. Every word on that list has a scale where many governments could fit in to some extent. Many nations are intolerant for example but there are levels. Our laws on homosexualaty for example are extremely tolerant, women's rights too. We are less authoritarian than any fascist dictatorship. The fact that we can have this debate and call the tories ***** with freedom. People in Russia or Iran or N Korea would call us divas for thinking we have it similar.

It's also not a dictatorship. Although his defence against that is Labour is probably one too 😆. Mind he said last week that the evidence shows Starmer will be more right wing than this tory government, so there you go.

[Stairway 2 7]

Honestly, what do you expect? When people debate things, the ball does tend to go back and forth. That's how debates operate. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any debate going on. If the topic of discussion bores you, there's nothing preventing you from providing your own topics of discussion.

But it isn't even sensible the last week it's antagonistic and boring. I think in a debate you listen to others opinions and can be swayed with good arguments. You also concede when you're wrong. I'm wrong most days ha but least you learn that way.

[McD]

The Oxford Dictionary definition of fascism. This Tory government tick all the boxes.

fascism noun [mass noun] an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
▪ derogatory extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behaviour:


You're wasting your time. It's evident that they match this description. I've produced more than enough examples that put them directly into this category, but there are still those who will continue to deny it.


if you check what I’ve said, it’s the word ‘dictatorship’ I’ve challenged the use of.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Looking at a dictionary definition isn't very nuanced.

It was nuanced enough when I was being challenged over what constitutes as being occupied.


Every word on that list has a scale where many governments could fit in to some extent. Many nations are intolerant for example but there are levels. Our laws on homosexualaty for example are extremely tolerant, women's rights too. We are less authoritarian than any fascist dictatorship. The fact that we can have this debate and call the tories ***** with freedom. People in Russia or Iran or N Korea would call us divas for thinking we have it similar.

People in Russia, Iran and North Korea don't consider themselves to be in dictatorships either. If you were to go to any of those countries and tell people living there that they're living under a dictatorship, most wouldn't accept that. Because just like us, they're socially conditioned by their own media to accept that their own way of life is normal.


It's also not a dictatorship. Although his defence against that is Labour is probably one too 😆. Mind he said last week that the evidence shows Starmer will be more right wing than this tory government, so there you go.

I don't consider Labour to be a dictatorship because I don't consider there to even be a legitimate Labour Party anymore. This party that is calling itself Labour, isn't even pretending that they'll reverse the authoritarian policies that the tories have put in place. Which suggests that they intend on taking advantage of them also.

[McD]

But it isn't even sensible the last week it's antagonistic and boring. I think in a debate you listen to others opinions and can be swayed with good arguments. You also concede when you're wrong. I'm wrong most days ha but least you learn that way.


it’s gotten worse the last few weeks, but that description goes a lot further back. I used to enjoy coming on this form and learning a lot about both/multiple sides of the debates, but that’s gone, there’s precious little listening or debating, just posting opinions on repeat. The admins will end up shutting this place down.

[Stairway 2 7]

It was nuanced enough when I was being challenged over what constitutes as being occupied.



People in Russia, Iran and North Korea don't consider themselves to be in dictatorships either. If you were to go to any of those countries and tell people living there that they're living under a dictatorship, most wouldn't accept that. Because just like us, they're socially conditioned by their own media to accept that their own way of life is normal.



I don't consider Labour to be a dictatorship because I don't consider there to even be a legitimate Labour Party anymore. This party that is calling itself Labour, isn't even pretending that they'll reverse the authoritarian policies that the tories have put in place. Which suggests that they intend on taking advantage of them also.

Nah your right it's just like those countries here. Anyway I'm away out I'll be wearing my t-shirt, it's a bit dated now but will still probably get me the jail
27111

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I don't believe i've done anything wrong here. But if people are so concerned with this place being shut down, then i'll gladly stop posting on it. Debates don't have to have a final resolution. It's ok for them to be on going. But that appears to be an issue for some on here and I don't wish to add to that issue any further.

[McD]

I don't believe i've done anything wrong here. But if people are so concerned with this place being shut down, then i'll gladly stop posting on it. Debates don't have to have a final resolution. It's ok for them to be on going. But that appears to be an issue for some on here and I don't wish to add to that issue any further.


whatever our disagreements about things (and I don’t think we’re that far apart on some stuff :aok:), I wouldn’t ever advocate someone stopping posting, so please don’t. My point about that wasn’t about you (apologies if it came across that way).

I agree with what you’ve said about some debates not necessarily having a final resolution and can continue.


I’d like to see a return to more openmindedness on here, not asking people to change their stance on anything, but there’s quite a few who seem to respond with ‘yeah, but what about…’ type posts, rather than debate/discuss the point being made in the original post. It’s wholly possible for the tories to be criticised for something with the snp or scotgov being referenced, and vice versa. We can have a discussion about something a Tory mp has done without any required ‘balance’ or whataboutery regarding an snp msp or scotgov policy. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised to see Flynn get critiqued on another thread and the first reply from an snp supporter agreeing with the critique, so credit to those posters, imo.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(23)01584-2.pdf

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/medical-experts-defend-research-into-minimum-alcohol-pricing

Support from medical experts for SNP minimum unit pricing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

because I understand what the word means, not just trying to be sensationalist in posting on a sub forum of a football fans website.


let’s consider some facts - if this were a true dictatorship, Boris would still be in power, Truss would never have been ousted, we wouldn’t be going through an investigation into actions taken by some government individuals during covid restrictions, the brexit proroguing would never have been challenged, we wouldn’t have the level of information about government officials and their shenanigans, and so on. Now, are these things enough to be holding a shambles of a government to the levels they should be held to? Not even close. Are they pushing for powers they shouldn’t have? Yes. Is there layers of corruption? Absolutely!

But they are not a dictatorship. Have a look at Russia or North Korea.

if you really can’t draw distinctions between these situations and what is happening here, then there’s no point in continuing to discuss reality versus what you are seeing.

Good post.

[lapsedhibee]

I don't believe i've done anything wrong here. But if people are so concerned with this place being shut down, then i'll gladly stop posting on it. Debates don't have to have a final resolution. It's ok for them to be on going. But that appears to be an issue for some on here and I don't wish to add to that issue any further.

Me neither. Nothing wrong with nudging linguistic definitions a bit. :wink:

[He's here!]

I don't believe i've done anything wrong here. But if people are so concerned with this place being shut down, then i'll gladly stop posting on it. Debates don't have to have a final resolution. It's ok for them to be on going. But that appears to be an issue for some on here and I don't wish to add to that issue any further.

Presenting as irrefutable fact an opinion the UK is a dictatorship and that Scotland is an occupied territory doesn't really lend itself to 'debate' or 'resolution' (other than, it seems, everyone else accepting that you alone are right).

[degenerated]

Presenting as irrefutable fact an opinion the UK is a dictatorship and that Scotland is an occupied territory doesn't really lend itself to 'debate' or 'resolution' (other than, it seems, everyone else accepting that you alone are right).To be fair, linking to nonsense from the spectator that you haven't read doesn't either but it's never stopped you.

[Hibrandenburg]

Looking at a dictionary definition isn't very nuanced. Every word on that list has a scale where many governments could fit in to some extent. Many nations are intolerant for example but there are levels. Our laws on homosexualaty for example are extremely tolerant, women's rights too. We are less authoritarian than any fascist dictatorship. The fact that we can have this debate and call the tories ***** with freedom. People in Russia or Iran or N Korea would call us divas for thinking we have it similar.

It's also not a dictatorship. Although his defence against that is Labour is probably one too 😆. Mind he said last week that the evidence shows Starmer will be more right wing than this tory government, so there you go.

It literally defines what fascism is and the current UK government tick all the boxes. Pointing out that other fascist states are worse places to live in is whataboutery doesn't deflect from the fact that this UK government is fascist. I'll bet there's a fair few Russians and Koreans look at our head of state and think it's antiquated and belongs to be banished to the 16th century.

[Since90+2]

Saying the UK is a dictatorship is just silly.

And I say that as a independence supporter.

[Hibrandenburg]

Saying the UK is a dictatorship is just silly.

And I say that as a independence supporter.

Agreed, but that's not to say Johnson and his cronies didn't try to take us down that path.

[grunt]

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(23)01584-2.pdf

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/medical-experts-defend-research-into-minimum-alcohol-pricing

Support from medical experts for SNP minimum unit pricing.
Was just about to post this myself. Quote from the letter:


Policy makers can be confident that there are several hundred people with low income in Scotland who would have died as a result of alcohol, who are alive today as a result of minimum unit pricing.

[He's here!]

To be fair, linking to nonsense from the spectator that you haven't read doesn't either but it's never stopped you.

I always read what I post links to.

Re the Spectator, it mostly comprises opinion pieces (the key being the word opinion), which are thus open to debate and not presented as fact.

Here's an interesting recent one which ties in with the fascism chat on here:

The dark history of the SNP | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-dark-history-of-the-snp/)

Thoughts?

[lapsedhibee]

I always read what I post links to.

Re the Spectator, it mostly comprises opinion pieces (the key being the word opinion), which are thus open to debate and not presented as fact.

Here's an interesting recent one which ties in with the fascism chat on here:

The dark history of the SNP | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-dark-history-of-the-snp/)

Thoughts?

"Sturgeon and Salmond are wannabe fascist dictators."

I think I will get a hold of this book, though, thanks for the recommendation:

... he wrote in his 1977 book The Break Up of Britain and elsewhere a constant stream of contempt for Britain as ‘a sinking paddle-wheel state’, ‘an indefensible and unadaptable relic, neither properly archaic nor properly modern’, needing ‘a motorised wheelchair and a decent burial’.

[He's here!]

"Sturgeon and Salmond are wannabe fascist dictators."

I think I will get a hold of this book, though, thanks for the recommendation:

... he wrote in his 1977 book The Break Up of Britain and elsewhere a constant stream of contempt for Britain as ‘a sinking paddle-wheel state’, ‘an indefensible and unadaptable relic, neither properly archaic nor properly modern’, needing ‘a motorised wheelchair and a decent burial’.

Not that it says that, but the following snippet isn't far off the mark:

"Her authoritarianism does not adhere to a particular ideology, but to her behaviour in office: an impatience with any challenge and a refusal to allow discussion on central issues of party management"

The same could have been said of Margaret Thatcher (although from memory she had Willie Whitelaw by her side for much of her tenure to dilute some of her intransigence).

[grunt]

Thoughts?
I think I wasted my time. "Salmond ... remains a possible leader once again."
Complete and utter trash.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(23)01584-2.pdf

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/medical-experts-defend-research-into-minimum-alcohol-pricing

Support from medical experts for SNP minimum unit pricing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you personally think it shows what it says. It takes one year when Scottish deaths rose and they say it rose slower than England rose. England didn't have minimum pricing so So therfore the difference in the rises is due to that.

In northern Ireland deaths fell in the same year, they don't have minimum pricing. So therfore if you believe this study then surely you agree using Scotland and northern Ireland, minimum pricing causes deaths?

It might work in cutting deaths but I shared a professor that said the obvious to me. Deaths from drink takes decades if this works in cutting deaths we will only find out then

Hopefully it goes to the standards agency.

[grunt]

Do you personally think it shows what it says.
Ach, you're right. What do these medical professionals know anyway, eh?

[Kato]

I always read what I post links to.

Re the Spectator, it mostly comprises opinion pieces (the key being the word opinion), which are thus open to debate and not presented as fact.

Here's an interesting recent one which ties in with the fascism chat on here:

The dark history of the SNP | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-dark-history-of-the-snp/)

Thoughts?Have you forgotten all the historical dicussion on this forum in the very recent past?

Does the history of the SNP matter now any more than the history of the Labour Party from the 30s or the Tory Party from the 50s?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Ach, you're right. What do these medical professionals know anyway, eh?

You said the same last time then I put up 3 professors that said the study was poor. It's a matter of which opinion you believe but I think common sense shows this is ridiculous.

Remember when the BMA, 100 medical proffered and Pfizer themselves signed a letter urging the UK government not to space out vaccine doses to 12 weeks. It turned out they were wrong and it saved tens of thousands of lives.

This isn't just a mix of opinions though it's a study by a team that's been pushing for minimum pricing for a decade, funded by scot gov, with a sunset clause of this year to find proof. It was ridiculous to ask them to show proof as yes deaths went in but they would already have been baked in

[McD]

Have you forgotten all the historical dicussion on this forum in the very recent past?

Does the history of the SNP matter now any more than the history of the Labour Party from the 30s or the Tory Party from the 50s?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I don’t get the point of the article, it has no purpose or conclusions. It doesn’t even do a good job of relating historical points of view (of an incredibly small number of people and an Oswald Moseley anecdote) to recent leaders of the snp.

Is this article of the general standard of the publication? I don’t really click on many of the links, but tbh it reads to me as a semi-smug piece written by a high school student trying to get a rise out of their teacher, and as you’ve rightly pointed out, what relevance is there of the political perspective of someone over a century ago on todays political landscape?

[Stairway 2 7]

Have you forgotten all the historical dicussion on this forum in the very recent past?

Does the history of the SNP matter now any more than the history of the Labour Party from the 30s or the Tory Party from the 50s?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Equating the party now to that far back is like vote trump for African American rights, as the Republican Lincoln helped free the slaves

[grunt]

Thank God for common sense.

[He's here!]

I think I wasted my time. "Salmond ... remains a possible leader once again."
Complete and utter trash.

I can't see that ever happening either but he's certainly stepped up his political manoeuvring lately. With an ego the size of his you don't imagine he thinks he's done yet.

[He's here!]

Have you forgotten all the historical dicussion on this forum in the very recent past?

Does the history of the SNP matter now any more than the history of the Labour Party from the 30s or the Tory Party from the 50s?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I'd agree the linking of the content with Mhairi Black's comments is a tad tenuous but there are always cautionary lessons to be learned from history - a stronger grasp of which might better inform the fascist dictatorship/occupied territory claims on here.

[Kato]

I'd agree the linking of the content with Mhairi Black's comments is a tad tenuous but there are always cautionary lessons to be learned from history - a stronger grasp of which might better inform the fascist dictatorship/occupied territory claims on here.

"cautionary lessons to be learned from history"...

Agree. Like voting for the Torys. Should be obvious to everyone that they leave the country more in debt and more divided every time they gain power.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

He’s only the fall guy if he lets himself be that. So far he has acted to get rid of unpopular policies but he needs to now say what it is that he wants to achieve as FM. He needs to chart a course pretty soon or else others will try do it for him.

As for Flynn, I think it’s almost certain he will be leader at some point. Very impressive so far. And ambitious. If Yousaf falls then there is a ready made replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kate Forbes: I dodged something 'even more explosive' than bullet by losing SNP leadership bid (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/kate-forbes-i-dodged-something-even-more-explosive-than-bullet-by-losing-snp-leadership-bid/ar-AA1f9HJA)

Notable that she contradicts Yousaf's view that MacNeil's expulsion was a good move.

[lapsedhibee]

I don’t get the point of the article, it has no purpose or conclusions. It doesn’t even do a good job of relating historical points of view (of an incredibly small number of people and an Oswald Moseley anecdote) to recent leaders of the snp.

Is this article of the general standard of the publication? I don’t really click on many of the links, but tbh it reads to me as a semi-smug piece written by a high school student trying to get a rise out of their teacher, and as you’ve rightly pointed out, what relevance is there of the political perspective of someone over a century ago on todays political landscape?

I don't subscribe, but it's completely typical of the articles linked to on here. Some people thought some things a hundred years ago and the SNP are coming to get you.

[He's here!]

I think I wasted my time. "Salmond ... remains a possible leader once again."
Complete and utter trash.


Alex Salmond on his plans to save the SNP and win Scottish independence (thetimes.co.uk) (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-s-plan-to-save-the-snp-and-win-independence-in-five-years-7d2dk9v3s)

I can't get past the paywall to read the full story, but judging by the headline he appears to think he's still credible.

[degenerated]

Alex Salmond on his plans to save the SNP and win Scottish independence (thetimes.co.uk) (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-s-plan-to-save-the-snp-and-win-independence-in-five-years-7d2dk9v3s)

I can't get past the paywall to read the full story, but judging by the headline he appears to think he's still credible.Today, in things I haven't read. :hilarious

[He's here!]

Today, in things I haven't read. :hilarious

Yep, I'll concede that one 😉

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66490038

UK govt offering advice on how to make our health service as bad as theirs.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66490038

UK govt offering advice on how to make our health service as bad as theirs.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkBrass neck on them on the day that their waiting list topped 7.5 million. Sure I read the comparative stats showed that those waiting over a year in England 380,000, Scotland 20,000 and Wales 7,000.

This is just crass politicking to divert attention from their own failings. No surprise to see the BBC were first to reach vinegar strokes with this particular piece of BS.

[grunt]

Alex Salmond on his plans to save the SNP and win Scottish independence (thetimes.co.uk) (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-s-plan-to-save-the-snp-and-win-independence-in-five-years-7d2dk9v3s)

I can't get past the paywall to read the full story, but judging by the headline he appears to think he's still credible.
Save yourself the effort. It's The Times, writing about Scotland, so it'll be bollocks.

[Ozyhibby]

Save yourself the effort. It's The Times, writing about Scotland, so it'll be bollocks.

Leader of another party has plans to save the SNP? [emoji23]
This must be like Starmers plan to save the Tories by becoming them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66490038

UK govt offering advice on how to make our health service as bad as theirs.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many years ago I was representing the NHS in Scotland at a UK NHS fair type thing.

I was approached by a group of important looking types but didn't recognise them. After a bit of good natured to-ing and fro-ing him extolling the virtues of the NHS in England and me showcasing innovation in Scotland he was about to leave. I asked 'At the end of the day where would you rather be ill?' He smiled, didn't say England but he did say a relative of his was being very well looked after in Scotland.

Turned out he was a Director in NHS England!

I might respectfully suggest NHS England will be looking to us to sort out their mess.

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/more-than-500000-attend-magnificent-uci-world-cycling-championships-in-glasgow

Great to have a Scottish success story.[emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Ian Blackford trying to rewrite history on Charles Kennedy. A wonderful debater and a good person I believe. Another who lost his long hard battle with addiction. A strong voice ultimately not enough against Iraq

It was utterly shameful the campaign Ian Blackford and his friend snp skye cheif Brian Smith led against Kennedy in his last election.

Painting Kennedy brought up in a small croft as a posh Quisling, when it was Blackford who was the rich royal high student and Deutsche investment banker pretending to be a crofter

Dog whistles about his disease and asking why he wasn't going to parliament Blackford saying wheres charlie?, when it was obvious at that point he was very ill. Smith openly on twitter called him a useless drunk. There was a huge pile on from Blackford supporters oand lib dems eventually had someone full time deleting the online abuse. Dog crap through his letterbox and hate filled anonymous letters

It apparently badly effected him in his last days.

Glad Blackford said Flynns lot forced him out

[Ozyhibby]

Ian Blackford trying to rewrite history on Charles Kennedy. A wonderful debater and a good person I believe. Another who lost his long hard battle with addiction. A strong voice ultimately not enough against Iraq

It was utterly shameful the campaign Ian Blackford and his friend snp skye cheif Brian Smith led against Kennedy in his last election.

Painting Kennedy brought up in a small croft as a posh Quisling, when it was Blackford who was the rich royal high student and Deutsche investment banker pretending to be a crofter

Dog whistles about his disease and asking why he wasn't going to parliament Blackford saying wheres charlie?, when it was obvious at that point he was very ill. Smith openly on twitter called him a useless drunk. There was a huge pile on from Blackford supporters oand lib dems eventually had someone full time deleting the online abuse. Dog crap through his letterbox and hate filled anonymous letters

It apparently badly effected him in his last days.

Glad Blackford said Flynns lot forced him out

Given how I’ll he was and as incapable of doing the job he was, I’m surprised nobody at the Lib Dem’s told him to put his health first and step down? You would think the people closest to him would have been protecting him more? Blaming his political opponents for pointing out that he wasn’t doing his job is weak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Given how I’ll he was and as incapable of doing the job he was, I’m surprised nobody at the Lib Dem’s told him to put his health first and step down? You would think the people closest to him would have been protecting him more? Blaming his political opponents for pointing out that he wasn’t doing his job is weak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whataboutary against lib dems doesn't hide it was an utterly sick campaign Brian Smith was basically booted from snp due to it.

Lib dems should have supported him and put him on leave but that is a completely separate discussion. Snp campaign leader tweeting that he is a useless drunk and Blackford repeating the where's Charlie campaign when he knew where he was. Utterly pathetic politics. Hounding someone gravelly ill doesn't get a pass just because he wasn't getting support elsewhere

[CropleyWasGod]

Ian Blackford trying to rewrite history on Charles Kennedy. A wonderful debater and a good person I believe. Another who lost his long hard battle with addiction. A strong voice ultimately not enough against Iraq

It was utterly shameful the campaign Ian Blackford and his friend snp skye cheif Brian Smith led against Kennedy in his last election.

Painting Kennedy brought up in a small croft as a posh Quisling, when it was Blackford who was the rich royal high student and Deutsche investment banker pretending to be a crofter

Dog whistles about his disease and asking why he wasn't going to parliament Blackford saying wheres charlie?, when it was obvious at that point he was very ill. Smith openly on twitter called him a useless drunk. There was a huge pile on from Blackford supporters oand lib dems eventually had someone full time deleting the online abuse. Dog crap through his letterbox and hate filled anonymous letters

It apparently badly effected him in his last days.

Glad Blackford said Flynns lot forced him out

Small point, but council school :wink:

[grunt]

Lib dems should have supported him and put him on leave but that is a completely separate discussion.

No it isn't separate at all. It's the whole reason why Kennedy's abilities were called into question. You can't separate the issues just because it doesn't fit your argument.

Are you also saying that no one should criticise Dorries' non performance at Westminster? Perhaps she's also "gravelly ill" and should be allowed to continue to not do her job?

[Stairway 2 7]

Small point, but council school :wink:

Your right state although it had exam entry and fees, although that stopped in the 70s so he might have missed some of it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Your right state although it had exam entry and fees, although that stopped in the 70s so he might have missed some of it.

He was in the 1st or 2nd year of comprehensive kids, so there were no fees.

Fees were pretty minimal before that btw, nowhere near the private schools.

[Stairway 2 7]

No it isn't separate at all. It's the whole reason why Kennedy's abilities were called into question. You can't separate the issues just because it doesn't fit your argument.

Are you also saying that no one should criticise Dorries' non performance at Westminster? Perhaps she's also "gravelly ill" and should be allowed to continue to not do her job?

They weren't questioning his abilities the snp campaign leader was publicly calling him a useless drunk. He was getting hate mail to his house, his rubbish thrown across his garden and crap through his door, is that lib dems fault.

Dorries has zero link. It would be the same if it was clear Dorries had just recently lost both parents and had an alcohol problem. Then after this was known, they then called Dorries a useless drunk and kept hounding her.

[Stairway 2 7]

He was in the 1st or 2nd year of comprehensive kids, so there were no fees.

Fees were pretty minimal btw, nowhere near the private schools.

I'm not personally that fussy about someone's wealth as long as they are good politicians, see Tony Benn. But they used it against Kennedy who was born in a croft in the Highlands, when Blackford was a rich investment banker from Edinburgh

[TrumpIsAPeado]

They weren't questioning his abilities the snp campaign leader was publicly calling him a useless drunk. He was getting hate mail to his house, his rubbish thrown across his garden and crap through his door, is that lib dems fault.

Dorries has zero link. It would be the same if it was clear Dorries had just recently lost both parents and had an alcohol problem. Then after this was known, they then called Dorries a useless drunk and kept hounding her.

Say what you like about Ian Blackford and his campaign against Charles Kennedy, because it worked. Clearly it was an issue for the electorate that their elected representative had alcohol issues that were preventing him from representing them effectively. Politics can be a very dirty game, that's just the reality of the system we accept and continue to use. Ian Blackford defeated him, because his campaign allowed him to defeat him and that's what really bothers you the most.

[Stairway 2 7]

Say what you like about Ian Blackford and his campaign against Charles Kennedy, because it worked. Clearly it was an issue for the electorate that their elected representative had alcohol issues that were preventing him from representing them effectively. Politics can be a very dirty game, that's just the reality of the system we accept and continue to use. Ian Blackford defeated him, because his campaign allowed him to defeat him and that's what really bothers you the most.

Why would it bother me the most I've never considered voting lib dems in my life they are useless, although I admired Kennedy on Iraq. I've voted snp in every election for over 10 years, before then a mix of Labour and SSP.

I don't particularly like SNP although they are better than the rest just now. I vote them as a means to independence though.

Yes they did win and it was effective, but that's not the only standards you should set. Your wrong on the campaign being what won them the election it was clear for a year that SNP were going to sweep the board in Scotland including sky.

He knew how ill he was and he knew he had just lost both parents but then went in for the personal dog whistles

[He's here!]

They weren't questioning his abilities the snp campaign leader was publicly calling him a useless drunk. He was getting hate mail to his house, his rubbish thrown across his garden and crap through his door, is that lib dems fault.

Dorries has zero link. It would be the same if it was clear Dorries had just recently lost both parents and had an alcohol problem. Then after this was known, they then called Dorries a useless drunk and kept hounding her.

Blackford's part in the persecution of Kennedy, based solely on the sorry personal circumstances of a man who knew that not only his (very fine) political career but his life were nearing an end, was disgusting and wholly unnecessary. There is no defence for it.

He has more than once tried to rewrite the history around this deeply unpleasant episode. An utterly repellent individual (and I'd say that of any politician who resorted to such 'tactics'), who I would prefer wasn't a Hibs fan.

[degenerated]

Blackford's part in the persecution of Kennedy, based solely on the sorry personal circumstances of a man who knew that not only his (very fine) political career but his life were nearing an end, was disgusting and wholly unnecessary. There is no defence for it.

He has more than once tried to rewrite the history around this deeply unpleasant episode. An utterly repellent individual (and I'd say that of any politician who resorted to such 'tactics'), who I would prefer wasn't a Hibs fan.From memory Ian blackford adopted a strap line of "where's Charlie" and publically wondered if there was something keeping him from doing his job.
There were grand claims of abuse in the daily mail at the time and the examples they published were pretty tame in comparison to some of stuff aimed at other politicians.

I don't remember Kennedy himself making any reference to this in his concession, it any complaints at the time.

Spare us the faux outrage and crocodile tears though, when you are quite happy to put a x in the box for a conservative party who have behaved far more despicably than anything Ian blackford has been accused of.

[lapsedhibee]

Blackford's part in the persecution of Kennedy, based solely on the sorry personal circumstances of a man who knew that not only his (very fine) political career but his life were nearing an end, was disgusting and wholly unnecessary. There is no defence for it.

He has more than once tried to rewrite the history around this deeply unpleasant episode. An utterly repellent individual (and I'd say that of any politician who resorted to such 'tactics'), who I would prefer wasn't a Hibs fan.

Kennedy seemed like a decent bloke and I don't have too much time for Blackford, but you talk about a 'very fine political career'. David Steel, with a comparable career progression, changed society with his 1967 bill. Kennedy appeared on HIGNFY a few times. Let's not get carried away.

[Ozyhibby]

Looking forward to the ‘where’s Anas’ campaign of the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

From memory Ian blackford adopted a strap line of "where's Charlie" and publically wondered if there was something keeping him from doing his job.
There were grand claims of abuse in the daily mail at the time and the examples they published were pretty tame in comparison to some of stuff aimed at other politicians.

I don't remember Kennedy himself making any reference to this in his concession, it any complaints at the time.

Spare us the faux outrage and crocodile tears though, when you are quite happy to put a x in the box for a conservative party who have behaved far more despicably than anything Ian blackford has been accused of.

Blackford knew what was wrong, his constituency chair tweeted 115 abusive tweets about Kennedy during the campaign including "Charles is a useless drunk". During the campaign they put out a leaflet saying “Why bottle it? Time for change.

They didn't cause his illness and Kennedy should have been protecting from his camp. But Blackford did use it.

Yes also this pales in comparison to most tory campaigns which are now based around dehumanising the lives of people fleeing war and poverty

[Ozyhibby]

Blackford knew what was wrong, his constituency chair tweeted 115 abusive tweets about Kennedy during the campaign including "Charles is a useless drunk". During the campaign they put out a leaflet saying “Why bottle it? Time for change.

They didn't cause his illness and Kennedy should have been protecting from his camp. But Blackford did use it.

Yes also this pales in comparison to most tory campaigns which are now based around dehumanising the lives of people fleeing war and poverty

A Tory govt Kennedy was part of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

A Tory govt Kennedy was part of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if Kennedy was a bad person which he wasn't, that doesn't defend it imo

[He's here!]

Kennedy seemed like a decent bloke and I don't have too much time for Blackford, but you talk about a 'very fine political career'. David Steel, with a comparable career progression, changed society with his 1967 bill. Kennedy appeared on HIGNFY a few times. Let's not get carried away.Changing society is a high benchmark if that's what defines a fine political career. Kennedy was, for a long number of years, a well-liked (born and bred) local MP who led the Lib Dems to their best general election result in nearly a century, albeit they should probably have won more than the 60 plus seats they did. He didn't do too badly.

[He's here!]

From memory Ian blackford adopted a strap line of "where's Charlie" and publically wondered if there was something keeping him from doing his job. There were grand claims of abuse in the daily mail at the time and the examples they published were pretty tame in comparison to some of stuff aimed at other politicians. I don't remember Kennedy himself making any reference to this in his concession, it any complaints at the time.Spare us the faux outrage and crocodile tears though, when you are quite happy to put a x in the box for a conservative party who have behaved far more despicably than anything Ian blackford has been accused of.I didn't shed a tear (crocodile or genuine) for Charles Kennedy when I heard he'd passed away. However, anyone who has borne witness to a family member, friend or colleague's decline due to alcoholism and the reduced, pathetic figures they become would have empathised with his plight. For those closest to them, the end comes almost as a relief after so many desperate years, especially when things reach a stage that all efforts to help are in vain. Even the normally abrasive Alastair Campbell, no stranger to such issues himself, reached out to Kennedy when the severity of his illness became clear. Yes, his party should most likely have stepped in but what Blackford did was unjustifiable IMO and, as Stairway 27 points out, there was no need for such a personal attack when anyone close to Kennedy knew fine well he didn't have another parliamentary term in him. I thought it was a particularly low line from a member of a party which makes such big play around addressing Scotland's record on problem drinking.But what would I know? As is so often the case on here, the viewpoint of anyone who doesn't vote SNP can be simply batted away by Tory/Labour whataboutery.

[Smartie]

I didn't shed a tear (crocodile or genuine) for Charles Kennedy when I heard he'd passed away. However, anyone who has borne witness to a family member, friend or colleague's decline due to alcoholism and the reduced, pathetic figures they become would have empathised with his plight. For those closest to them, the end comes almost as a relief after so many desperate years, especially when things reach a stage that all efforts to help are in vain. Even the normally abrasive Alastair Campbell, no stranger to such issues himself, reached out to Kennedy when the severity of his illness became clear. Yes, his party should most likely have stepped in but what Blackford did was unjustifiable IMO and, as Stairway 27 points out, there was no need for such a personal attack when anyone close to Kennedy knew fine well he didn't have another parliamentary term in him. I thought it was a particularly low line from a member of a party which makes such big play around addressing Scotland's record on problem drinking.But what would I know? As is so often the case on here, the viewpoint of anyone who doesn't vote SNP can be simply batted away by Tory/Labour whataboutery.

I know a few people who were very close working colleagues of Kennedy throughout that time. Sober, he was always a wonderful and witty man and a bit of a character with a drink in him. Towards the end, when that balance tipped, he was an absolute nightmare to be close to - such is the nature of the awful, vile disease.

I don’t remember any of the details of what Blackford did or didn’t do but I’m firmly of the belief that we need our politicians to behave much better in the UK and I’m bitterly against genuine personal problems, addiction and illness being used as political bargaining chips, irrespective of party.

[Hibrandenburg]

Blackford knew what was wrong, his constituency chair tweeted 115 abusive tweets about Kennedy during the campaign including "Charles is a useless drunk". During the campaign they put out a leaflet saying “Why bottle it? Time for change.

They didn't cause his illness and Kennedy should have been protecting from his camp. But Blackford did use it.

Yes also this pales in comparison to most tory campaigns which are now based around dehumanising the lives of people fleeing war and poverty

I've had many a colleague who were fine chaps but useless at their job because of addiction problems. Those who came forward and accepted they had a problem were given support and relieved of duties with the promise of reinstatement pending the successful completion of a detox and rehabilitation course. Those that didn't come forward and were negligent in their duties due to their addiction were shown the door.

Alcoholism is a horrible disease, but like a bus driver going blind, alcoholics who refuse to or can't control their addiction should not be allowed to continue working in some jobs and I'd include being the leader of a political party amongst them.

If you're going to take the moral high ground, first ask yourself if Sturgeon or even Blackford would have been allowed the same tolerance you think Kennedy should have been shown. They would have been annihilated by not only the opposition but also the press.

Kennedy had a problem and he knew it, the right thing to do would have been to step down from his position but he didn't, even after a "Kennedy must go" campaign was started within the Liberal Party. To blame Blackford for the demise of Charles Kennedy is completely inaccurate.

[He's here!]

I've had many a colleague who were fine chaps but useless at their job because of addiction problems. Those who came forward and accepted they had a problem were given support and relieved of duties with the promise of reinstatement pending the successful completion of a detox and rehabilitation course. Those that didn't come forward and were negligent in their duties due to their addiction were shown the door. Alcoholism is a horrible disease, but like a bus driver going blind, alcoholics who refuse to or can't control their addiction should not be allowed to continue working in some jobs and I'd include being the leader of a political party amongst them.If you're going to take the moral high ground, first ask yourself if Sturgeon or even Blackford would have been allowed the same tolerance you think Kennedy should have been shown. They would have been annihilated by not only the opposition but also the press.Kennedy had a problem and he knew it, the right thing to do would have been to step down from his position but he didn't, even after a "Kennedy must go" campaign was started within the Liberal Party. To blame Blackford for the demise of Charles Kennedy is completely inaccurate.Charles Kennedy's demise was of his own making over many years. Nobody is denying that. Personalising the contest by the nature of the attacks on a man who was by that stage no longer coping both physically and mentally was unpleasant and unnecessary.

[Stairway 2 7]

I've had many a colleague who were fine chaps but useless at their job because of addiction problems. Those who came forward and accepted they had a problem were given support and relieved of duties with the promise of reinstatement pending the successful completion of a detox and rehabilitation course. Those that didn't come forward and were negligent in their duties due to their addiction were shown the door.

Alcoholism is a horrible disease, but like a bus driver going blind, alcoholics who refuse to or can't control their addiction should not be allowed to continue working in some jobs and I'd include being the leader of a political party amongst them.

If you're going to take the moral high ground, first ask yourself if Sturgeon or even Blackford would have been allowed the same tolerance you think Kennedy should have been shown. They would have been annihilated by not only the opposition but also the press.

Kennedy had a problem and he knew it, the right thing to do would have been to step down from his position but he didn't, even after a "Kennedy must go" campaign was started within the Liberal Party. To blame Blackford for the demise of Charles Kennedy is completely inaccurate.
Eh I've never seen anyone blame Blackford for Kennedys demise. His disease is what killed him. This is about using an illness to score points. SNP staff calling him a useless drunk. They also knew what they were doing with the why bottle it campaign. I was taught play the ball no the man.

Saying sturgeon would have got it worse doesn't excuse the campaign against Kennedy. Whilst sturgeon is being mentioned I think she would never have ran a similar campaign personally

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/aslef-scotrail-drivers-accept-new-pay-deal-for-2023-24-to-avoid-repeat-of-last-years-strikes
Govt getting on with the job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/aslef-scotrail-drivers-accept-new-pay-deal-for-2023-24-to-avoid-repeat-of-last-years-strikes
Govt getting on with the job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good stuff I think the English drivers are restarting strikes on Saturdays, incase anyone is thinking of staying a couple of nights in Birmingham on the 31st 😉

[J-C]

Your right state although it had exam entry and fees, although that stopped in the 70s so he might have missed some of it.It was a grammar all boys school in Barnton in 1970, I had sat the 11plus an had a choice of 3 schools, knocking back Royal High and picking Trinity.

[He's here!]

Small point, but council school :wink:As is Thurso High, where Kennedy went to school.

[He's here!]

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23722937.ian-blackford-says-coup-led-snp-westminster-leader-exit/

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23722937.ian-blackford-says-coup-led-snp-westminster-leader-exit/

Hardly news but I don’t think anyone in the SNP is unhappy with the job Flynn is doing. He’s ambitious and I don’t see him letting people get in his way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/junior-doctor-union-hcsa-scotland-accepts-scottish-government-pay-deal

Getting the job done again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23724927.real-reason-snp-darent-ditch-scottish-greens/

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23724927.real-reason-snp-darent-ditch-scottish-greens/

I’m really shocked to find out that the SNP- Green deal is all about being able to have a stable govt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

I’m really shocked to find out that the SNP- Green deal is all about being able to have a stable govt?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI think He's Here is coming around!... keeps posting stuff that shows where the Scottish Government is better than Westminster


:greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/holyrood-sources/id1673972192?i=1000624566977

Humza Yousaf is on today’s Holyrood Sources podcast for anyone interested in what he actually says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230816/819b9ed880d7ebc296ff58f00f7f228d.jpg

SNP/Green coalition on target to remain in power. Still 3 years till polling day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McSwanky]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230816/819b9ed880d7ebc296ff58f00f7f228d.jpgSNP/Green coalition on target to remain in power. Still 3 years till polling day. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThings you love to see: The Tories losing half their seats at Holyrood.

[Kato]

Things you love to see: The Tories losing half their seats at Holyrood.Must be getting down to the staunch rump with that share of the vote.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1691835120213213680?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

BMA accept SG pay deal. Scotland remains only place in UK where the NHS isn’t affected by strikes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

BMA accept SG pay deal. Scotland remains only place in UK where the NHS isn’t affected by strikes.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLikely Civil Servants will be the same but will remain 30-40% worse off than 2008 in terms of RPI. It amazes me that workers have stood and watched the transfer of wealth and assets from state to the rich but we are a pretty feeble group of islanders when it comes to standing up to our masters.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/humzayousaf/status/1692094654907380108?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Well said. Some brass neck on Labour these days.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66532163

Disappointing news so early in the new school year but as I've mentioned before the staff involved are chronically underpaid for what they do. Unsung heroes in many ways.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66532163

Disappointing news so early in the new school year but as I've mentioned before the staff involved are chronically underpaid for what they do. Unsung heroes in many ways.

Wrong thread surely?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Wrong thread surely?Everything is the fault of the SNP.

[superfurryhibby]

Anyone charged yet?

[He's here!]

Wrong thread surely?Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkHow so? As the article says, SG will likely have to step in.

[He's here!]

Everything is the fault of the SNP.Or never their fault if you believe their more unquestioning devotees.

[Ozyhibby]

How so? As the article says, SG will likely have to step in.

Desperate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Desperate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How so? As James McIvor points out, Yousaf will be keen to avoid a second council strike in year. Or is it because he's a BBC reporter that this is 'desperate'?

Another SG headache looming here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-66540270

[Ozyhibby]

How so? As James McIvor points out, Yousaf will be keen to avoid a second council strike in year. Or is it because he's a BBC reporter that this is 'desperate'?

Another SG headache looming here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-66540270

Your attempts to make council strikes an SG problem. They are for the councils to sort out themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

Your attempts to make council strikes an SG problem. They are for the councils to sort out themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The SG provide the majority of funding for councils but chose to give the cash to the doctors leaving nothing to allow councils a bit of slack for negotiation with their employees.

Giving the doctors 14.5% raises expectations of all public sector workers to get similar treatment..

The buck stops with the SG.

[Ozyhibby]

The SG provide the majority of funding for councils but chose to give the cash to the doctors leaving nothing to allow councils a bit of slack for negotiation with their employees.

Giving the doctors 14.5% raises expectations of all public sector workers to get similar treatment..

The buck stops with the SG.

Unionists have come a long way from clapping on their doorsteps on a Thursday night.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

Unionists have come a long way from clapping on their doorsteps on a Thursday night.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe if the SG spent their budget on things they responsible for, and dropped their kiddy-on foreign embassy’s and foreign aid funds etc there would be a bit more money in the pot for other public sector workers.
But these are the choices our SG have made

[Ozyhibby]

Maybe if the SG spent their budget on things they responsible for, and dropped their kiddy-on foreign embassy’s and foreign aid funds etc there would be a bit more money in the pot for other public sector workers.
But these are the choices our SG have made

These are council workers. It’s up to the individual councils to come to an agreement. Are you suggesting the SG takes control of these council’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Maybe if the SG spent their budget on things they responsible for, and dropped their kiddy-on foreign embassy’s and foreign aid funds etc there would be a bit more money in the pot for other public sector workers.
But these are the choices our SG have made

What kiddy-on foreign embassies are we talking about?

[He's here!]

These are council workers. It’s up to the individual councils to come to an agreement. Are you suggesting the SG takes control of these council’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Centralisation of council spending by the SG was a constant gripe during Sturgeon's tenure.

[Ozyhibby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hiber-nation]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ozy's speechless.

[grunt]

Centralisation of council spending by the SG was a constant gripe during Sturgeon's tenure.How does this work?

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/alex-salmond-warns-snp-faces-electoral-disaster-without-scottish-independence-pact

I almost feel sorry for Salmond now. To see a once great politician reduced to this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

Unless he takes averting action there are likely to be no less than five pro-independence candidates in Rutherglen.

“The danger is handing the seat to Labour on a platter. There is no surer way of inviting a major reverse in this first significant test of Humza Yousaf’s leadership.”

Seems a fair observation to me?

[Ozyhibby]

Unless he takes averting action there are likely to be no less than five pro-independence candidates in Rutherglen.

“The danger is handing the seat to Labour on a platter. There is no surer way of inviting a major reverse in this first significant test of Humza Yousaf’s leadership.”

Seems a fair observation to me?

Says man who starts political party to split the Indy vote. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

SNPs famous accounts out and not good. £800,000 deficit, Murrell owed 60k, caravan bought for 110k now worth 60k whoever sanctioned that needs bombed.

Not fatal by any means but a huge decline in membership numbers and donations in the last 18 months. The answer why needs found and remedied, especially as a big election year next year that will need funding

https://archive.ph/wazMd

The Indy fighting fund is a big omission though

The SNP has removed any mention of the referendum appeal at the centre of a long-running police investigation from its annual accounts.
In the financial review of the 2021 accounts, then party treasurer Colin Beattie said £740,822 had been raised in donations for Indyref2 from 2017 to by end of 2021.
He said that £235,335 had been spent and the balance of £505,487 remained “earmarked” for independence related campaigning.
However the party’s new accounts, for the year to 31 December 2022, make no reference to the appeal.
The £500,000 “earmarked” for Indyref2 is not identified and the decline in the party’s finances suggest that, even if the money was found in future, it is not instantly available.

The SNP’s accumulated reserves fell from £584,649 at the end of 2021 to minus £219,629 at the end of 2022, the first time they have fallen into the red since 2017.
Cash at the bank and in hand fell from £144,975 to £46,039.
The accounts show the party recorded its first back-to-back deficits since 2013 and 204, going £732,072 into the red in 2021 and £804,278 into the red in 2022.

https://archive.ph/LHMB5

[Ozyhibby]

SNPs famous accounts out and not good. £800,000 deficit, Murrell owed 60k, caravan bought for 110k now worth 60k whoever sanctioned that needs bombed.

Not fatal by any means but a huge decline in membership numbers and donations in the last 18 months. The answer why needs found and remedied, especially as a big election year next year that will need funding

https://archive.ph/wazMd

The Indy fighting fund is a big omission though

The SNP has removed any mention of the referendum appeal at the centre of a long-running police investigation from its annual accounts.
In the financial review of the 2021 accounts, then party treasurer Colin Beattie said £740,822 had been raised in donations for Indyref2 from 2017 to by end of 2021.
He said that £235,335 had been spent and the balance of £505,487 remained “earmarked” for independence related campaigning.
However the party’s new accounts, for the year to 31 December 2022, make no reference to the appeal.
The £500,000 “earmarked” for Indyref2 is not identified and the decline in the party’s finances suggest that, even if the money was found in future, it is not instantly available.

The SNP’s accumulated reserves fell from £584,649 at the end of 2021 to minus £219,629 at the end of 2022, the first time they have fallen into the red since 2017.
Cash at the bank and in hand fell from £144,975 to £46,039.
The accounts show the party recorded its first back-to-back deficits since 2013 and 204, going £732,072 into the red in 2021 and £804,278 into the red in 2022.

https://archive.ph/LHMB5

Aren’t they election year accounts which usually show a deficit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Aren’t they election year accounts which usually show a deficit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wasn't a parliamentary election year, that's where you usually have the large deficit.