https://www.theguardian.com/politics...085ce7d2baf24e
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...56025be96e.jpg
SNP delivering for Scotland.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...085ce7d2baf24e
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...56025be96e.jpg
SNP delivering for Scotland.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like the way Swinney is going and I was very sceptical. I genuinely don't care now they proceed I just want independence and I think that has become more focused than previous yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I was sceptical as well to be honest but the focus on the economy and quietly getting things done has impressed me. Also letting Forbes and McKee lead with business has helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Scotland economy growing faster than rest of UK (low bar, I know).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Forbes was an obvious but needed choice. Division helps the union. Just actually so much nonsense argued about piffle when independence sorts most of said complaintsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It's not gone away as the Sandy Peggy case shows, and the Scottish Government are in the supreme court arguing over what a woman is and we have yet to see the outcome of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I am not sure how the focus is more on Indy than previous years when Sturgeon called a date for another referendum (October 2023) took it all the way to the Supreme Court and then declared a de facto referendum as well. If anything Swinney has rowed back a bit. Unless you mean he thinks a period of good governance and good policies is the way to go to win people over, in which case fair enough as he is boring but competent but that's probably what was needed after the latter years of Sturgeon and Humza who never really did anything of note.
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
I am getting increasingly pissed off by independence crusaders online who say they will never vote for the SNP. Some have even said over my dead body.
It’s a nonsense. You might not agree with them, you might not agree with their strategy for independence, you might hold a personal grudge but surely to good if your an independence supporter and wholeheartedly want independence, there is no other option that SNP for your constituency vote in 2026?
No other independence party has a chance in the constituency vote. If you vote for Alba or any other party, your are letting Labour or the tories in.
Equally in the list vote, if you vote for any of the three main independentlce parties you are splitting the yes vote.
Everyone independence needs to get together and agree a strategy to gain an independence majority which isn’t reliant on the greens.
SNP - 1
Alba/Libertaion etc - 2
If people think that another party is going to come to the fore and displace the SNP by 2026 they are either nutters or unionists.
Apologies for the rant but it’s driving me mad and I can’t answer fully within so many characters on x.
Nothing to apologise for. Ranting is fine, longform or shortform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
I’ve never seen an Alba representative do anything other than attack the SNP. Why would an SNP supporter ever give them their list vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because a lot of them, past and present are now understanding the voting system and how their votes in the past for SNP 1 and 2 were letting Westminster parties in. Labour were gaining seats on 24k votes when SNP were getting 0 on 135k votes. I think I'd rather have Scottish parties in Holyrood rather than Westminster parties, that sort of defeats the purpose of devolution doesn't it? I can't actually believe the number of Indy supporters who vote SNP that didn't understand the D'hondt system and voted 1 and 2, they simply thought SNP would steamroller the list seats with their big numbers when nothing could be further from the truth. Tories or Alba/ ISP/ Greens/I4I, Reform or Alba etc or Labour or Alba etc, I know what my choice will be if only just to send a message to Swinney and Westminster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’m not saying there is not a way to work the system, I’m saying you don’t do it by insulting the people you want to vote for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've got bigger gripes than insulting a few Tories or Reformers to be bothered about as have you, I watched data analyst Stuart Donald last night on a podcast about the "Union Dividend". He went into figures on male mortality, did you know that out of all our peers i.e. rest of the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Western Europe basically, Scotland has had the highest mortality rates of all, not since the SNP took over or Blair/Brown or Maggie Thatcher, figures can be shown dating back to 1890 although figures are sparse. From WW11 more detailed figures show Scotland with the highest levels of mortality in males apart from a brief period where Finland knocked us into second place, they identified the problems and rectified them because they can. Things need to change and sitting around waiting for Westminster to give us the nod is not going to cut it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjM2gixpTVA
The SNP especially and maybe the other independence parties I think need to take the position that they merely exist as a vessel to gain independence so in the context above it shouldn’t matter whether you vote SNP or alba, you are merely voting for an outcome.
Of course the SNP are the biggest party and have governed for years so they are best placed to continue as the biggest party and the vote in the main vote.
I’m amazed how many people don’t vote for independence because they don’t like the SNP, some believe they’ll be stuck with the SNP forever.
One of the benefits of Labour, Tories and Lib Dem’s is that the unionist vote is spot between the three. We’re now getting into a world where the Yes vote is split between 2-3 parties.
Of the politicians cared about independence then surely they can put any differences aside until after 2026.
Decent speech yesterday from John Swinney, the questions at the end are maybe more telling than the actual speech itself. I've no doubt there'll be an outcry about the lack of an Independence strategy but either inadvertently or on purpose he does a great job of identifying the flaws of being in the current Union.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2kmbk7hIaE
Scottish government just lost their gender case at the Supreme Court regarding a definition of a woman
Common sense prevails it seems and the women win the argument (a normal occurrence in my house)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
This is not the end but perhaps the beginning of the end of this gender ideology that seemed to capture many, including the Scottish Public Sector. NHS Fife for example will need to review their policies around this as we have seen. And maybe people aren't transphobic after all for just sticking up for their legal rights.
Hopefully the end of this whole discussion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If only!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Worth quoting what the judge also said -Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
“the ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another
Transgender people still have legal protection from discrimination”.
I agree, it’s been used as a side tracking blunt instrument for too long. Time for the SNP to get back to its single issue and secure Independence.
J
Unlikely, it moves back into the political arena now it's been sorted by the law. All the public bodies in Scotland will need to drop their self ID policies and rewrite their policies regarding women and spaces. Expect more fall out from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
They will need to write policies that comply with the law. The SNP will encourage them to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where does this judgement leave men and women who have gone through reassignment, and have been living in their preferred identity for many years?
Asking for more than a few people.
In limbo I would imagine. It’s a court decision based on the law, not an act of parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
A parliament will have to debate what it wants to do now but I suspect it won’t be the Scottish one. The SNP leadership now won’t go there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AIUI, trans people are still protected under the EA. Does that mean there will be 4 genders? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
My concern is that the judgement will be used as an excuse to encourage the nutters who see trans people as fair game.
Suspect everywhere will need to build more facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So basically you cannot change your sex but you can change your physical identity and live as that sex under law. It really hasn't helped things as we still have many trans genders now living in a limbo state unsure of where they fit in.
No. Trans-women are biological men and trans-men are biological women. They are minorities who’s rights, like all minorities, will hopefully be protected by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Today's ruling is the opposite of 2 previous rulings by the ECHR. I think if we were still in the EU then we wouldn't be where we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As you say, trans people are now in the unenviable position of not knowing where they are welcome. Which public toilets they are allowed to use, which changing room is available to them? For the 0.1% of the population that they make up they most definitely are left in limbo.
The UK is still bound by the ECHR. It's not an EU thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
So we have two courts giving opposing rulings!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It feels like not so much the end of the matter but rather a judgement that leaves as many questions as answers and opens up a whole new political arena.
I've always personally felt that the simplest way to define sex (rather than gender) is in a biological sense. But it's not a simple argument no matter how much people on both sides of the debate wish to make it so. It's always felt as though there isn't a solution that protects every single right of every single person and I'm not convinced this judgement does that but I can see how and why it was reached.
Some of the rhetoric on social media is horrible and whilst in my heart I think I agree with the judgement in the broadest sense, I do feel heart sorry for trans people who will feel exceptionally vulnerable right now. They don't need people crowing 'see I told you you were a ****ing man all along'. It's perfectly possible to argue a point, even argue something is 'common sense' without resorting to out and out nastiness and bullying.
I get that. I was probably meaning more in the minds of some people (eg the bigots and nutters,as well as those who simply don't know or understand) who might use the judgement to further marginalise trans people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
Does this judgement have an effect on the passports of trans people? Previously, with or without a GRC, they could use their acquired gender.
Quite a few transvstites in Blackpool, but although i dont know the numbers, it does seem to me that there is an awful lot of outrage for a very small number of people?
Exactly. Manufactured, amplified outrage is a theme running through all modern right wing parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Maybe 6?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Man, Trans Man with a GRC, Trans Man without a GRC, Woman, Trans Woman with a GRC, Trans Woman without a GRC.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...8124147002.png
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And the universal booze on train ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Well done the Scottish green party 😁
They should be selling it on the train to keep ticket prices down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Everyone loves things to be cheaper but Transport Scotland said the pilot never achieved it's aims and had limited success when they scrapped peak rail fares not that long ago. Wonder what changed.
An improvement in govt finances according to Swinney.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
The pilot was severely hindered by constant strikes and reduced timetables to be fair
Nice that peak fares are gone, gives me a more balanced choice now as to whether I go for the train or bus. The train is quicker, and now about the same price... but would probably require buying a second car. :greengrin
It's a shame singles aren't cheaper. I'd be tempted to bus in and train home (train would require a 2 mile walk) in the summer. But by the time you do that it's just the most expensive way to travel.
£6 single and £6.90 return. :dunno:
Bus is the opposite, £3.20 singles but a return (well, day ticket) is £8.50.
Bus tickets can be weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
When my daughter moved to Rosyth I was surprised to learn a return was cheaper than a single. Now I see the price is £9.80 single or £7.00 return.
I've also noted the drivers are a bit selective about who they tell of the weirdness if the punters ask for a single!
The train will become cheaper than the bus (and technically the tram) where I live for getting into the city centre during peak hours. £2.20 single for the bus (and technically the tram). £3.80 return from South Gyle to Waverley.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
I say technically the tram because they technically have the same fares as the bus but if you use the ET app you can get 10 tram only day tickets for £35. £3.50 vs £3.80 brings it more to a choice of convenience. The train station is slightly closer to my house and is quicker but they are way less frequent.
A long overdue step tbh - our rail fares are exorbitant compared to our European neighbours. Oh for a system like France or Germany where a small monthly fee yields unlimited travel on certain routes/train types - perhaps that can become an aspirational policy...
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...08bf738385.jpg
SNP vote holding up well according to today’s poll.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I watched Scot cast I think it’s called on BBC scotland, both pundits thought reform would be 8-10 seats max. Hope they don’t get 21, mind you if they continue to poll high for the next 12 months it may focus some independence minded folks to work together on a strategyQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The SNP are pretty united on Indy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't get these polls :- If Reform are doing that well then Labour and Tory are being hit and Reform are splitting their vote. SNP should benefit from that but the polls aren't showing this, especially if Reform are fielding candidates in the constituency seats. Borders for example, unless all Tory voters have switched to Reform in some clinically planned strategy then the Tory vote will be split and SNP will take seats. Ballot Box Scotland have SNP on 59 and Reform on 12 - 14 using the average of all major pollsters including Survation but not this latest poll. In all polling SNP take at best 1 seat from the list vote, that's over 1m votes for only 1 seat at best. At the risk of sounding like a broken record the choice is vote SNP 1 and 2 and get similar to above quoted poll or vote SNP 1 and put politics to one side along with how the media portray them and vote Alba 2. There I've said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Alba hate the SNP so why would I vote for them? All I ever see them do is attack the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The independence movement isn’t United. SNP 1 & 2 doesn’t give the best outcome for independence. I haven’t even heard john swinney talk about independence lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I guess it’s up to Alba to make themselves attractive to SNP supporters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
The SNP can’t promote another party. It’s up to other parties to convince SNP supporters to vote for them on the regional list. I’m no expert but attacking the SNP all the time is probably not the best way to go about this?[emoji2369]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If true why would that matter although Kenny MacAskill has stated publicly the fighting has to stop? I'm pretty sure Russell Findlay and his mob hate the SNP, Sarwars Labour certainly does and Alex Cole Hamilton doesn't even think Scotland is a country. The point is the SNP, Alba and all their members have Scotlands interests at heart, they are not hamstrung to Westminster parties. Imagine that poll above coming to fruition, 21 Reform nutters in Holyrood, it'll be absolutely toxic and what happens if Farage gets in in 29?. It's time to try something new. SNP 1 Alba 2 wipes out Reform it's really that simple and could give the added benefit of a 2/3rds majority in Parliament which has options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I aint fighting for the Alba cause, my views on them are probably the same as yours but if you look into them a bit more closely and put the rhetoric to one side their policies are fairly similar to the SNPs. Did you see Sarwar or Findlay on TV fighting over the Grangemouth closure, I know I watched MacAskill frequently, Neil Hanvey or some immigrant hating, devolution scrapping political opportunist that's the choice.
Pretty much where I am. Would never habe considered voting Alba but if every independence supporter votes alba, it increases the pro independence majority and keeps reform out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
SNP 1 & 2 is a waste of the second vote.
Personally I’d vote any party in the list vote that furthers independence. There should be a consensus on which party stands in which area to maximise the list vote
I know this is pigs may fly territory but IF John Swinney came out and announced SNP were not fielding candidates in some of the list seats that he knows for sure they have no chance of winning then that will motivate Indy voters to vote in the constituency vote for SNP. IF it was marketed correctly and taken up by the MSM then that could see a majority won in the constituency votes alone especially if Reform contest constituency seats. Swinney attending the Indy Summit suggested by MacAskill for all Indy parties would be a great start also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He spoke about it yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
Quote:
“That will be my pitch to people in Scotland: if they want to have guaranteed progress on the future of Scotland and for Scotland to become an independent country it is not going to come about by any other means than the SNP doing really well.”
SNP 1 and green 2 is a better option as the greens have a base support which alba don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
Well this sounds like a good idea until you realise the Scottish Greens are all idiots and lunatics. (The other UK based Greens I don't have a problem with).Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I wish there was a plain boring independent focused choice for second vote. I can't believe Alba went with a divisive figure like Salmond and then Rogen.
That's where I was and then the greens dragged the SNP down a hole it should have never been in. A whiff of power and they were worse in coalition than the Libdems ever were whenever they jumped into the most convenient bed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Greens need new leadership before they can be trusted again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Greens need to make green policy first and foremost, they've alienated a large part of the electorate by putting minority interests at the heart of their politics. There is definitely place for minority politics, but it shouldn't be the flagship of a party that should be fighting for the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Can’t help feel the greens have so many seats because they support independence. If there was a credible second independence party, I’d imagine the greens would drop drastically
It's the English Greens I know, but another wacky idea from those Green people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
https://bylinetimes.com/2025/05/08/g...ause-of-trump/
Green Party Deputy Leader Zack Polanski Says UK Must Leave NATO Because of Trump
I personally think they'd disappear like snow off a dyke!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
:agree:
Who could have ever predicted a party with Harvie, Slater and Greer would push policies far removed from what ordinary people wanted? 😂
This is a journalist quote from 2021, he was bang on wasn't he?
"...an SNP-Green pact would be closer to a nightmare. It would see a party already too unmoored from the priorities of ordinary people drift further away with the help of a party openly uninterested in those priorities"
John Swinney looks like he is moving away from that but it's a bit of history rewriting to suggest the Greens were an unknown quantity and therefore a shock when they starting pushing policies like self ID. The SNP were not bullied into it, it was widely embraced at the time. (By all parties bar the Tories)
Presumably you were too embarassed to actually identify Stephen Daisley as the "journalist" in your above quote. The man is beneath contempt, and anyone who thinks he has something interesting to say on any topic is delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
I think it’s fair to say the SNP took a bit of a wrong turn at the end of Sturgeon and with Yousaf. Swinney and Forbes have us back on track again and focusing on bread and butter issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Was he wrong? And no not embarrassed but there is a tendency to immediately ignore something when it's in newspaper X or Y or written by X etc. You prove my point in this case, thanks. In this case though he was 100% correct and spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Swinney was on the TV last night saying something along the lines of his job was to improve the standard of living of people in Scotland and put more money into people's pockets etc. Unfortunately I quite like him, he is a bit boring but certainly competent and seems to understand what the priorities are (which is not self ID etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
I actually said to my missus that john swin̈ney is the equivalent of john major, a grey politician who won't offend anyone. I think you've just confirmed it. 🤣
He is also my msp and I've met him a few times.
Although not a fan of most of Majors policy, he is a world away from the basket cases of disgraceful Tory leaders we've had in recent years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I like Swinney and some years of little offence will be a disaster for the No campaigners
I wasn’t keen on Swinney and wanted to go straight to Forbes but he has done a decent job and has let her focus on business and the economy. Happy to say it’s working well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I'd agree with all the points about John Swinney but, I know, I know, if things remain the same then it's going to be a low turnout election. SNP will be the largest party but in the main it's SNP voters who stay home. There's probably going to be a cabinet reshuffle so there's that but slow and steady is not getting people motivated. I'm reserving judgement until Farage comes out with his battle plan because I have an inkling that's what Swinney is waiting for or indeed will be forced into counteracting. I just wish he'd do something radical like nationalise or at least start an energy generating company or start charging ground rent for all these new cables being laid, just something designed to really help the population that will ultimately be shot down by the UKG.
John Swinney is a 3 wood off the 1st tee at St Andrews, when all the day trippers are watching, but what you really need is your driver!
That’s a bit generous, he’s more like a safe 5 ironQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Ah, you've "enjoyed" that situation also! :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
I ignored the day trippers and ended up firing off an extremely turbo charged putt with the driver, oh how I wish I'd used my 3! [emoji1787]
Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
Must have been a quality night oot the night before if you were putting off the first tee with the driver [emoji1787][emoji2957]Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Sorry if this is not allowed (and I’ll take a ban for this) but I’m a key member of Republic Edinburgh and we are holding a rally for a republic tomorrow 2pm Calton Hill. Down with the Crown
The extremity of the SNP alcohol laws is ludicrous. Bought a pack of Corona since we were having a BBQ yesterday. Not my normal beer of choice (and probably paid a few quid extra for the privilege of buying it in Scotland). Box included a QR code to scan to potentially win a trip to Mexico. Never normally enter these things but thought (after a few of aforementioned Corona) **** it and scanned it. Unavailable “due to licensing laws in Scotland”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overdrive
How did it go?
What’s a key member?
All 4 of them had a fab time 🤣🤣🤣Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
It went well. Not a massive turnout but generally well received by passers by. Some very strange reporting of it in the Herald who had a columnist who made out he was there. Yet he plainly wasn’t and was making stuff up about what happened at the event, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdkctfWr/
The only party making the positive adult case for more immigration.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The SNP position is that they don't support the public finance of munitions, so how would you arm the armed forces with anything useful? This was on the TV this morning.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/not-provid...101348707.html
Do they expect the Army to fight with water bombs and potato guns?
Ireland doesn’t have much of an army?Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
I don’t think an independent scotland would need much either. We are known around the world for being friendly.
Would only need one of England tried to colonise us again
It's pathetic that a rich nation like Ireland doesn't do enough to help world freedom. If the UK, France, Norway and Germany etc took the same attitude then Muslims in Bosnia would have been obliterated and Ukraine would be Russian. I admit I was probably quite nieve and pacifist pre Ukraine but things have changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
Mad men like Putin and Trump would take any week country they could and Scotland shouldn't go begging to other countries to protect them.
I'm certain that won't happen and we'll get an agreement with RUK post independence and pay our way in NATO
Never really answered my question though, how do you arm an army when you are against public funds for munitions? Well you can't and it's a stupid position to take, rightly described as student politics. It's a long standing position apparently, the problem with long standing positions is they become out of date and not in line with the modern world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
Ireland still has an army though and I am sure they don't arm them with toy guns and bullets.
As for the comment about the English invading Scotland I am guessing it was a joke? All the colonist chat really doesn't help Indy but that's just my opinion, it's not what the people in the street feel and that's probably why it's a view held by the likes of the more extreme Indy parties that attract the Tommy Sheridans and Craig Murrays and rejected by the mainstream Indy parties. Imagine knocking on doors and asking people how they feel about their colonist status etc...they would look at you a bit oddly I am guessing and want to talk about the NHS, Education and jobs etc.
Irelands position has been evolving over recent years. And as far as they are concerned part of their country is still under occupation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Without any doubt scotland meets the definition kfQuote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Colonisation. Robert Black who is the probably the highest authority in Scots law also agrees and he’s the professor emiratus at Edinburgh Uni. He’s hardly a nutcase?
You might not like to think of it in such a way but that can be argued that’s what colonisation does to people.
Read Robert Blacks opinion on the issue and see if you still think that the act of union was a voluntary arrangement.
As for your point regarding, why would scotland need an army if independent? Does Switzerland have a massive army?
Scotland would need a minimal army for various things but in no way woild we need anything like the British army.
It doesn't really matter if there is one single soldier in the army of an Independent Scotland or not, as per SNP policy they wouldn't be armed so not much of an army? It's a stupid outdated policy isn't it? And it's the SNP policy to have an Army and a Navy etc so they would be pretty useless without any guns and ammunition. It's ok to say it's a stupid policy....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
As for the colony stuff then I will disagree and think it's for the birds. It's not something I believe the people of Scotland are thinking about and as I say if you knocked on doors and asked people how they feel about their colonial status and being suppressed etc they would look at you a bit oddly, just my view.
Just for fun I googled the definition of a colony.
"A colony, in its simplest form, is a settlement of people from one country (the "mother country") who establish a new home in another territory, often under the political control of the mother country. Essentially, it's a place where a group of people from one area build a new home in a different area and are still connected to their original country."
I don't believe Scotland is anything like what is described above.
You seem to have created an argument on what the SNP policy is based on the words of your Labour colleagues rather than listening to what the SNP say?Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
The 2024 SNP White Paper on independence says on the subject of defence:
Quote:
An independent Scotland would invest in the core capabilities of its armed forces.
The defence and security of the nation, its people and resources are the first duty of every government. How we protect our people, territory, critical national infrastructure and way of life from threats will be a key question for a newly independent nation.
If you read beyond the first line you'll discover the third definition of a colony:Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Quote:
A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Are you actually trying to spin that SNP policy is not to arm an army after Independence? The policy is not to invest public money in arms manufacturers which is completely different. That's not even factoring in that I highly doubt the SNP would be in power after Independence or policies like that would even be the remit of Government rather than a direct democracy model where the electorate would decide.
As for the colony argument, it's pretty easy to pluck something that suits your own narrative from Google, another example from the Cambridge Dictionary....colony.....a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country. The fact is in 1707 a number of Scottish MP's moved down to Westminster, the Scottish Parliament was distinguished, they took their seats in Westminster which was obviously the English Parliament and the English Parliament carried on as if nothing had happened, the bill previously being discussed before the day of union was bill 634, the bill being discussed on the day of Union was bill 635, same speaker as the previous day and same English MP's. England effectively changed its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and carried on as normal. In my book that's taking control of another country, you can call it colonisation, a hostile takeover or just a takeover but what it's not is a Union or an equal partnership and it's now becoming increasingly clear it's not a voluntary union either.
If you guys think the colonist argument is the winning one please crack on.