Tories are lying *******s (warning may contain traces of Tory)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

I'm not sure how old you are but there was a period through the late-eighties to the early and mid-nineties where the Tories declined massively in support in Scotland culminating in them having no seats after the 1997 election.

At that time you could understand that there were people who would back extremist and racist groups like NF or the BNP, there will always be people like that. But understanding why people would vote Conservative was near on impossible. It was a failing administration that had inflicted policies that had no traction whatsoever and encouraged civil protest.

Tories were toxic for a long, long time. Davidson, and in fairness Goldie, have brought them back into the game. It's foolish not to pretend that isn't so.

I was going to leave it there but as a further gambit - this isn't a partisan point - I suspect the Scottish electorate is innately 'conservative', note the small 'c'.

Who has the most appeal?

---

Never been a Tory fan however, I have a lot of respect for Annabel Goldie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Bloodless ghouls? The article is so full of petty and rather childish descriptions of ‘Tories’ that it’s almost impossible to take any of the rest of it seriously.

I’m sure there is plenty of examination the National could do on Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives policies but it should really try and do so without littering it’s articles with tawdry insults and name calling...they never know it might help the reader to think that the article was at least half based on an objective view.

---

Any opinion on Ruth Davidson then?

A serious player 😂😂😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy

I was told fairly recently by someone who used to work for the SNP that they, and many others within the party, see the National as extreme, and representing the loony wing of the pro-Indy movement too much.

It's almost as if it has become a mirror image of the very pro-union rags these people railed against, like the Mail.

It's a shame, because a serious, pro-indy daily would have been no bad thing.

---

"These people"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy

I was told fairly recently by someone who used to work for the SNP that they, and many others within the party, see the National as extreme, and representing the loony wing of the pro-Indy movement too much.

It's almost as if it has become a mirror image of the very pro-union rags these people railed against, like the Mail.

It's a shame, because a serious, pro-indy daily would have been no bad thing.

---

"These people"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

"These people"?

---

The loony lefties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Any opinion on Ruth Davidson then?

---

Aye, a bit of a blaw bag that’s reasonably good at campaigning, has her party under control and has fashioned a half decent reputation in political circles as well as knowing how to resonate with a good chunk of the electorate.

As for her policies, they seem a bit of a hotch potch, some I’m mildly supportive of, others not so but then I struggle with all main parties policies so that’s probably my feelings to most of them (apart from Corbyn and McDonald where I’m probably pretty far removed from their main direction of travel)

What I can do though is look at a parties policies and at least try to make an objective assessment of them without immediately resorting to name calling and desperately trying to paint any member of the party as ‘loonies’ or ‘dinosaurs’ or ‘ghouls’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Aye, a bit of a blaw bag that’s reasonably good at campaigning, has her party under control and has fashioned a half decent reputation in political circles as well as knowing how to resonate with a good chunk of the electorate.

As for her policies, they seem a bit of a hotch potch, some I’m mildly supportive of, others not so but then I struggle with all main parties policies so that’s probably my feelings to most of them (apart from Corbyn and McDonald where I’m probably pretty far removed from their main direction of travel)

What I can do though is look at a parties policies and at least try to make an objective assessment of them without immediately resorting to name calling and desperately trying to paint any member of the party as ‘loonies’ or ‘dinosaurs’ or ‘ghouls’

---

Fair play. I don't think the article was over the top with regards to name calling, but I'm not particularly objective when it comes to Ruth Davidson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Fair play. I don't think the article was over the top with regards to name calling, but I'm not particularly objective when it comes to Ruth Davidson.

---

Ha ha fair enough...the article was probably written for you then! It even calls her a ‘shameless charlatan’ in the headline so starts off by calling her names right at the start, it then continues to be rather derogatory to her and the members of her party throughout.

As I said such articles are not gonna be taken with any weight by people not already on board with such things, which while probably right up your street, doesn’t to me at least, do much to further the conversation or indeed persuade me that the side calling the other one names is any more likely to be trusted or believed than the target of the article.

My Dad buys The National and there was a letter in it the last week that said the newspaper was bumming up to the extreme indy supporters. I know a few Scottish nationalists who still buy The Herald, even though it's a Unionist paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Any opinion on Ruth Davidson then?

---

She's taking a lot on herself. When she gets down to Westminster (which she will have to do) she'll get blown out of the water by the mysterious types around there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Any opinion on Ruth Davidson then?

---

Good at the media/pr bit, as you’d expect from a former news tv person. Has capitalised on the single issue anti-indy platform to make the tories somewhat relevant.

I’m far from convinced there’s any substance to her beyond that though. Her policy positions have flip flopped all over the place. Starting from the “line in the sand” that got washed over in minutes.

On the subject of Ruth Davidson.
I see there's a new book out where it is claiming she was "****ing furious" regarding the No campaigners release of "The Vow".
This screams of the wee boy that shouts "It wisny me, honest. A big boy did it an ran away."
What a pathetic attempt to wriggle her out of the biggest lie of the whole Indy1 campaign - and there are a load of whoppers to choose from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

She's taking a lot on herself. When she gets down to Westminster (which she will have to do) she'll get blown out of the water by the mysterious types around there.

---

Neither of the people who look vaguely promising as future leaders are MPs. One is Ruth Davidson the other David Milliband.

We’re stuck with the current crop of disconnected dotards for a while.

(i was trying to come up with an alternative LibDem but couldn’t!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colr

Neither of the people who look vaguely promising as future leaders are MPs. One is Ruth Davidson the other David Milliband.

We’re stuck with the current crop of disconnected dotards for a while.

(i was trying to come up with an alternative LibDem but couldn’t!)

---

I dunno. Willie Rennie's a decent sort. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snooky

And to follow up my original post above....
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-whif...y/#more-103843

Try fluffing this one off, Mundell.

---

That’s scandalous. First that it happened, and second that the exact opposite of blame is being apportioned.

However, what do you expect.

Wake up Peeps!

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Ha ha fair enough...the article was probably written for you then! It even calls her a ‘shameless charlatan’ in the headline so starts off by calling her names right at the start, it then continues to be rather derogatory to her and the members of her party throughout.

As I said such articles are not gonna be taken with any weight by people not already on board with such things, which while probably right up your street, doesn’t to me at least, do much to further the conversation or indeed persuade me that the side calling the other one names is any more likely to be trusted or believed than the target of the article.

---

Here's one from Mandy Rhodes, the editor of "Holyrood" magazine (which aiui, is a fairly neutral source?)

http://www.holyrood.com/articles/com...-her-own-party

Essentially makes much the same points without the vitriol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Here's one from Mandy Rhodes, the editor of "Holyrood" magazine (which aiui, is a fairly neutral source?)

http://www.holyrood.com/articles/com...-her-own-party

Essentially makes much the same points without the vitriol.

---

Mandy Rhodes is very far from being regarded as neutral by most non SNP people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

Mandy Rhodes is very far from being regarded as neutral by most non SNP people.

---

Ah ok, I (genuinely) didn't know that. Maybe just a more polite version of the same article then. It rings pretty true to me but I'm not exactly neutral when it comes to Tories, even opportunistically centrist ones. :wink:

Tory blocks new bill to counter growing perv problem. :rolleyes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-44496427

Hmmm have I got this right

On Wednesday the government effectively talks out the debate on the repatriation of powers from EU to UK/Scotland and in the process manage to 100% stop ANY Scottish politician of whatever party having a say... because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

On Thursday, Westminster decides to break a long standing parliamentary rule because adhering to the rule would mean Scottish politicians would get their say.

And on Friday one Tory can single handedly stop a bill (upskirting law) because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

Does anyone else think Westminster might be broken?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

Hmmm have I got this right

On Wednesday the government effectively talks out the debate on the repatriation of powers from EU to UK/Scotland and in the process manage to 100% stop ANY Scottish politician of whatever party having a say... because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

On Thursday, Westminster decides to break a long standing parliamentary rule because adhering to the rule would mean Scottish politicians would get their say.

And on Friday one Tory can single handedly stop a bill (upskirting law) because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

Does anyone else think Westminster might be broken?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

---

There is a 3 hour debate on the very subject on Monday...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

There is a 3 hour debate on the very subject on Monday...

---

Do they get to vote on it though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Do they get to vote on it though?

---

Does every debate / discussion need to end with a vote?

Anyway it seems to me that instead of 15mins tacked on the end of a larger bill, there is a 3 hour session in parliament to discuss the Sewell convention and by extension the devolved matters in the EU withdrawal bill.

The SNP wanted parliamentary time to debate their primary issue and now they have it, doesn’t sound that broken to me (ignoring the staged walkouts, the unlikeable Bercow and much outrage of course 🤪)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Does every debate / discussion need to end with a vote?

Anyway it seems to me that instead of 15mins tacked on the end of a larger bill, there is a 3 hour session in parliament to discuss the Sewell convention and by extension the devolved matters in the EU withdrawal bill.

The SNP wanted parliamentary time to debate their primary issue and now they have it, doesn’t sound that broken to me (ignoring the staged walkouts, the unlikeable Bercow and much outrage of course 🤪)

---

They wanted parliamentary time to discuss and vote on the amendments last week. That's the whole point.

They've had to force an emergency debate on Monday because of the lack of time on the original bill.

All this, after they'd been told the bill would be amended on clause 11 in the commons, and the Tories didn't bother.

It's a stitch up. Good and proper, and Mundell should have considered his position. He's not batting for Scotland, that's for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

They wanted parliamentary time to discuss and vote on the amendments last week. That's the whole point.

They've had to force an emergency debate on Monday because of the lack of time on the original bill.

All this, after they'd been told the bill would be amended on clause 11 in the commons, and the Tories didn't bother.

It's a stitch up. Good and proper, and Mundell should have considered his position. He's not batting for Scotland, that's for sure.

---

You would have had your emergency debate by now, the Speaker would have granted it but instead Blackford went for a manufactured stunt with the walk-out.

Incidentally, how many SNP-tabled questions to the PM were missed as a consequence of the stunt - was it five? Chris Law, Pete Wishart et al?

They're selling their constituents short by doing that aren't they? Or is a tawdry headline better than getting answers for their constituents?

Grievo-max indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

They wanted parliamentary time to discuss and vote on the amendments last week. That's the whole point.

They've had to force an emergency debate on Monday because of the lack of time on the original bill.

All this, after they'd been told the bill would be amended on clause 11 in the commons, and the Tories didn't bother.

It's a stitch up. Good and proper, and Mundell should have considered his position. He's not batting for Scotland, that's for sure.

---

Westminster just isn’t fit for purpose. All the queing for votes etc wastes an enormous amount of time. That’s a large part of the problem. Holyrood on the other hand......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

They wanted parliamentary time to discuss and vote on the amendments last week. That's the whole point.

They've had to force an emergency debate on Monday because of the lack of time on the original bill.

All this, after they'd been told the bill would be amended on clause 11 in the commons, and the Tories didn't bother.

It's a stitch up. Good and proper, and Mundell should have considered his position. He's not batting for Scotland, that's for sure.

---

It wasn’t amended because the SNP made it clear they still wouldn’t support the clause even in its amended format which proposed that powers would be passed by default and those that were ‘frozen’ would face parliamentary oversight every 3 months on progress of finalising the U.K. wide frameworks. They then withdrew it as they knew it still wouldn’t gain the support of those against the first drafting.

The SNP position is rather typical. They want absolutely everything devolved immediately and will not countenance any compromise. So even when the other side does come to the table and offer a compromise they can still walk away claiming they still aren’t being listened to and that it’s all a power grabbing disgrace. Noting of course that they have offered no concession to try and break the deadlock themselves.

Generally I think that most situations like this (rather unprecedented and not exactly at the forefront of any legislation on power sharing when it’s was drafted) would probably entail some kind of compromise (like clarification of the relatively small number of areas effected and changing of the wording of the bill to clarify the primacy of the Scottish government).

But no...all or nothing or it’s tub thumping anti Westminster rhetoric all the way. No doubt It’s an effective route to take for their base vote but it’s also a rather nauseating approach to politics that is highly unlikely to bring about constructive and effective resolution to the matters at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

Hmmm have I got this right

On Wednesday the government effectively talks out the debate on the repatriation of powers from EU to UK/Scotland and in the process manage to 100% stop ANY Scottish politician of whatever party having a say... because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

On Thursday, Westminster decides to break a long standing parliamentary rule because adhering to the rule would mean Scottish politicians would get their say.

And on Friday one Tory can single handedly stop a bill (upskirting law) because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

Does anyone else think Westminster might be broken?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

---

He's delayed it, he hasn't necessarily blocked it.

Bit I do take your point more generally, reform is overdue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

You would have had your emergency debate by now, the Speaker would have granted it but instead Blackford went for a manufactured stunt with the walk-out.

Incidentally, how many SNP-tabled questions to the PM were missed as a consequence of the stunt - was it five? Chris Law, Pete Wishart et al?

They're selling their constituents short by doing that aren't they? Or is a tawdry headline better than getting answers for their constituents?

Grievo-max indeed.

---

It's third rate amateur dramatics dressed up as politics from a party so obsessed with its independence agenda that it would happily impoverish our people to achieve it, regardless of the consequences. The entire 'power grab' proposition is a ludicrous invention to stoke grievance. Laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

It's third rate amateur dramatics dressed up as politics from a party so obsessed with its independence agenda that it would happily impoverish our people to achieve it, regardless of the consequences. The entire 'power grab' proposition is a ludicrous invention to stoke grievance. Laughable.

---

It stokes the fires of the oppressive nature of the English that sadly the SNP rely on for a number of votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

It stokes the fires of the oppressive nature of the English that sadly the SNP rely on for a number of votes.

---

I'm quite sure any issues the SNP have are not with the "English" but with the government in Westminster - which includes Fluffy the Scot, btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

You would have had your emergency debate by now, the Speaker would have granted it but instead Blackford went for a manufactured stunt with the walk-out.

Incidentally, how many SNP-tabled questions to the PM were missed as a consequence of the stunt - was it five? Chris Law, Pete Wishart et al?

They're selling their constituents short by doing that aren't they? Or is a tawdry headline better than getting answers for their constituents?

Grievo-max indeed.

---

Had the speaker followed the rules, they would have had a vote on Wednesday to allow the house to sit in private. He didn't bother.

Your faux outrage is showing up your true colours here, and they certainly aren't red.

What isn't reserved is devolved, agriculture, fishing, the environment to name but three.

What was wrong with the UK parliament actually adhering to the rules, and "allowing" the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to shape the frameworks as they wish for Scotland? Why do they need control?

Are we to have fracking forced on us, as was done in England, are we to introduce GM crops?

Devolution was designed to allow, Scotland to make choices it seen fit for our country, not to have to wait 7 years whilst Westminster decided for us.

You seem to be out of step with your party on this, maybe you should go blue, and be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

It's third rate amateur dramatics dressed up as politics from a party so obsessed with its independence agenda that it would happily impoverish our people to achieve it, regardless of the consequences. The entire 'power grab' proposition is a ludicrous invention to stoke grievance. Laughable.

---

Our people. 😂😂😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

It wasn’t amended because the SNP made it clear they still wouldn’t support the clause even in its amended format which proposed that powers would be passed by default and those that were ‘frozen’ would face parliamentary oversight every 3 months on progress of finalising the U.K. wide frameworks. They then withdrew it as they knew it still wouldn’t gain the support of those against the first drafting.

The SNP position is rather typical. They want absolutely everything devolved immediately and will not countenance any compromise. So even when the other side does come to the table and offer a compromise they can still walk away claiming they still aren’t being listened to and that it’s all a power grabbing disgrace. Noting of course that they have offered no concession to try and break the deadlock themselves.

Generally I think that most situations like this (rather unprecedented and not exactly at the forefront of any legislation on power sharing when it’s was drafted) would probably entail some kind of compromise (like clarification of the relatively small number of areas effected and changing of the wording of the bill to clarify the primacy of the Scottish government).

But no...all or nothing or it’s tub thumping anti Westminster rhetoric all the way. No doubt It’s an effective route to take for their base vote but it’s also a rather nauseating approach to politics that is highly unlikely to bring about constructive and effective resolution to the matters at hand.

---

The SNP position is to adhere to the devolution settlement. Why should we have to wait 1 minute, never mind 7 years to access the powers in agriculture, fishing, and the environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

It stokes the fires of the oppressive nature of the English that sadly the SNP rely on for a number of votes.

---

It's seems to be only you who are stoking the flames, with your anti English rhetoric. Try telling that to, Mike Russell, our English born SNP minister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Westminster just isn’t fit for purpose. All the queing for votes etc wastes an enormous amount of time. That’s a large part of the problem. Holyrood on the other hand......

---

It's going to get worse, as we use the Parnell approach to all government business.

We'll play within the rules, of course, anything else just wouldn't be cricket. 😊

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

The SNP position is to adhere to the devolution settlement. Why should we have to wait 1 minute, never mind 7 years to access the powers in agriculture, fishing, and the environment.

---

I totally see the point of the SNP, but you really do see politics through the eyes of a child - you are reductive and unreasonable.

I am not defending the actions of the UK govt, but it is not an unreasonable position to say lets get this massive thing out of the way, and then we can look at the effects, implications era- particularly given the complexity of current business of Brexit, and given the fact that working through these things is rarely as simply as saying 'why should we wait one minute.

Because in an adult world, run by human beings who are fallible and have a work capacity, dealing with a complex issue, it's usually not as simple as all that. The Brexit side (rightly) get slated for reducing complex problems to simple sound bites, but that is exactly what you are doing.

And let us not pretend that there isn't a malign motivation on the SNP side - they are loving this, they deliberately seek out conflict with the UK govt, and they haven't exactly been an honest partner in the Brexit process, seeking a constructive and mutually beneficial way forward.

Our current govt are being ***** in many different ways, but it's also hard to negotiate with someone who has no interest in those negotiations working well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy

I totally see the point of the SNP, but you really do see politics through the eyes of a child - you are reductive and unreasonable.

I am not defending the actions of the UK govt, but it is not an unreasonable position to say lets get this massive thing out of the way, and then we can look at the effects, implications era- particularly given the complexity of current business of Brexit, and given the fact that working through these things is rarely as simply as saying 'why should we wait one minute.

Because in an adult world, run by human beings who are fallible and have a work capacity, dealing with a complex issue, it's usually not as simple as all that. The Brexit side (rightly) get slated for reducing complex problems to simple sound bites, but that is exactly what you are doing.

And let us not pretend that there isn't a malign motivation on the SNP side - they are loving this, they deliberately seek out conflict with the UK govt, and they haven't exactly been an honest partner in the Brexit process, seeking a constructive and mutually beneficial way forward.

Our current govt are being ***** in many different ways, but it's also hard to negotiate with someone who has no interest in those negotiations working well.

---

Isn't that what all political parties in the UK do, Labour in opposition seek out conflict with the Tory government and vice versa to score political points and win voters?

The fact is that the Scottish government has the right to execute certain powers on behalf of the people that elected them. Those rights are now being unilaterally suspended by the UK government for 7 years (going on past form and broken promises it might never happen) and god knows what they will do with them. Whether you like it or not they have a genuine gripe and are fighting their corner as they see fit and so they should otherwise they wouldn't be doing the job they were elected to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

It's seems to be only you who are stoking the flames, with your anti English rhetoric. Try telling that to, Mike Russell, our English born SNP minister.

---

That's like saying I am not racist as I have a black friend.

There is a large element of SNP support drawn from people who seem to have an issue with England and the English, you can't deny that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

The SNP position is to adhere to the devolution settlement. Why should we have to wait 1 minute, never mind 7 years to access the powers in agriculture, fishing, and the environment.

---

See the Brexit thread for my response on that.

In summary life is not black and white, these powers did not exist at U.K. level to be devolved so weren’t at the time and are speciality areas of EU incompetence with industries currently that rely on huge subsidies. Ergo the U.K. government has identified these areas as requiring a U.K. wide framework rather than the post Brexit world being an immediate fracturing of solutions and responses from the different powers that be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Isn't that what all political parties in the UK do, Labour in opposition seek out conflict with the Tory government and vice versa to score political points and win voters?

The fact is that the Scottish government has the right to execute certain powers on behalf of the people that elected them. Those rights are now being unilaterally suspended by the UK government for 7 years (going on past form and broken promises it might never happen) and god knows what they will do with them. Whether you like it or not they have a genuine gripe and are fighting their corner as they see fit and so they should otherwise they wouldn't be doing the job they were elected to do.

---

Fighting their corner by walking out the fight en masse. How you fight if you aren't in the ring?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

That's like saying I am not racist as I have a black friend.

There is a large element of SNP support drawn from people who seem to have an issue with England and the English, you can't deny that?

---

You'll have evidence of this "large" element. You constantly try to link an anti English element with the SNP, and I'm sorry, but I've just not seen it. Alternatively, I've seen plenty English members of the Snp who are treated equally to others in the party, which is the norm.

We have English members all throughout the party and they're welcomed with open arms. Long may that continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

Fighting their corner by walking out the fight en masse. How you fight if you aren't in the ring?

---

Should you continue to participate in a game when you find out the dice is loaded?

Nevertheless, it was enlightening to see the Speaker being so jovial as he mishandled the triviality of democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy

I totally see the point of the SNP, but you really do see politics through the eyes of a child - you are reductive and unreasonable.

I am not defending the actions of the UK govt, but it is not an unreasonable position to say lets get this massive thing out of the way, and then we can look at the effects, implications era- particularly given the complexity of current business of Brexit, and given the fact that working through these things is rarely as simply as saying 'why should we wait one minute.

Because in an adult world, run by human beings who are fallible and have a work capacity, dealing with a complex issue, it's usually not as simple as all that. The Brexit side (rightly) get slated for reducing complex problems to simple sound bites, but that is exactly what you are doing.

And let us not pretend that there isn't a malign motivation on the SNP side - they are loving this, they deliberately seek out conflict with the UK govt, and they haven't exactly been an honest partner in the Brexit process, seeking a constructive and mutually beneficial way forward.

Our current govt are being ***** in many different ways, but it's also hard to negotiate with someone who has no interest in those negotiations working well.

---

All I'm asking, is that the devolved powers, remain devolved, and the Scottish Parliament which refused consent to the bill is respected. Simple really.

I fully understand the reason why people wish UK frameworks, but do the UK gov have all the answers, do we not have people in Scotland who are capable of looking after our requirements.

If the UK gov continue on the path of continually refusing to listen to others, what are we to do?

This has been created by the Tories, for the Tories, and it's time, people took them to task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

You'll have evidence of this "large" element. You constantly try to link an anti English element with the SNP, and I'm sorry, but I've just not seen it. Alternatively, I've seen plenty English members of the Snp who are treated equally to others in the party, which is the norm.

We have English members all throughout the party and they're welcomed with open arms. Long may that continue.

---

Really....

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/settler-watch-extremist-links-tartan-9834853

So how did this person pass the 'vetting process'?

I am by no means saying this is rife in the SNP, but to deny there is an element of an anti english agenda shows you must not meet many SNP supporters, fair enough if it's something you have not seen but that does not means it's doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

Really....

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/settler-watch-extremist-links-tartan-9834853

So how did this person pass the 'vetting process'?

I am by no means saying this is rife in the SNP, but to deny there is an element of an anti english agenda shows you must not meet many SNP supporters, fair enough if it's something you have not seen but that does not means it's doesn't exist.

---

You said it was a "large element", it's not.

I'm sure you'd agree all parties have their extremists given the amount off stories in the news these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

You said it was a "large element", it's not.

I'm sure you'd agree all parties have their extremists given the amount off stories in the news these days.

---

They all do I agree, but I do believe the SNP has the largest element of those across the main UK parties.

So just how did she pass the vetting process I wonder, what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

They all do I agree, but I do believe the SNP has the largest element of those across the main UK parties.

So just how did she pass the vetting process I wonder, what do you think?

---

I've no idea how anyone passes the vetting procedure, just like the Tory councillors, the labour MP's, or the UKIP lot.

You can think what you like about who you think has the most dickheads in their parties, maybe that comes with reading the same papers each day. 😊

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Had the speaker followed the rules, they would have had a vote on Wednesday to allow the house to sit in private. He didn't bother.

Your faux outrage is showing up your true colours here, and they certainly aren't red.

What isn't reserved is devolved, agriculture, fishing, the environment to name but three.

What was wrong with the UK parliament actually adhering to the rules, and "allowing" the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to shape the frameworks as they wish for Scotland? Why do they need control?

Are we to have fracking forced on us, as was done in England, are we to introduce GM crops?

Devolution was designed to allow, Scotland to make choices it seen fit for our country, not to have to wait 7 years whilst Westminster decided for us.

You seem to be out of step with your party on this, maybe you should go blue, and be done with it.

---

So no answers to the point that you could have had your debate by now and by pulling this stunt, a number of SNPs let down their constituents?

Instead you start to suggest I’m a Tory. I’ve already been called a nationalist this week, I’m not sure which is worse :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

So no answers to the point that you could have had your debate by now and by pulling this stunt, a number of SNPs let down their constituents?

Instead you start to suggest I’m a Tory. I’ve already been called a nationalist this week, I’m not sure which is worse :greengrin

---

We asked for emergency legislation at pmqs, and she blanked it.

Having a debate is completely different to discussing and voting on legislation.

I'm sure you knew that.

You want to give it out but don't seem to be able to take it mate.

Lighten up, Nat 😉

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

We'll play within the rules, of course, anything else just wouldn't be cricket. 😊

---

:confused:

're the title of this thread... seems they even lie to their own people!

Agree an amendment to the Brexit bill to get it voted through, but after spending 2 days agreeing the wording the Government changes it before their own pro-eu members get home!

And we want to trust them to hand back powers they've grabbed in 7 years time?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Our people. 😂😂😂

---

What do you find so funny about making our people poorer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

What do you find so funny about making our people poorer?

---

From your original post in which you assert that Scotland would become impoverished if independent, I find that rather laughable to be honest.

I only have to look across the North Sea, to see what can be done with a country with less resources than us.

Onwards and upwards.

Any idea how many new members we've got?

How did labour live go? I heard they were selling Jeremy Corbyn scarfs for £15. I suppose they've got to get the money back somehow

💲💲💲💲💲

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

We asked for emergency legislation at pmqs, and she blanked it.

Having a debate is completely different to discussing and voting on legislation.

I'm sure you knew that.

You want to give it out but don't seem to be able to take it mate.

Lighten up, Nat ��

---

Oh dear. Some factual inaccuracy there.

Blackford didn't ask for emergency legislation, he asked for an immediate vote to hold a private sitting to have a debate.

We were in the middle of PMQs which is only meant to last thirty minutes. He was asked to wait until PMQs ended, which seems perfectly reasonable, but then this wasn't about being reasonable, it was about pulling a publicity stunt.

And five SNP MPs let down their constituents by storming out in the huff when they were meant to be asking questions on their constituents' behalfs.

EDIT - we are maybe at cross-purposes, I'm talking about the heckling which got him expelled, you are talking about before that. Sorry for any confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

From your original post in which you assert that Scotland would become impoverished if independent, I find that rather laughable to be honest.

I only have to look across the North Sea, to see what can be done with a country with less resources than us.

Onwards and upwards.

Any idea how many new members we've got?

How did labour live go? I heard they were selling Jeremy Corbyn scarfs for £15. I suppose they've got to get the money back somehow

💲💲💲💲💲

---

See my edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Oh dear. Some factual inaccuracy there.

Blackford didn't ask for emergency legislation, he asked for an immediate vote to hold a private sitting to have a debate.

We were in the middle of PMQs which is only meant to last thirty minutes. He was asked to wait until PMQs ended, which seems perfectly reasonable, but then this wasn't about being reasonable, it was about pulling a publicity stunt.

And five SNP MPs let down their constituents by storming out in the huff when they were meant to be asking questions on their constituents' behalfs.

EDIT - we are maybe at cross-purposes, I'm talking about the heckling which got him expelled, you are talking about before that. Sorry for any confusion.

---

Thanks.

As I said earlier, I watched the debate on the EU withdrawal bill, and the comment by, Bercow telling them to make the case in other ways. Following day, blackford asks may for emergency legislation in his first question, he then proceeds to ask for the house to sit in private... All hell let's loose.

I know you don't like looking at this site, but it has full video evidence of what is described.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/today-in-parliament/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Thanks.

As I said earlier, I watched the debate on the EU withdrawal bill, and the comment by, Bercow telling them to make the case in other ways. Following day, blackford asks may for emergency legislation in his first question, he then proceeds to ask for the house to sit in private... All hell let's loose.

I know you don't like looking at this site, but it has full video evidence of what is described.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/today-in-parliament/

---

Yeah, thanks - I caught it elsewhere, but watched it again. Bercow is supposed to have staff there to guide him on the finer points of parliamentary procedure. Between them, they didn't cover themselves in glory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

From your original post in which you assert that Scotland would become impoverished if independent, I find that rather laughable to be honest.

I only have to look across the North Sea, to see what can be done with a country with less resources than us.

Onwards and upwards.

Any idea how many new members we've got?

How did labour live go? I heard they were selling Jeremy Corbyn scarfs for £15. I suppose they've got to get the money back somehow

💲💲💲💲💲

---

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

They opposed the abolition of child labour laws; opposed votes for women; opposed the creation of the NHS; opposed the creation of the welfare state; opposed free university education for all; opposed a national minimum wage; opposed working families tax credits; opposed health and safety legislation; opposed legislation to prevent discrimination by sex or race;

The list is endless throughout their history. They will then adopt popular measures and try to destroy them by stealth. I really don't understand how anyone with a sense of justice could give them their vote. To me it's basic human decency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

They opposed the abolition of child labour laws; opposed votes for women; opposed the creation of the NHS; opposed the creation of the welfare state; opposed free university education for all; opposed a national minimum wage; opposed working families tax credits; opposed health and safety legislation; opposed legislation to prevent discrimination by sex or race;

The list is endless throughout their history. They will then adopt popular measures and try to destroy them by stealth. I really don't understand how anyone with a sense of justice could give them their vote. To me it's basic human decency.

---

It’s in their nature. They are there to preserve the position of the elite and they believe that life is a zero sum game. For them to win somebody must lose.

They are wrong and they are a cancer on the economy.

Are the powers that Nicola Sturgeon is demanding from Teresa May the exact same powers she will hand to the EU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

Are the powers that Nicola Sturgeon is demanding from Teresa May the exact same powers she will hand to the EU?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

No.

---

OK, just a little confused by the SNP themselves who say some of the powers like control of the seas which are exercised by the EU and by EU laws are being 'grabbed'? So if Scotland became Independent and joined the EU we would retain control?

Let's get back on topic...

The prime minister has blatantly lied about extra funding for the NHS coming from a "brexit dividend". There ain't any extra money to be saved from brexit as pointed out by the IFS and some of her own backbenchers.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/...et-rise-brexit

It's cynical populist bull****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

OK, just a little confused by the SNP themselves who say some of the powers like control of the seas which are exercised by the EU and by EU laws are being 'grabbed'? So if Scotland became Independent and joined the EU we would retain control?

---

Almost all legislation in the rUK and Scotland now originate in the EU. In my employment in Ecology the original law was the Wildlife and countryside Act 1981 which was universal across the UK. this was then strengthened by the EU as a result of the Bonn Convention and Bern Convention and were brought into law in Scotland through new legislation, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. This gave stronger wildlife protection in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

Under the repatriation of devolved powers wildlife protection will be reduced to the UK level for at least 7 years.

This may not seem important to you, but the laws will not be handed back to the EU as they are Scottish laws, based on EU, and in some cases Worldwide agreements.

as you raise fisheries, this is controlled through the Aquaculture and fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013. Legislation that pertains only to Scotland as opposed to the Fisheries Act 1981 which is rUK legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

Almost all legislation in the rUK and Scotland now originate in the EU. In my employment in Ecology the original law was the Wildlife and countryside Act 1981 which was universal across the UK. this was then strengthened by the EU as a result of the Bonn Convention and Bern Convention and were brought into law in Scotland through new legislation, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. This gave stronger wildlife protection in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

Under the repatriation of devolved powers wildlife protection will be reduced to the UK level for at least 7 years.

This may not seem important to you, but the laws will not be handed back to the EU as they are Scottish laws, based on EU, and in some cases Worldwide agreements.

as you raise fisheries, this is controlled through the Aquaculture and fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013. Legislation that pertains only to Scotland as opposed to the Fisheries Act 1981 which is rUK legislation.

---

Got to say its confusing when even the SNP website tells me:

"Some devolved powers like support for farmers or control of our seas, are exercised at an EU level and are subject to EU law.

The UK government has introduced a Bill that makes a grab for these powers, returning them directly to Westminster."

It's probably complex but what you say contradicts this?

But if none of the powers would be handed straight back to the EU then I can understand more why this is a big deal for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

Got to say its confusing when even the SNP website tells me:

"Some devolved powers like support for farmers or control of our seas, are exercised at an EU level and are subject to EU law.

The UK government has introduced a Bill that makes a grab for these powers, returning them directly to Westminster."

It's probably complex but what you say contradicts this?

But if none of the powers would be handed straight back to the EU then I can understand more why this is a big deal for them.

---

It's not complex in the slightest.

Firstly, understand how devolution works under the various Scotland acts: if a power is not explicitly reserved to Westminster under the act, it's devolved.

Some elements of Ag & fish, etc. that have been co-ordinated at an EU level will no longer be post-Brexit. As devolved powers, they naturally fall back to Holyrood (and Westminster for England). Both the Scottish & UK governments agree that in some cases, consistent UK frameworks will make more sense than divergent local policies. Scotgov would like these frameworks to be negotiated and agreed. UKgov wants to impose them on its own terms.

To pick a simple but well known example, Scotland might wish to agree to keep the EU style ban on chlorinated chicken whereas the UK would happily give it up as a concession in a US trade deal.

Unless you are politically infomed solely through Tory leaflets, I struggle to see why this is hard to understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It's not complex in the slightest.

Firstly, understand how devolution works under the various Scotland acts: if a power is not explicitly reserved to Westminster under the act, it's devolved.

Some elements of Ag & fish, etc. that have been co-ordinated at an EU level will no longer be post-Brexit. As devolved powers, they naturally fall back to Holyrood (and Westminster for England). Both the Scottish & UK governments agree that in some cases, consistent UK frameworks will make more sense than divergent local policies. Scotgov would like these frameworks to be negotiated and agreed. UKgov wants to impose them on its own terms.

To pick a simple but well known example, Scotland might wish to agree to keep the EU style ban on chlorinated chicken whereas the UK would happily give it up as a concession in a US trade deal.

Unless you are politically infomed solely through Tory leaflets, I struggle to see why this is hard to understand?

---

Likewise Fracking. Banned in Scotland but promoted in England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It's not complex in the slightest.

Firstly, understand how devolution works under the various Scotland acts: if a power is not explicitly reserved to Westminster under the act, it's devolved.

Some elements of Ag & fish, etc. that have been co-ordinated at an EU level will no longer be post-Brexit. As devolved powers, they naturally fall back to Holyrood (and Westminster for England). Both the Scottish & UK governments agree that in some cases, consistent UK frameworks will make more sense than divergent local policies. Scotgov would like these frameworks to be negotiated and agreed. UKgov wants to impose them on its own terms.

To pick a simple but well known example, Scotland might wish to agree to keep the EU style ban on chlorinated chicken whereas the UK would happily give it up as a concession in a US trade deal.

Unless you are politically infomed solely through Tory leaflets, I struggle to see why this is hard to understand?

---

Yes it's obviously very clear and simple, wonder what all the fuss is about. You should give David Davis a call, sure he could use your help to make him and all the civil servants involved get this all sorted sooner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

're the title of this thread... seems they even lie to their own people!

Agree an amendment to the Brexit bill to get it voted through, but after spending 2 days agreeing the wording the Government changes it before their own pro-eu members get home!

And we want to trust them to hand back powers they've grabbed in 7 years time?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

---

There's no 'power grab'. It just suits the SNP independence agenda to keep churning out that phrase, as well as throwing in a few rabble-rousing phrases like 'Scotland will not be silenced' in the hope they can finally gain some traction from Brexit when it comes to fuelling demand for a second independence referendum. Anyone who takes the time to read what's actually at the heart of the 'controversy' will see that it could all have been amicably resolved months ago had the Scottish Government shared the Welsh Government's common sense approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

're the title of this thread... seems they even lie to their own people!

Agree an amendment to the Brexit bill to get it voted through, but after spending 2 days agreeing the wording the Government changes it before their own pro-eu members get home!

And we want to trust them to hand back powers they've grabbed in 7 years time?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

---

Lying - and lying big - is covered on page 1 of the authoritarian’s playbook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

---

Why do you keep referring to the extra 5,000 members and playing it down? Surely growing membership to a party has to be a positive for them,

To keep bringing it up and dismissing it makes it almost seem like you’re worried about something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Why do you keep referring to the extra 5,000 members and playing it down? Surely growing membership to a party has to be a positive for them,

To keep bringing it up and dismissing it makes it almost seem like you’re worried about something?

---

The growing paying membership is only the tip of the iceberg, if 7000+ people have decided to dip into their pockets and pay to support the SNP because of recent events, how many more have just simply decided to vote for them? The times they are a changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

The growing paying membership is only the tip of the iceberg, if 7000+ people have decided to dip into their pockets and pay to support the SNP because of recent events, how many more have just simply decided to vote for them? The times they are a changing.

---

Hmmm, I'd wait for a poll or 2 before saying that. They might just be a polarising rather than a changing.

The 'power grab' myth is well explained here (along with a decent summation of why the SNP irritate the hell out of so many folk due to their seemingly endless inability to comprehend why the entire Scottish electorate doesn't think like them):

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/0...it-power-grab/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

The 'power grab' myth is well explained here (along with a decent summation of why the SNP irritate the hell out of so many folk due to their seemingly endless inability to comprehend why the entire Scottish electorate doesn't think like them):

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/0...it-power-grab/

---

It doesn't explain it at all, it just recycles Tory propaganda (unsurprisingly since Daisley is a Tory).

The "powers handed back to Brussels"* line is a complete red herring unless/until there's a 2nd indyref and we win. In the meantime, the powers are not going to be with the EU, they can only be exercised by Holyrood or Westminster and, as I've said so many times now it's making my keyboard upset, both sides agree that UK frameworks in some areas make sense, the issue is whether they are agreed or imposed.


* and even then, they would be exercised by agreement among EU member states, not by imposition from "Brussels".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It doesn't explain it at all, it just recycles Tory propaganda (unsurprisingly since Daisley is a Tory).

The "powers handed back to Brussels"* line is a complete red herring unless/until there's a 2nd indyref and we win. In the meantime, the powers are not going to be with the EU, they can only be exercised by Holyrood or Westminster and, as I've said so many times now it's making my keyboard upset, both sides agree that UK frameworks in some areas make sense, the issue is whether they are agreed or imposed.


* and even then, they would be exercised by agreement among EU member states, not by imposition from "Brussels".

---

Since the Welsh government gave away their powers to Westminster, they've gone from 24 to 26.

I wonder when it'll stop. 🚫

Lord Sewel himself has came out and supported the U.K. government approach on this, clearly stating that the return of powers under Brexit was not a consideration or foreseen when the wording was written. He then goes on to state that that this would be considered an extraordinary event that the ‘not normally’ phrase would apply to and that in this circumstance he sees it perfectly reasonable for the U.K. to retain some of the powers.

So we now have one side arguing that the Sewel convention is being ‘torn up’ when Sewel himself is saying that’s simply not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

---

Not true actually. The GC recommendation is to increase public spending by 0.5% below the growth rate. The IFS commentary on this assumed a growth rate of 1.5% and therefore an annual increase of 1%. Obv other growth rates are possible in either direction.

As I see it the likely choices are a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by at least some hope of improvement or a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by near certain ongoing decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Lord Sewel himself has came out and supported the U.K. government approach on this, clearly stating that the return of powers under Brexit was not a consideration or foreseen when the wording was written. He then goes on to state that that this would be considered an extraordinary event that the ‘not normally’ phrase would apply to and that in this circumstance he sees it perfectly reasonable for the U.K. to retain some of the powers.

So we now have one side arguing that the Sewel convention is being ‘torn up’ when Sewel himself is saying that’s simply not the case.

---

Amazing! A Labour Unionist supports the Unionist position. Who'd have thought that?

What is genuinely surprising, I think, is that several Scots Labour and Lib MPs backed the SNP last night at Westminster and Labs and Libs backed the SNP at Holyrood. Given that it obviously plays to the SNP's strategic political objective, then just maybe their support tells you there is something to the issue after all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Amazing! A Labour Unionist supports the Unionist position. Who'd have thought that?

What is genuinely surprising, I think, is that several Scots Labour and Lib MPs backed the SNP last night at Westminster and Labs and Libs backed the SNP at Holyrood. Given that it obviously plays to the SNP's strategic political objective, then just maybe their support tells you there is something to the issue after all?

---

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

---

I don't think anyone is under any illusion about where power rests in the UK. Even if Sewel's "convention" gave Scot gov a cast iron legal case, Westminster could legislate to remove it no problem. In fact, the Scotland Acts, the existence of Holyrood etc. can all be repealed any time they like. As I'm sure you know.

Whether it would be right and/or politically acceptable is another matter. Ultimately the electorate get to decide that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I don't think anyone is under any illusion about where power rests in the UK. Even if Sewel's "convention" gave Scot gov a cast iron legal case, Westminster could legislate to remove it no problem. In fact, the Scotland Acts, the existence of Holyrood etc. can all be repealed any time they like. As I'm sure you know.

Whether it would be right and/or politically acceptable is another matter. Ultimately the electorate get to decide that.

---

Quality R7 stylee deflection there JMS! [emoji12]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Quality R7 stylee deflection there JMS! [emoji12]

---

Hey! My deflection style's all my own, thanks very much. :na na:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

---

Actually it wasn't written anyway, it was spoken by Sewel during the debates on the original 1998 Scotland Act.

https://devolutionmatters.wordpress....el-convention/

Following the recommendation of the Smith Commission in 2016, it was written in to the 2016 Scotland Act but (as decided by the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller Brexit case) in such a way that it can effectively be ignored.

So my deflection was in fact, on top of your obfuscation. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Actually it wasn't written anyway, it was spoken by Sewel during the debates on the original 1998 Scotland Act.

https://devolutionmatters.wordpress....el-convention/

Following the recommendation of the Smith Commission in 2016, it was written in to the 2016 Scotland Act but (as decided by the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller Brexit case) in such a way that it can effectively be ignored.

So my deflection was in fact, on top of your obfuscation. :wink:

---

Ha ha I could take umbrage at your accusation of obfuscation but as it’s a word I particularly like I’ll let ya off [emoji23] [emoji1303]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

---

Oh dear, the thread title it's very apt for this post. That's twice in a week, you've been found out. Firstly with the order paper, and now your growth Commission misrepresentation.

The 5,000 odd is approaching 10k now. I'm sure you'll be delighted.

You might find it on your Twitter feed. 🎯

I'll just put it down to your over exuberance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It doesn't explain it at all, it just recycles Tory propaganda (unsurprisingly since Daisley is a Tory).

The "powers handed back to Brussels"* line is a complete red herring unless/until there's a 2nd indyref and we win. In the meantime, the powers are not going to be with the EU, they can only be exercised by Holyrood or Westminster and, as I've said so many times now it's making my keyboard upset, both sides agree that UK frameworks in some areas make sense, the issue is whether they are agreed or imposed.


* and even then, they would be exercised by agreement among EU member states, not by imposition from "Brussels".

---

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

---

:agree: Time to wipe the slate and begin again. I would agree to that. Get shot of the lot and put in people with some integrity and honesty.
Aye, dream on, snooky. :coffee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

---

All sides spin furiously, that's a given. However. if you scroll back to the OP of this thread, independent fact checking says the SNP & Lab at least broadly base their utterances on the truth whereas the Tories are happy to flat out lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Oh dear, the thread title it's very apt for this post. That's twice in a week, you've been found out. Firstly with the order paper, and now your growth Commission misrepresentation.

The 5,000 odd is approaching 10k now. I'm sure you'll be delighted.

You might find it on your Twitter feed. 🎯

I'll just put it down to your over exuberance

---

'order paper'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Not true actually. The GC recommendation is to increase public spending by 0.5% below the growth rate. The IFS commentary on this assumed a growth rate of 1.5% and therefore an annual increase of 1%. Obv other growth rates are possible in either direction.

As I see it the likely choices are a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by at least some hope of improvement or a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by near certain ongoing decline.

---

Where are you getting this from JMS because I cannot see anywhere where the IFS is endorsing that the GC's assumed growth rate is correct?


What I can see is a large structural deficit that requires to be closed and the only way of doing that is to cut spending and raise taxes - unless Scottish growth is transformed out of all recognition.


There are several problems with what Andrew Wilson has announced in the GC.


Firstly, increasing public spending by 0.5% in the wider context is exactly the same as the austerity we have been enduring - for another ten years. A ten year period incidentally in which UK public spending is set to rise by 0.7% - so we would have lower increases in public spending than the rest of the UK for ten years just to get back to where we are now.


Secondly, his assumption of 1.5% growth is just wrong. During the last ten years Scotland has had an annual average growth rate of 0.8%. Even the Scottish Fiscal Commission (which is directly accountable to the Scottish Parliament) is only expecting 0.9% by 2023. So if his plan is to take ten years to reduce the deficit to a manageable 3% of GDP by increasing public spending by a rate lower than the rate of growth in the Scottish economy we are completely stuffed if that growth rate is way lower than he is assuming. And that brings us back to spending cuts or tax rises - or both - as the only way to fill the gap.


But even beyond these figures the Growth Commission also assumes that the size of the deficit to be closed starts at a certain level if you stop some current spending altogether on the basis that you don't need it after leaving the UK. What the IFS describes as "some assumed but unspecified efficiency savings". There's plenty of that in the GC and its's mostly heroic assumptions in small amounts which collectively add up to quite a bit of the structural deficit being wished away - BEFORE you even begin to look at how you then bridge the remaining gap.


The IFS in fact says:


"An annual budget deficit of 5.9% of GDP would simply not be sustainable on an ongoing basis. One can debate the timing of the reduction – perhaps delaying a couple of years, or going a little slower. One could choose to make some of the adjustment by increasing taxes rather than just holding down spending. But such a large deficit would need to be tackled to avoid ballooning debt and interest payments and a loss of confidence and credibility, which would be particularly damaging to a newly independent small country.


In fact, a case could be made for going further and/or faster. A deficit of almost 2.6% of GDP might be sustainable for a large country with good growth and a long track record of borrowing on international markets. For a new and relatively small country it may not. The Commission rightly highlights how smaller countries typically run smaller deficits or even surpluses: seven of the twelve small developed countries cited in the Commission’s report ran budget surpluses in 2016. Completely eliminating Scotland’s forecast deficit over 10 years would require real-terms cuts to spending of around 0.2% a year. Or it would take around 8 more years of holding down spending growth to 0.5% a year, on top of the 10 years envisioned by the Commission. In other words, even further austerity."
and


"The main reason economists expect an economic hit from leaving the EU is the bigger trade barriers that will exist, especially if the UK is outside the EU’s single market and customs union. But if Scotland left the UK and rejoined the EU that could instead mean additional trade barriers between Scotland and the rest of the UK, with which Scotland currently trades four times as much with as with the EU. The Commission’s figures make no allowance for any negative economic impact from such barriers. They could quite easily outweigh the gains from rejoining the EU."

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13072

Quote:

---

To reduce the 5.9% deficit, the Commission proposes that total public expenditure (excluding debt interest) should increase by 1% less per year than GDP for the first decade of independence. With assumed real GDP growth of 1.5% a year, that means holding down real growth in spending on public services and benefits to 0.5% a year.

---

Note "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending.

You are right, however, that if there is no growth in the economy, then spending cannot be increased by (growth - 1%).

I'm certainly not underestimating the difficulty and I'd accept that Scotland's fiscal position might well be worse over the first decade, especially if they stick to the imo sensible plan to keep oil revenue separate.

However, the alternative is hitching yourself to Brexit Britain and hoping they don't recalculate Barnett. Good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13072



Note "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending.

You are right, however, that if there is no growth in the economy, then spending cannot be increased by (growth - 1%).

I'm certainly not underestimating the difficulty and I'd accept that Scotland's fiscal position might well be worse over the first decade, especially if they stick to the imo sensible plan to keep oil revenue separate.

However, the alternative is hitching yourself to Brexit Britain and hoping they don't recalculate Barnett. Good luck with that.

---

That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

---

Not true:

"the UK government did reduce total public spending by an average of 0.2% a year in real-terms between 2009–10 and 2016–17"

"Between 2016–17 and 2022–23, total public spending excluding debt interest payments is forecast to grow by an average of 0.7% a year in real-terms. "

I have to be comfortable with more or less of a continuation of the anaemic public spending growth forecast for the UK. I'm not comfortable with that but willing to accept it as the price for some hope for our future. I see nothing but long term decline for the UK. Brexit is Suez without the guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

---

The main problem here is the SNP have battered the U.K. government about ‘austerity’ for the last decade and now their flagship paper on post Indy Scotland proposes the same ‘austerity’ and with a genuine risk of real austerity being required.

It’s not a message that will sell and promises of grand visions on how a Scottish Government would magically come up with growth policies already ring hollow considering the inept performance of such growth policies that have been trumpeted and failed already in the last 10 years.

So we shall see what ends up being the SNP policy on this come Autumn once they have had a chance to chew over this conundrum but I fail to see how they can get around the rather painful truth...even the happy path of an Indy Scotland would have a very difficult adjustment period that could last a decade or more and would be fraught with risk, the unhappy path would hardly bear thinking about.

To a lot of people Indy has never felt worth it in terms of the above and the GC really just underlined that they were right to think so. Its difficult so see how that assessment can change anytime soon.

Brexit may be a factor in that happening but as regular readers will know I’m far from convinced that Brexit will have any lasting long term negative economic impact anyway so for me I’m not seeing that as a catalyst for Indy no matter how much Nicola would like it to be.

On Barnett. I may be in a minority of one and may be plain wrong but my firm belief is that it will be scrapped as soon as (if) the threat of Scottish independence has receded to a level the UK establishment is comfortable with.

As an illustration ...

David Cameron 2010:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ormula-1924151

David Cameron 2014:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-9872879.html


And apart from anything else, if you are of the Mibbes Aye position that Scotland is not and should not be a country in its own right then, given the inevitable zero sum of spending across the UK, why are you not campaigning for something that is directly disadvantaging British citizens in some parts of the UK to the benefit of others to be scrapped?

I would rather Scotland stood on its own feet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

On Barnett. I may be in a minority of one and may be plain wrong but my firm belief is that it will be scrapped as soon as (if) the threat of Scottish independence has receded to a level the UK establishment is comfortable with.

As an illustration ...

David Cameron 2010:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ormula-1924151

David Cameron 2014:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-9872879.html


And apart from anything else, if you are of the Mibbes Aye position that Scotland is not and should not be a country in its own right then, given the inevitable zero sum of spending across the UK, why are you not campaigning for something that is directly disadvantaging British citizens in some parts of the UK to the benefit of others to be scrapped?

I would rather Scotland stood on its own feet.

---

A minor quibble first. I think my position is that I think nationalism is regressive and don't believe we should welcome it any more than we already have to put up with.

The point you make about spending is, I think, a different argument because it applies at any scale.

If you take health spending in Scotland (...'ahem, a devolved matter, m'lud'), NHS Lothian will vehemently argue and have done publicly for years, that they receive an unfair allocation of resource which other parts of the country disproportionately benefit from.

Go down a level. People in Caithness will argue vehemently that they receive an unfair allocation of resource and that other parts of NHS Highland, Inverness especially are treated more favourably.

Or you can go in the other direction. The EU budget has net gainers and net losers in terms of resource. Always has had.

Whichever level of resource allocation you want to go to, you will find differences that usually aggrieve someone. The differences may be for political or economic reasons, they may be pragmatic or dogmatic and they're often complicated and complex. That's just the nature of how government, at whatever level, allocates resource.