Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Aruntraveller on March 13, 2017, 11:57:25 AM
-
News just breaking:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nicola-sturgeon-confirms-plans-to-hold-second-scottish-independence-referendum_uk_58c67e04e4b054a0ea6ba177?vp00ms4i
-
Inevitable!
-
I'm all for the Scots having indepedence but then giving it all away to Brussels seems like madness, if you ask me. It's just changing austerity for someone else's austerity.
-
Thing is though, it's more than that. Just as in the Thatcher era, Scotland was forced to thole a government she had manifestly rejected over several elections. Same thing here. A nation living under a government she did not vote for and which she rejected convincingly is always a trigger for unrest.
-
Don't me wrong. I understand why anyone, let alone the Scots, dislike the Tories.
-
Before any arguments on this, I would like this to have a threshold for success higher than 50%.
-
How many referendums will they have on the same subject? Best of threes or something?!! ???
How about one more on Brexit then?!
-
As Jim said, completely inevitable after hard Brexit looks likely. In fact, I don't see how the Scottish govt could have avoided it. Polls are showing 48-50% yes, so that is more than last time.
I had to laugh at Labour's reaction, of course, they are going to oppose it, to save Kezia's face, but it makes them look daft.
The basic principle of the self-determination of nations makes me say, vote yes.
-
How many referendums will they have on the same subject? Best of threes or something?!! ???
How about one more on Brexit then?!
Which is the position of the Lib Dems, i.e. a Brexit again after the deal is done but against the Indy one.
The Brexit vote was a substantial change in circumstance as covered in the SNP manifesto for the Scottish parliament so there is at least a justifiable democratic position on this. Again I think this sort of issue would be dealt with by having a threshold that is substantially higher than 50% for change.
-
The basic principle of the self-determination of nations makes me say, vote yes.
Indeed but then why give it all away to the EU? Just more austerity and neo-liberal ecomomics.
-
As Jim said, completely inevitable after hard Brexit looks likely. In fact, I don't see how the Scottish govt could have avoided it. Polls are showing 48-50% yes, so that is more than last time.
I had to laugh at Labour's reaction, of course, they are going to oppose it, to save Kezia's face, but it makes them look daft.
The basic principle of the self-determination of nations makes me say, vote yes.
I see Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour will oppose independence because they oppose any break up of the UK. Is that his position on Irish unification?
-
Breaking: the United Kingdom!
-
Labour's response has been a mess - to put it mildly. Yesterday, Corbyn was "fine" at the prospect of a second referendum - totally undermining the position of the leader of his own party in Scotland.
-
Which is the position of the Lib Dems, i.e. a Brexit again after the deal is done but against the Indy one.
The Brexit vote was a substantial change in circumstance as covered in the SNP manifesto for the Scottish parliament so there is at least a justifiable democratic position on this. Again I think this sort of issue would be dealt with by having a threshold that is substantially higher than 50% for change.
In fact it is the Scottish referendum that decided the Brexit one. People can't argue the other way around now.
-
In fact it is the Scottish referendum that decided the Brexit one. People can't argue the other way around now.
Sorry, not sure what you mean here?
-
I see Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour will oppose independence because they oppose any break up of the UK. Is that his position on Irish unification?
I found it odd last time that the comparison with Ireland was not mentioned a lot. Obviously, there are big differences - the Irish were trying to reject English (and Norman) rule for a very long time, is it 800 years? and the armed struggle was part of this. The Act of Union is quite different. However, self-determination is self-determination. Another point is that the argument for Irish independence was not so much economic, and Ireland was economically poor until the 1960s.
Corbyn may be accused of English chauvinism, in other words, self-determination applies to all countries in the world, except Scotland. Eh?
-
Sorry, not sure what you mean here?
If Scottish independence had been granted...Brexit may not have happened.They chose to stay with the UK, and Brexit followed. They now can't argue that because Brexit has happened, they need another referendum.
-
A lot of people saying to me, (not in Scotland), who wants to see the Tories run the country into the ground for the next 15 years? It seems a big motive for Indyref Yes. Sorry, running the country into the ground means 'taking back control' of course.
-
If Scottish independence had been granted...Brexit may not have happened.They chose to stay with the UK, and Brexit followed. They now can't argue that because Brexit has happened, they need another referendum.
And part of the case that was made to stay in the UK was that we would stay in the EU. Therefore there was a significant change. So yes, they can argue for it..
-
And part of the case that was made to stay in the UK was that we woukd stay in the EU. Therefore there was a signifuxant change. So yes, they can argue for it..
It is about sentiment. If UK had broken up, England and others may not have voted to exit the EU. It is because they perceived UK as one nation that Brexit was chosen.
Chicken and egg perhaps.
-
Last night, various Scottish friends were saying that this was on. I must admit, the cherished wife and I whooped and yelled, and shouted imprecations at May, hard Brexit, and right-wing twats everywhere.
-
We're a nation of haters now. We hate foreigners, hate each other, hate ourselves.
-
It is about sentiment. If UK had broken up, England and others may not have voted to exit the EU. It is because they perceived UK as one nation that Brexit was chosen.
Chicken and egg perhaps.
I think it's even more likely that Brexit would have happened and the numbers bear that out.
-
We're a nation of haters now. We hate foreigners, hate each other, hate ourselves.
This seems to imply there was a time when we didn't have such hate. When was this?
-
I think self-determination tends to dissolve hatred. For example, if you go to Ireland, people do not tend to resent the English, as independence is a fact.
-
I found it odd last time that the comparison with Ireland was not mentioned a lot. Obviously, there are big differences - the Irish were trying to reject English (and Norman) rule for a very long time, is it 800 years? and the armed struggle was part of this. The Act of Union is quite different. However, self-determination is self-determination. Another point is that the argument for Irish independence was not so much economic, and Ireland was economically poor until the 1960s.
Corbyn may be accused of English chauvinism, in other words, self-determination applies to all countries in the world, except Scotland. Eh?
Of course if you read Mad Mel's piece last week you woukd know that the Irish state is a nonsense and that the British Isles is the real state
-
Well, after Irish independence, there was a lot of sneering at this poor, Catholic-dominated country, what was the point in independence? I suppose there was quite a lot of romanticism in it, 'wherever green is worn' and so on. But would the Irish want to come back to the UK now? What a laaf.
-
I think it's even more likely that Brexit would have happened and the numbers bear that out.
How could anyone make out a case that there would be no Brexit....even before the referendum?! The Brexit referendum was announced before the Scottish referendum...and so they knew it could go either way.
-
How could anyone make out a case that there would be no Brexit....even before the referendum?! The Brexit referendum was announced before the Scottish referendum...and so they knew it could go either way.
Well first of all it wasn't announced as happening before the Scottish referendum took place. Secondly even if it had been, as you put it, the referendum could go either way so Brexit was not a fact. Third you ned to ask those who campaigned on a No vote to independence being the only way Scotland would be guaranteed to stay in the EU about their argument.
-
It's a killer argument, isn't it? Scots were promised retention of EU membership with a No vote. But no, we have hard Brexit, apparently.
-
Well first of all it wasn't announced as happening before the Scottish referendum took place. Secondly even if it had been, as you put it, the referendum could go either way so Brexit was not a fact. Third you ned to ask those who campaigned on a No vote to independence being the only way Scotland would be guaranteed to stay in the EU about their argument.
Well...ok. But it seems rather strange to keep vacillating once a decision is made. A referendum is a referendum.
-
It's a killer argument, isn't it? Scots were promised retention of EU membership with a No vote. But no, we have hard Brexit, apparently.
How could anyone 'promise' a no vote...when a referendum was due?
-
I'm opposed to a second referendum, I'm also opposed to Scotland being able to use the pound if they succeed.
Once they are independent, than that's exactly what they should be, and use the Euro once they join the EU in their own right.
I don't think the SNP have the Scottish people's interests at heart at all, and are just " power hungry" they don't seem to have any more plans than Nigel Farage had after brexit.
I think before they can have a "valid" referendum it has to be agreed by Westminster.
Westminster is likely to say "NO"
-
I'm opposed to a second referendum, I'm also opposed to Scotland being able to use the pound if they succeed.
Once they are independent, than that's exactly what they should be, and use the Euro once the join the EU in their own right.
I don't think the SNP have the Scottish people's interests at heart at all, and are just " power hungry"
I think before they can have a "valid" referendum it has to be agreed by Westminster.
Westminster is likely to say "NO"
Super - and your experience of matters from a Scottish perspective is?
-
Super - and your experience of matters from a Scottish perspective is?
I don't need a "Scottish perspective" just a "UK perspective".
It will affect everyone, so it isn't just the business of the Scots.
I'm sure if it was Cornwall ( who also have their own language and traditions ) campaigning for independence and it was adversely going to effect Scotland I've no doubt Scots would be vocal about it.
-
In addition since the Scottish referendum there have been two elections, one Westminster, one Holyrood where we have had the majority of votes for parties against leaving the EU and committed to oposing it. In the Holyrood manifesto a specific commitment to a further Indyref if there was a significant change in circumstances ), i.e. Brexit. And a 62 -38 majority in Scotland in the referendum against Brexit.
Further, the initial position of the Scottish govt was to look to work together if they felt that there was a way to do in line with Scotland's interests. Now it may be that the UK govt felt there were certain aspects of the proposal that were problematic but negotitiable but they didn't make that case and appeared uninterested in doing so. Combined with the collapse of the Labour party into a morass of soft coups, and the rump of the Lib Dems being in no position to be any real break, then it looks like Tories for the next 20 years unless things go humungously tits up because of Brexit. And since that is what you are seeking to avoid, the combined factors make this inevitable even if the timing might be questioned.
As a speculation, i wonder if the timing might have been influenced by discussions with EU reps, particularly Verhofstadt
-
I don't need a "Scottish perspective" just a UK perspective.
It will affect everyone, so it isn't just the business of the Scots.
So the Irish shouldn't have been given independence?
-
How could anyone 'promise' a no vote...when a referendum was due?
They weren't. As already pointed out the EU referendum was not in place at the time of the Scottish one.
-
Well...ok. But it seems rather strange to keep vacillating once a decision is made. A referendum is a referendum.
Is that ok including an acceptance that you were factually wrong about the timings? Because you repeated that error in reply to wigginhall after this post of your's.
I am not sure why you think a referendum is magic. People were not vacillating in the details in my post . They were showing continued oppositiom on elections and a referendum of being in favour of remaining on the EU.
-
So the Irish shouldn't have been given independence?
That's not what I wrote.
The independence of Southern Ireland was before my time and you could argue that Ireland still isn't totally independent as Northern Ireland is still part of the UK.
It's a different question and situation is not comparable, to Scotland.
-
How could anyone 'promise' a no vote...when a referendum was due?
You misunderstand Sriram - in 2014 we were told by the unionist parties (inc. a Tory-led government) that to stay in the EU we should reject independence: we did, and then the Tories were stupid enough to have EU referendum for party reasons and now we have Brexit - Scotland didn't vote for Brexit. Plus, with the demise of the Labour party, we have the prospect of a Tory-dominated UK where, currently, the Tories have just one MP in Scotland.
So, that some of us don't view a UK state in that it is dominated by those who support both Brexit and the Tory party as being attractive is no great surprise.
-
I don't need a "Scottish perspective" just a "UK perspective".
It will affect everyone, so it isn't just the business of the Scots.
I'm sure if it was Cornwall ( who also have their own language and traditions ) campaigning for independence and it was adversely going to effect Scotland I've no doubt Scots would be vocal about it.
Despite the fact of substantial differences between Cirnwall and Scotland, such as Scotland having separate legal and educational systems, i doubt that many Scots would care that much. Also of those i know in the independence movement, any who have expressed an interest in the small movement for independence in Corneall have been supportive.
-
That's not what I wrote.
The independence of Southern Ireland was before my time and you could argue that Ireland still isn't totally independent as Northern Ireland is still part of the UK.
It's a different question and situation is not comparable, to Scotland.
Didn't say it was what you wrote. That's why it had a question mark at the end. Obviously it's a different question but i am trying to work out what principles you are using. When the Irish gained independence, it affected the rest of the UK, do why wouldn't they just be right to have refused?
It should, of course, be noted that as part of international law, we are signed up to the principle of self determinatiom. Do you think that the UK should breach international law?
-
I don't need a "Scottish perspective" just a "UK perspective".
It will affect everyone, so it isn't just the business of the Scots.
I'm sure if it was Cornwall ( who also have their own language and traditions ) campaigning for independence and it was adversely going to effect Scotland I've no doubt Scots would be vocal about it.
Then you miss the point: the UK doesn't reflect the political ethos of Scotland which should be obvious when you look at its political representation in Westminster and Holyrood along with the result of the EU referendum here.
Our interests aren't best served by remaining in a Tory dominated UK.
-
The situation when Scotland continually voted to elect a party other than the Thatherites in the eighties led to a great deal of unrest here. Despite voting Labour in every election, what we got was a Tory shower whose policies were either rejected by Scotland or simply hated in a very destructive way. We're in the same situation now, the only difference is that the only real opposition to the Tories in Westminster is provided by the SNP block, labour being mired in internal disunity. Another twenty years of policies Scotland manifestly rejects and opposes at every turn is simply untenable - but that's what we face unless we can end this 'precious union' the woman we did not vote for bleats about.
-
An oldie from the Mash but still fun
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/sturgeon-suggests-scotland-could-somehow-become-angrier-2015060298818
-
Here's a comment from Paul Kavanagh - the "Wee Ginger Dug" - and, no, he is not an SNP member. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/03/13/we-have-work-to-do/
-
You misunderstand Sriram - in 2014 we were told by the unionist parties (inc. a Tory-led government) that to stay in the EU we should reject independence: we did, and then the Tories were stupid enough to have EU referendum for party reasons and now we have Brexit - Scotland didn't vote for Brexit. Plus, with the demise of the Labour party, we have the prospect of a Tory-dominated UK where, currently, the Tories have just one MP in Scotland.
So, that some of us don't view a UK state in that it is dominated by those who support both Brexit and the Tory party as being attractive is no great surprise.
But I think well in 2013 Cameron had said that he would hold a referendum for Brexit (if he was elected). So...a NO vote was not a guarantee and no one could have 'promised' it. That is my point. It is not that someone went back on their word or anything like that.
-
But I think well in 2013 Cameron had said that he would hold a referendum for Brexit (if he was elected). So...a NO vote was not a guarantee and no one could have 'promised' it. That is my point. It is not that someone went back on their word or anything like that.
Cameron did this in order to, he thought, rid his party of annoying eurosceptic Tories: he didn't expect the result he got. He put party first.
-
But I think well in 2013 Cameron had said that he would hold a referendum for Brexit (if he was elected). So...a NO vote was not a guarantee and no one could have 'promised' it. That is my point. It is not that someone went back on their word or anything like that.
No, he said it would be held if his bout of diplomacy didn't pay off. This didn't complete until well after the Scottish referendum. It then went through post the 2015 election at which Scotland returned no Mp in favour of Brexit.
That people in the No campaign, including Cameron, promised this was the only way to guarantee Scotland stayed in the EU is a fact. Whether you think they were justified in making that is irrelevant to that fact.
-
Just to note that given the Scottish govt is a minority govt due to us having a proportional system, the SNP would be unable to request a Section 30 order from Westminster without support of others. It has been confirmed by Patrick Harvie of the Scottish Green Party, that they will support the request.
-
Cameron did this in order to, he thought, rid his party of annoying eurosceptic Tories: he didn't expect the result he got. He put party first.
Whatever! But the Scots knew at the time of their referendum that a NO vote for Brexit was not a guarantee. No one could have 'promised ' it. Cameron was already thinking of a referendum and everyone knew that. So...they just have to accept the results.
People probably voted for Brexit under the strength that UK was one nation. Dividing it up now does not seem right (from an outsider perspective..let me add).
In that case, you should have one more Brexit vote. That could be a NO vote, in which case, the Scots might want to join back...so one more referendum there.
Based on the Scots joining back, people may once again feel like leaving the EU...so one more Brexit vote....ad infinitum!
Anyway....I know its none of my business. But I would personally hate to see the UK breaking up!
G'Night!
-
Hate hate hate us us us them them hate.
-
Whatever! But the Scots knew at the time of their referendum that a NO vote for Brexit was not a guarantee. No one could have 'promised ' it. Cameron was already thinking of a referendum and everyone knew that. So...they just have to accept the results.
People probably voted for Brexit under the strength that UK was one nation. Dividing it up now does not seem right (from an outsider perspective..let me add).
In that case, you should have one more Brexit vote. That could be a NO vote, in which case, the Scots might want to join back...so one more referendum there.
Based on the Scots joining back, people may once again feel like leaving the EU...so one more Brexit vote....ad infinitum!
Anyway....I know its none of my business. But I would personally hate to see the UK breaking up!
G'Night!
Again as pointed out, that you think may people aren't justified in saying something doesn't mean that they won't and that's without you being factually incorrect on the position on the Brexit referendum. Further given the votes in the Brexit referendum there is no basis for your feeling that it was more likely to be an exit because of the Indyref. Indeed some of those most vociferous on the Brexit side were inclined to tell Scotland to fuck off.
-
Hate hate hate us us us them them hate.
not really. Been posting elsewhere on a discussion about how to conduct any campaign with people on both sides, and there is large scale agreement. Yes, we can all get annoyed on any subject under the sun - try a Dr Who forum to see that, and say things out of line but that we have discussions, and disagreements is inevitable.
-
I see Mrs May has said that Indyref2 will create division. Talk about irony-ectomy.
-
I see Mrs May has said that Indyref2 will create division. Talk about irony-ectomy.
I also someone elsewhere point out that referendums don't make peopke say vile things rather that vile people say vile things. And that seems to be true of any subject under the sun.
Surely referendums are generally caused by division rather than the other way about?
-
I think people are forgetting what hard Brexit means. The right wing want Free Enterprise Zones, with low paid workers, with little protection, a shrunken welfare system, and no regulations on imports and exports. It sounds insane to me, and surely anybody sane will want to get away from it, e.g. the Scottish government.
-
I've been out most of the day so just catching up on this now. For what it's worth (and I do not reside in Scotland, so probably not much) I think Scotland should go.
At the previous Indyref I did argue for Scotland to stay - but so much has changed, and so in thrall to the tories are so many in England, that I would urge you to run for your lives and sanity.
I never thought I would argue for the breakup of the UK - but it is finished as a meaningful Union. I think the Brexit result just kind of sealed it.
Sad to see you go - but I see no alternative.
-
TV; you're right (But I WOULD say that!) The fact is that even many who oppose independence up here have little or no respect for the institution of Westminster. It cannot be right that the majority of a nation - any nation - show no respect for the central authority - regardless of which party is in power.
-
I think hard Brexit has sealed it. It is an insane vision of right-wing deregulation and low wages, very good for profits. The Brexit zealots love it, and they seem to have May in their grip.
-
I think hard Brexit has sealed it. It is an insane vision of right-wing deregulation and low wages, very good for profits. The Brexit zealots love it, and they seem to have May in their grip.
-
Yep.
And you can bet this will play into the YES camp - a hard line Tory PM with policies which seem at odds with the majority of Scots of whatever party, is not a great advert for her 'precious union'.
-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C60MQFnWoAIjKG6.jpg
-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C60MQFnWoAIjKG6.jpg
PMSL ;D
-
Hate hate hate us us us them them hate.
?
-
not really. Been posting elsewhere on a discussion about how to conduct any campaign with people on both sides, and there is large scale agreement. Yes, we can all get annoyed on any subject under the sun - try a Dr Who forum to see that, and say things out of line but that we have discussions, and disagreements is inevitable.
Yes, people can disagree without hating each other.
Whatever happens, we ALL have to be able to get on.
Scotland isn't going anywhere ;)
-
Yes, people can disagree without hating each other.
Whatever happens, we ALL have to be able to get on.
Scotland isn't going anywhere ;)
It might not be but I think the referendum has to take place. There would he a real issue were the UK govt oppose a referendum requested by the Scot gov on a specifically mandated manifesto commitment supported by another party.
-
As Jim said, completely inevitable after hard Brexit looks likely. In fact, I don't see how the Scottish govt could have avoided it. Polls are showing 48-50% yes, so that is more than last time.
I had to laugh at Labour's reaction, of course, they are going to oppose it, to save Kezia's face, but it makes them look daft.
The basic principle of the self-determination of nations makes me say, vote yes.
But they want to join the EU. That will guarantee them to end up like Greece; a servant of Germany.
-
Which is the position of the Lib Dems, i.e. a Brexit again after the deal is done but against the Indy one.
The Brexit vote was a substantial change in circumstance as covered in the SNP manifesto for the Scottish parliament so there is at least a justifiable democratic position on this. Again I think this sort of issue would be dealt with by having a threshold that is substantially higher than 50% for change.
Good idea set it so high it would make it very unlikely they would vote to leave. ;D
-
Good idea set it so high it would make it very unlikely they would vote to leave. ;D
indeed it does, despite me being in favour of voting Yes last time, think you need a full mandate for change, 1 vote isn't enough
-
But they want to join the EU. That will guarantee them to end up like Greece; a servant of Germany.
apart from the lazy generalisation of 'they' that is an ad consequentiam in this position, with a poisoning of the well, and a begging question. It's like Alan Burns on speed
-
I'm opposed to a second referendum, I'm also opposed to Scotland being able to use the pound if they succeed.
Once they are independent, than that's exactly what they should be, and use the Euro once they join the EU in their own right.
I don't think the SNP have the Scottish people's interests at heart at all, and are just " power hungry" they don't seem to have any more plans than Nigel Farage had after brexit.
I think before they can have a "valid" referendum it has to be agreed by Westminster.
Westminster is likely to say "NO"
The fact is they can't use the pound if they join the EU because to join the Euro they have to have their own currency. And once they do that the value of their state reduces because the currency would have no history with the markets and so effectively their currency would be devalued, making borrowing etc. harder and so financing their economy difficult. The Scots would see a drastic fall in living standards.
You're right the SNP are doing this for ideological reasons which will take Scotland to hell and back.
It wasn't Farage's or UKIP's job to provide a plan for Brexit it was Cameron's.
-
In addition since the Scottish referendum there have been two elections, one Westminster, one Holyrood where we have had the majority of votes for parties against leaving the EU and committed to oposing it. In the Holyrood manifesto a specific commitment to a further Indyref if there was a significant change in circumstances ), i.e. Brexit. And a 62 -38 majority in Scotland in the referendum against Brexit.
Further, the initial position of the Scottish govt was to look to work together if they felt that there was a way to do in line with Scotland's interests. Now it may be that the UK govt felt there were certain aspects of the proposal that were problematic but negotitiable but they didn't make that case and appeared uninterested in doing so. Combined with the collapse of the Labour party into a morass of soft coups, and the rump of the Lib Dems being in no position to be any real break, then it looks like Tories for the next 20 years unless things go humungously tits up because of Brexit. And since that is what you are seeking to avoid, the combined factors make this inevitable even if the timing might be questioned.
As a speculation, i wonder if the timing might have been influenced by discussions with EU reps, particularly Verhofstadt
I don't follow your point on the timing. For our 2020 elections or the EU one or what?
-
That's not what I wrote.
The independence of Southern Ireland was before my time and you could argue that Ireland still isn't totally independent as Northern Ireland is still part of the UK.
It's a different question and situation is not comparable, to Scotland.
They are independent now because they are part of the EU and Euro. If they left the EU that would solve the boarder issue.
-
The situation when Scotland continually voted to elect a party other than the Thatherites in the eighties led to a great deal of unrest here. Despite voting Labour in every election, what we got was a Tory shower whose policies were either rejected by Scotland or simply hated in a very destructive way. We're in the same situation now, the only difference is that the only real opposition to the Tories in Westminster is provided by the SNP block, labour being mired in internal disunity. Another twenty years of policies Scotland manifestly rejects and opposes at every turn is simply untenable - but that's what we face unless we can end this 'precious union' the woman we did not vote for bleats about.
So what is your scenario if Scotland left the UK? What would you expect to be done?
-
With opinion polls showing less than 40% of Scottish voters in favour of a new referendum before Brexit, Downing Street said it did not believe Sturgeon had the mandate for second vote.
“Only a little over two years ago people in Scotland voted decisively to remain part of our United Kingdom in a referendum which the Scottish government defined as a ‘once in a generation’ vote,” a spokesman said.
“Another referendum would be divisive and cause huge economic uncertainty at the worst possible time.”
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, said Sturgeon was guilty of political opportunism. She said: “Nicola Sturgeon has today given up acting as first minister for all of Scotland.
“The first minister’s proposal offers Scotland the worst of all worlds. Her timetable would force people to vote blind on the biggest political decision a country could face. This is utterly irresponsible and has been taken by the first minister purely for partisan political reasons.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/nicola-sturgeon-fires-starting-gun-on-second-scottish-independence-referendum
-
Hate hate hate us us us them them hate.
Your English is improving, Rhia.
-
-
Yep.
And you can bet this will play into the YES camp - a hard line Tory PM with policies which seem at odds with the majority of Scots of whatever party, is not a great advert for her 'precious union'.
If this is the case then the Scots may just jump over the cliff in a vote of protest.
-
apart from the lazy generalisation of 'they' that is an ad consequentiam in this position, with a poisoning of the well, and a begging question. It's like Alan Burns on speed
You do talk a load of bollocks some times. How does that relate to my sensible post?
-
You do talk a load of bollocks some times. How does that relate to my sensible post?
By what it said. Pointing out the lazy generalisation and use of fallacies in your 'sensible' post.
-
If this is the case then the Scots may just jump over the cliff in a vote of protest.
lovely non sequitur, not as good as Alan Burns or Vlad but still classily wrong
-
They are independent now because they are part of the EU and Euro. If they left the EU that would solve the boarder issue.
You think that Irish unification will happen because of the vote but you oppose Scottish independence?
-
So what is your scenario if Scotland left the UK? What would you expect to be done?
Done about what?
-
Surely referendums are generally caused by division rather than the other way about?
Nope. That's clearly not true, unless you are talking about division in the Conservative Party.
-
The fact is they can't use the pound if they join the EU because to join the Euro they have to have their own currency. And once they do that the value of their state reduces because the currency would have no history with the markets and so effectively their currency would be devalued, making borrowing etc. harder and so financing their economy difficult. The Scots would see a drastic fall in living standards.
You're right the SNP are doing this for ideological reasons which will take Scotland to hell and back.
It wasn't Farage's or UKIP's job to provide a plan for Brexit it was Cameron's.
actually they could use the pound - to prove tell what currency the Swedes are using?
The Euro has a history, you can look at it on the internet. It has graphs!!!!
Why are you arguing a neo liberalism globalist line on independence?
-
actually they could use the pound - to prove tell what currency the Swedes are using?
Sweden has its own currency, it's not using the pound.
The arguments for and against Scotland using the pound are exactly the same as they were before. Scotland could use the pound but it would have to submit to UK monetary and fiscal policy.
-
Nope. That's clearly not true, unless you are talking about division in the Conservative Party.
Didn't say it was about division in a party. The reason for this and previous Indyref was a division in the country that the Govt party didn't mirror but the division still existed hence the vote. That the Tories mirrored the division,or were a reflection in a distorted mirror does not mean that wasn't an existing division.
-
Sweden has its own currency, it's not using the pound.
The arguments for and against Scotland using the pound are exactly the same as they were before. Scotland could use the pound but it would have to submit to UK monetary and fiscal policy.
I was commenting on the need to use the Euro, not that I am opposed to it. Only that, Sweden shows you don't have to do that, especially in the short term. The countries in the euro don't follow the same fiscal and monetary polucy .
-
Note I should add that I think the Vote Yes campaign needs a better fiscal policy than last time, though the idea that there will be a brilliant unarguable economic argument for/against is economically illiterate
-
The reason for this and previous Indyref was a division in the country that the Govt party didn't mirror but the division still existed hence the vote. That the Tories mirrored the division,or were a reflection in a distorted mirror does not mean that wasn't an existing division.
I was talking about Brexit, not IndyRef.
I don't think IndyRef was caused by division, I think it was caused by the SNP getting enough power to make it happen. There was certainly a difference of opinion about whether it is a good thing or not, but division didn't happen until one side lost. The division will be even worse next time if the result is reversed.
-
I was commenting on the need to use the Euro, not that I am opposed to it. Only that, Sweden shows you don't have to do that, especially in the short term.
The entry conditions for the EU now include a requirement to commit to joining the Euro at some point. Given that Scotland will have to find some currency to replace the pound, I think it would be a good idea for them to use the Euro, once in the EU.
The countries in the euro don't follow the same fiscal and monetary polucy .
Which is why they nearly destroyed it a couple of years ago. There is no way the UK could allow Scotland even the possibility of doing a Greece.
-
The entry conditions for the EU now include a requirement to commit to joining the Euro at some point. Given that Scotland will have to find some currency to replace the pound, I think it would be a good idea for them to use the Euro, once in the EU.
Which is why they nearly destroyed it a couple of years ago. There is no way the UK could allow Scotland even the possibility of doing a Greece.
indeed and it was the requirement that Sweden committed to join it.
As I said I am not opposed to it in some time but the idea that in the short term or for as long as Sweden hasn't moved is specious.
Countries in Europe don't follow fiscal and monetary policies so the idea that this works absolutely or will do is wrong. Or are you suggesting that France and Germany follow the same fiscal and monetary policies? Because you would be wrong if you did.
-
United we stand divided we fall. Scotland would be making a big mistake to leave the Union, imo, even though this Brexit business is crazy nonsense.
out of interest, what if there was an Irish unification poll? Would it still be divided we fall?
-
United we stand divided we fall. Scotland would be making a big mistake to leave the Union, imo, even though this Brexit business is crazy nonsense.
- Nice cliche. Trouble is, we are NOT united, floo. Even those who accept Westminster up here have, by and large, no loyalty to it (the bowler hat and sash brigade being the exception). Most here describe themselves as Scots - even those who reject independence. The Tories carried out a poll last year; and one of the questions was "If you voted to remain within the UK in 2014, do you regard yourself as British?" The answer? YES -14% No -73% 2% seemed undecided. Yes, Iknow it's a poll, with all the caviats attached. That notwithstanding, it was a snapshot of fellings which the Tories initiated.
-
- Nice cliche. Trouble is, we are NOT united, floo. Even those who accept Westminster up here have, by and large, no loyalty to it (the bowler hat and sash brigade being the exception). Most here describe themselves as Scots - even those who reject independence. The Tories carried out a poll last year; and one of the questions was "If you voted to remain within the UK in 2014, do you regard yourself as British?" The answer? YES -14% No -73% 2% seemed undecided. Yes, Iknow it's a poll, with all the caviats attached. That notwithstanding, it was a snapshot of fellings which the Tories initiated.
Maybe the 2% were Europeans? :)
Great news hopefully the Scots will have the balls to vote Yes / No (either could be relevant depending on question). Think ex-pats should get a vote this time as well, know a few living in rUK who were miffed last time.
Take back control Scotland!
-
Ireland is separate island from the island which encompasses Wales, Scotland and England. It should never have had a bit hacked off and put under British rule in the in the first place, imo.
So it's simply a geographic question to you? And just yo note your pish misrepresents the history.
-
It's an argument against all acts of self-determination, isn't it? It's what the French said in Algeria, well, for a while, that Algeria is French, and 'united we stand'. However, the Algerians had other ideas. See also the USA.
Another point - the stronger power often says 'united we stand'. This has been the Russian (and Soviet) argument for centuries, that the little countries such as Latvia, are much better off under the Russian umbrella. Again, the Latvians may disagree.
-
And in English please?
ignore the second sentence as it was a bit if a derail anyway. So is it just a question of geography to you?
-
Not just because of its geography, Ireland was invaded by the Brits; the Irish were treated abysmally by them. Whilst I would never in a million years support the IRA, I can see why that group was formed.
No, i was asking if you think Scotland should not be independent simply because of geography?
-
I don't think Scotland, Wales and England could function independently.
Why?
-
Because they are far too small and haven't that much going for them as independent units, imo.
But Ireland would work even though it is the same size as Scotland? What about Belgium, or Switzerland or New Zealand?
-
Because they are far too small and haven't that much going for them as independent units, imo.
This is patently untrue. Much smaller countries than Scotland do function perfectly well.
I think it is quite likely that living standards would fall in Scotland - but hey they are going to do that under BREXIT anyway.
One of the issues is the trading position of Scotland which does some 44% of it's trade with the rest of the UK as opposed to some 10% with the EU. So any advantage that may be gained by somehow managing to get into the EU (difficult as highlighted elsewhere because of the Spanish problem with Catalonia) could well be offset by any deal arrived at with rUK.
All very complex and living standards cannot be the sole criteria that a decision is based on - there is the emotional aspect, nationalism and much else to consider.
-
Because they are far too small and haven't that much going for them as independent units, imo.
Eh? Tell that to Ireland Iceland Luxemburg Sweden Finland Latvia Estonia Lithuania and over a hundred other small nation states.
-
indeed and it was the requirement that Sweden committed to join it.
As I said I am not opposed to it in some time but the idea that in the short term or for as long as Sweden hasn't moved is specious.
Sweden joined in 1995. They may have an exception like we do.
Countries in Europe don't follow fiscal and monetary policies so the idea that this works absolutely or will do is wrong. Or are you suggesting that France and Germany follow the same fiscal and monetary policies? Because you would be wrong if you did.
I'm saying that for the Euro to be really successful, the countries in the Eurozone need to have coordinated fiscal and monetary policies. The Greece crisis nearly brought it down and such things will probably happen periodically until the Eurozone does get better coordinated or the Euro collapses completely.
With regard to Scotland and the rUK sharing the pound, it would be economic folly and politically impossible for that to happen without Scotland accepting some control from the rUK. They couldn't for example, set their own interest rates and there would have to be limits on their spending. The same would apply to them being in the Euro, of course, but that would be politically more acceptable to Scots, I think and the English wouldn't care.
-
It's an argument against all acts of self-determination, isn't it? It's what the French said in Algeria, well, for a while, that Algeria is French, and 'united we stand'. However, the Algerians had other ideas. See also the USA.
When a set of the states of the USA tried to apply the "we want our independence" trope, it caused a bloody war and they are still in the USA. Is that the example you are thinking of?
As a general rule, better together really does work, which is why the UK is one country and not dozens of little Saxon/Welsh/Scottish kingdoms.
-
This is patently untrue. Much smaller countries than Scotland do function perfectly well.
I think it is quite likely that living standards would fall in Scotland - but hey they are going to do that under BREXIT anyway.
One of the issues is the trading position of Scotland which does some 44% of it's trade with the rest of the UK as opposed to some 10% with the EU. So any advantage that may be gained by somehow managing to get into the EU (difficult as highlighted elsewhere because of the Spanish problem with Catalonia) could well be offset by any deal arrived at with rUK.
All very complex and living standards cannot be the sole criteria that a decision is based on - there is the emotional aspect, nationalism and much else to consider.
I think given the clear encouragement from Verhofstadt that thus idea if difficulty of entry into the EU on the basis of Spain is highly questionable. Many of the EU states are ones that come from previous larger states.
Also if I do vote yes, it is because I believe in getting power to the appropriate levels, and to having a clear link between power and responsibility. Not for emotion or nationalism.
-
I have stated my opinion, and others have stated theirs, we will have to see who is right and who is wrong, if Scotland votes for independence next time around.
No, you stated an opinion on size that was provably wrong with facts.
-
I think given the clear encouragement from Verhofstadt that thus idea if difficulty of entry into the EU on the basis of Spain is highly questionable. Many of the EU states are ones that come from previous larger states.
Also if I do vote yes, it is because I believe in getting power to the appropriate levels, and to having a clear link between power and responsibility. Not for emotion or nationalism.
I fully accept that if you vote yes, it is for that reason. I don't accept that your fellow countrypersons will necessarily use the same reason. As with BREXIT there will be a number of reasons for why people vote the way they choose.
-
I fully accept that if you vote yes, it is for that reason. I don't accept that your fellow countrypersons will necessarily use the same reason. As with BREXIT there will be a number of reasons for why people vote the way they choose.
Absolutely, wasn't suggesting that people would all vote for the sane reason which is why I phrased it as my belief. Incidentally for the first referendum ever for me,including the couple I was too young to have a vote in, I am not sure what way I will vote. It's quite a novel experience.
-
Absolutely, wasn't suggesting that people would all vote for the sane reason which is why I phrased it as my belief. Incidentally for the first referendum ever for me,including the couple I was too going to have a vote in, I am not sure what way I will vote. It's quite a novel experience.
It is not a choice I envy I must admit.
-
It is not a choice I envy I must admit.
there are many worse things, though the campaigns for these things are often depressing. I have to say that I think the unionist parties brought about this in part by always mentioning independence. I think they should have avoided talking about it, as if it were a dead subject, and concentrated on attacking the SNP record in Holyrood, and where appropriate working with the SNP.
-
I have stated my opinion, and others have stated theirs, we will have to see who is right and who is wrong, if Scotland votes for independence next time around.
I happen to agree with Floo on this one, including about Ireland being a separate landmass with a different history.
England, Wales and Scotland
Together I think we have more influence, separately not so much so.
-
there are many worse things, though the campaigns for these things are often depressing. I have to say that I think the unionist parties brought about this in part by always mentioning independence. I think they should have avoided talking about it, as if it were a dead subject, and concentrated on attacking the SNP record in Holyrood, and where appropriate working with the SNP.
What a novel approach to politics ;)
-
What a novel approach to politics ;)
Labour shot themselves in the foot, knee, groin and anywhere else they could reach by merely going SNPbad all the time and linking themselves to the Tories quite so closely at Indyref1. They should have campaigned on a more open approach and while having a policy against Indy, allowed thatvit would be not surprising for members supported to vote Yes. As it is they pushed those supporters to the SNP causing the cull of the last GE. Neatly they have also managed to let the Tories emerge as the major player in Unionism pushing votes to them.
-
I happen to agree with Floo on this one, including about Ireland being a separate landmass with a different history.
England, Wales and Scotland
Together I think we have more influence, separately not so much so.
I would quite like not to have the influence of weapons of mass destruction 15 miles down the road.
-
Labour shot themselves in the foot, knee, groin and anywhere else they could reach
It is now their preferred modus operandi. :(
-
It is now their preferred modus operandi. :(
Though to be fair to Jeremy Corbyn, I think the current position of vote against requesting the Section 30 order in Holyrood but not at Westminster, is perfectly logical.
-
Looks like Nicola will stop at nothing ;)
http://newsthump.com/2017/03/13/nicola-sturgeon-to-make-sure-scotland-votes-the-right-way-this-time-by-printing-fantastic-lies-on-a-bus/
-
I disagree with some of it. I think it asks for too much knowledge of future events, and ignores the effects of the the newscycle and social media on our perception of what is said.
But some strong points that reflect some of my own position.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/14/scottish-independence-referendum-snp-vote-brexit
-
Moderator:
Since this topic is likely to be relevant for some time yet it has been 'stickied'.
-
It's already clear that this is going to be a bit different. The SNP is going to have issues with those members and voters who voted for Brexit. It also looks as if there will be more SLab members voting Yes but I doubt there enough of them to make a difference. Despite the current odds that Yes will win being odds on, i feel it unlikely. Any such result will have very interesting repercussions here.
-
This is from a couple of weeks ago by Alex Massie, I think it covers the issue that this is not what might have been the chosen timing well. I do wonder if there might be a hope in a few very senior SNP people that the UK govt does refuse to allow the referendum on the proposed timescales, and that in doing so allows a Take Back Control narrative to be used.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/scottish-independence-looks-riskier-than-ever-but-dont-bet-against-it/
-
This is from a couple of weeks ago by Alex Massie, I think it covers the issue that this is not what might have been the chosen timing well. I do wonder if there might be a hope in a few very senior SNP people that the UK govt does refuse to allow the referendum on the proposed timescales, and that in doing so allows a Take Back Control narrative to be used.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/scottish-independence-looks-riskier-than-ever-but-dont-bet-against-it/
I think that would be how any stalling tactics by a Tory government would be portrayed here: on one hand this would intensify the feelings of those who are already pro-independence, and perhaps May et al hope that dragging things out will eventually see even enthusiasts for independence worn down by the delay, but it comes with the risk that as the insanity of Brexit unfolds it might make independence more attractive to those who are currently undecided or against.
That Brexit has been instrumental in indyref2 is undeniable, since it is the 'material change of circumstances' grounds, but the oft-repeated 'will of the British people' argument we hear from unionists seem to be rarely accompanied by a recognition that the 'will of the people' in Scotland and NI was opposition to Brexit but even so I think it would be a mistake though to see indyref2 as just being a response to Brexit.
Looking at the Westminster general election results from 1970 onward show the maximum number of SNP MPs prior to 2015 was 11 in the second 1974 election, which went down to 2 in 1979 and remained at 2 in 1983, and thereafter was 3 (in 1987 and 1992), 6 in 1999, 5 in 2001, 6 again in 2005 and 2015 - but then 56 in 2015, which reduced the three main unionist parties with one seat each. The situation regarding Westminster since 2015 is therefore fundamentally different - prior to 2015 the bulk of Scottish MPs were from unionist parties that were either part of the government party or part of the main opposition party and, therefore, there was some shared commonality with political representation in rUK, but with the implosion of Labour everywhere and with the Lib-Dems being sent to the naughty step (for now anyway), highlights what is glaringly obvious: that the political makeup of Westminster no longer reflects the political makeup of Scotland.
So, it now seems likely that for as long as Scotland remains part of the UK it cannot feel represented by what may be a permanent Tory government in Westminster (given the demise of Labour everywhere) that has just one seat here in Scotland and was daft enough to let Brexit happen in the farcical way it did for party reasons, and where despite their attempts to portray Brexit as being an elegant purse it is clearly a sow's ear.
-
There is an argument that tying the brexit and independence issues is a mistake.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/779229/double-blow-Nicola-Sturgeon-humiliation-public-support-Scotland-EU
How much of that is wishful thinking, I'm not sure.
Is there a lot of anti EU feeling amongst Scots who voted for independence? Enough to sway the vote to a decisive vote to stay in the UK?
-
As has been pointed out, although the EU is a vital issue, Rose, it isn't the main one. That Scotland faces at least a further decade of Tory rule (I'd suggest y two), yet rejected Tory candidates in all constituancies save one, is a 'democtratic deficit'. You can bet that any future YES campaign will not be slow in pointing this out. I well remember the frustration of the '80's, when, election after election saw Scots wishes overan by governments she did not only not elect, but loathe. That atmosphere was depressing, and toxic. I don't want a re-run -but with Labour in an even worse state up here than it is in the RUK, independence becomes a serious option.
-
There is an argument that tying the brexit and independence issues is a mistake.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/779229/double-blow-Nicola-Sturgeon-humiliation-public-support-Scotland-EU
How much of that is wishful thinking, I'm not sure.
Is there a lot of anti EU feeling amongst Scots who voted for independence? Enough to sway the vote to a decisive vote to stay in the UK?
I'm not sure, Julie, that the Daily Express is a good source of Scottish opinion given the political bias of that newspaper.
-
Dear Forum,
Well here we are again, round two, ding ding!! seconds out :o
So am I better informed this time around, well yes I think I am a wee bit more savvy, Brexit has been a real eye opener, the country voted to jump without knowing what the consequences would be and this was one of the reasons I voted no last time, there was no plan.
In the last Scottish Referendum the SNP wanted us to vote yes but with no plan of what would happen next, the exact same as Brexit, we have now voted to leave the EU but with no plan, we still have no plan ( a Spike Milligan sketch comes to mind ) well except it is going to be a hard Brexit :o whatever a hard Brexit means.
But all the old questions still remain, border control, currency ( I think we should adopt the quid currency, Kevin Bridges "aye pal you'll get yer money right!! ) and lets not forget Trident, please!! Don't forget Trident because you can bet your last quid that Trident will rear its ugly head again ( actually I think it already has ).
Well dear readers this time around I am adopting a different tack, I am looking for the bottom line ( yes I am a bottom line man ::) ) and that is, can I look at future generations and hold my head high.
Right now my conscience is saying vote YES and one of the main reasons is, the Tories are, well lets be polite for the moment and say wonderful magicians, there smoke and mirror display is second to none but if I thought for a second that Mr Corbyn had any chance I might just change my vote, and just for the record, I don't want a Tory lite Labour party, it is the Corbyn way or the highway.
Goodbye England, Wales and Northern Ireland we can meet at the border and discuss old times over a dram or twa.
To end, I will be watching with interest as the EU question is debated, Sturgeon will make this a big issue, but I honestly don't know if I want to be tied to the EU, well not the old EU, maybe if I can see any sign of the EU reforming itself then yes lets be friends with our pals on the continent, but that raises another question, do they like our whisky, maybe we should be cuddling up to the Japanese, they like a wee dram :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners; It gives me no satisfaction to see the state of Scottish Labour - none whatsoever. As you know, I live in an area which was fed Labour with its' mother's milk - Kier Hardie country - heck, some still bow when they pass the bust of him outside Cumnock town Hall - and that is not an exaggeration. The cracks in the building that was SLAB started in the 'eighties, when folk started to see that, no matter how often they put that 'x' in the box for Labour, what they got was Thatcher. Remember when Labour was called a 'one party state' simply because there was no credable opposition to it in these parts? That wasn't healthy situation - niether is the present one, but I'll get to that. When we are faced with decades stretching in front of us when governments we reject election after election determine much of our macro-economic, welfare, defence and foriegn policy, then the frustration will simply build again - I see it coming. Last time that frustration ended in a double YES for a devolved parliament which Labour thought would guarantee their supremacy in Scotland - and we know how THAT worked out. Now, with the in-fighting in SLAB which began after Donald Dewar's untimely death, and has never really ceased, we see a Labour party in a rather pathetic third place in Scotland, and die hard Labour voters actually voting Tory to keep the independence wolf at bay - anpother symptom of Labour decay. Yes, in many ways, SNP has taken Labour's place - though I know that will change should independence happen. SNP will fragment into three or four parties, ranging from hard left to moderate right in outlook. Don't think that an independence vote guarantees an SNP government. What it DOES guarantee is that, for better or worse, Scotland will be governed by those we elect, and there will be no-one to blame but ourselves - and I think that's quite a healthy position to adopt.
-
There is an argument that tying the brexit and independence issues is a mistake.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/779229/double-blow-Nicola-Sturgeon-humiliation-public-support-Scotland-EU
How much of that is wishful thinking, I'm not sure.
Is there a lot of anti EU feeling amongst Scots who voted for independence? Enough to sway the vote to a decisive vote to stay in the UK?
Mmm an opinion piece in the Express is effectively propaganda BUT I would guess maybe a third of independence supporters are anti EU. Note I didn't say 'voted for independence' because some didn't vote for independence last time because they are anti EU. There isn't though a mistake in tying independence and Brexit because that they are tied is a simple matter of fact. As the Alex Massie article I linked to covers, this is not the time and place and reason that the SNP or the Tories would seek to have chosen. But sometimes politics is not about choice, it's about what you so when there are no choices.
Yesterday was a confusing day with polls but my guess is that with the current situation it would be a pretty similar result to last time with a lower turn out, but with a fair degree of churn between zyes voters going to No, and vice versa. That said if Brexit starts to go tits up, or some unknown unknown hits, who can tell. If I were Theresa May, I would say ' Go for it' as quickly as possible. Delaying it, or saying no, will not play well and opens up all sorts of other battles. Indeed, I might suggest that she says to the SNP that she us happy to work with them in tying it to a specific point in the Brexit negotiations. That way she would stall any Take Back Control campaign and be seen to be being Prime Ministerial. However, because there are those on her own side who would think that is weakness, it's never going to happen.
-
Dear Jim,
No arguments from me old son, if we do gain Independence then I will not vote SNP, I can only hope that a credible Scottish Labour party can be formed ( without Dugdale ).
But you are right, I think we are stuck with Tory rule for decades to come, so here in Scotland we have a real choice ( they also have a choice down south, but the majority seem to wedded to their wallets ) decades of Tory rule or a new fresh start and hopefully one based on compassion.
I am going to stick to my bottom line ::) will future generations look back with pride or anger, I will vote YES and hope that is the right and compassionate thing to do.
Gonnagle.
-
Just to pick up on Gonzo's point about plans, there is an element of chicken and egg here. To have a detailed plan, you have to have had the negotiations, to have the negotiations you have to have had the vote, hence why the Lib Dem policy of a second referendum on Brexit is a perfectly rational one. Problem with that, of course, is that it's politically unfeasible because what happens if the second referendum rejects the plan. Plus in the present 'will of the people' frenzy anyone who suggests such will be vilified by one side or another. I note that the Telegraph ran an op ed piece from Allison Pearson calling Nicola a liar and a traitor and calling for her head to be chopped off. Hyperbole, yes, but in the current climate badly advised I would suggest. We got through the last referendum with only the one murdered MP, but that is surely not a record to be proud of.
The added complexity here is Ireland, because many if the issues that might arise for an independent Scotland in the EU will be played out on the border between the Republic and North. Worse this could be against a back drop of direct rule, if the parties fail to get to an agreement, and that will fuel unification sentiment.
The people doing best here are the political pundits who are in demand to write pieces from all quarters.
-
Dear Jim,
No arguments from me old son, if we do gain Independence then I will not vote SNP, I can only hope that a credible Scottish Labour party can be formed ( without Dugdale ).
But you are right, I think we are stuck with Tory rule for decades to come, so here in Scotland we have a real choice ( they also have a choice down south, but the majority seem to wedded to their wallets ) decades of Tory rule or a new fresh start and hopefully one based on compassion.
I am going to stick to my bottom line ::) will future generations look back with pride or anger, I will vote YES and hope that is the right and compassionate thing to do.
Gonnagle.
As ever, Gonzo, bravo! Your compassion and honesty are as bracing as a Lagavulin. To pick up on Anchorman's point, it isn't just Labour voters going Tory, there is a concerted campaign in the council elections to tactically vote, and if councils have no overall majority, we will see a number of Lab - Con coalitions, not on the basis of the council policies but to keep the SNP out. To be fair were this purely on the basis of shared unionism, you might almost understand it but it's effectively little more than tribal hatred from Labour, that they have lost what they once ruled.
On a quick aside, I don't think Kez is that bad. Wrong place, wrong time for her. The party had been shafted by others before her, and while I think she isn't up to being leader, I doubt a combination of Julius Caesar, Gandhi, and Mandela could do much with SLab at the moment.
-
So the argument is a political one, the Scottish political compass is materially different to that of rUK.
It isn't but good ole tribalism trumps rationality.
-
So the argument is a political one, the Scottish political compass is materially different to that of rUK.
It isn't but good ole tribalism trumps rationality.
In terms of how it plays out at the ballot box currently, factually correct. In terms of actual differences, nothing that might not change. But in terms of marrying responsibility and power, certainly.
Rationality only plays when you decide what you want. The idea that any vote can be based on rationality alone is deeply irrational.
-
I see that the economist Wren-Lewis has switched to support for independence. No doubt some of his comments will be vigorously challenged, e.g. a 10% drop in incomes after Brexit, Scotland could attract foreign investment in the single market, the cuts to services will become savage under the Tories, and so on. But I guess that for independence supporters, these ideas are not really new.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/brexit-makes-economics-of-scottish.html?m=1
-
By what it said. Pointing out the lazy generalisation and use of fallacies in your 'sensible' post.
That's just an assertion. What's your argument for it?
-
lovely non sequitur, not as good as Alan Burns or Vlad but still classily wrong
That's just an assertion. What's your argument for it?
-
Done about what?
My post was for Anchorman, so he could say what he expected an independent Scotland would do with their "freedom" which they reckon they aren't getting from Westminster at present.
-
That's just an assertion. What's your argument for it?
The Jack Knave bot is broken!!! Send for the engineer. It has becaone stuck in a loop.
-
actually they could use the pound - to prove tell what currency the Swedes are using?
The Euro has a history, you can look at it on the internet. It has graphs!!!!
Why are you arguing a neo liberalism globalist line on independence?
You need to put more flesh on those bones, NS, I don't know what you are talking about.
-
Sweden has its own currency, it's not using the pound.
The arguments for and against Scotland using the pound are exactly the same as they were before. Scotland could use the pound but it would have to submit to UK monetary and fiscal policy.
It also could NOT start the process of joining the Euro. It needs its own currency for that.
-
You need to put more flesh on those bones, NS, I don't know what you are talking about.
Well I am happy to go into detail but tgatbwoukd require the same from you,so no more of your one liners but properly detailed. You see, I thought that given I am expected to deal with your posting style that you would be capable of something similar.
-
I was commenting on the need to use the Euro, not that I am opposed to it. Only that, Sweden shows you don't have to do that, especially in the short term. The countries in the euro don't follow the same fiscal and monetary polucy .
Sweden has its own currency, what are you blathering on about?
-
Sweden has its own currency, what are you blathering on about?
Which means that joining the EU doesn't necessitate joining the Euro, not that I'm opposed to that. It's all in the post you replied to.
-
United we stand divided we fall. Scotland would be making a big mistake to leave the Union, imo, even though this Brexit business is crazy nonsense.
You are right about in that, "United we stand divided we fall." But as the people are divided i.e. the class war of the elitist against the people, we are all doomed to fall now.
-
This is patently untrue. Much smaller countries than Scotland do function perfectly well.
I think it is quite likely that living standards would fall in Scotland - but hey they are going to do that under BREXIT anyway.
One of the issues is the trading position of Scotland which does some 44% of it's trade with the rest of the UK as opposed to some 10% with the EU. So any advantage that may be gained by somehow managing to get into the EU (difficult as highlighted elsewhere because of the Spanish problem with Catalonia) could well be offset by any deal arrived at with rUK.
All very complex and living standards cannot be the sole criteria that a decision is based on - there is the emotional aspect, nationalism and much else to consider.
So duplicitous.
-
I think given the clear encouragement from Verhofstadt that thus idea if difficulty of entry into the EU on the basis of Spain is highly questionable. Many of the EU states are ones that come from previous larger states.
Also if I do vote yes, it is because I believe in getting power to the appropriate levels, and to having a clear link between power and responsibility. Not for emotion or nationalism.
That makes you pro Brexit!!!
-
There is an argument that tying the brexit and independence issues is a mistake.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/779229/double-blow-Nicola-Sturgeon-humiliation-public-support-Scotland-EU
How much of that is wishful thinking, I'm not sure.
Is there a lot of anti EU feeling amongst Scots who voted for independence? Enough to sway the vote to a decisive vote to stay in the UK?
Making membership of the EU complicates the vote. The ex-SNP leader (I forget his name ) doesn't want Scotland to join the EU. So it looks as if it is going to be a very messy fight.
-
Making membership of the EU complicates the vote. The ex-SNP leader (I forget his name ) doesn't want Scotland to join the EU. So it looks as if it is going to be a very messy fight.
that would be Gordon Wilson from thirty plus years ago. The SNP have campaigned on membership in Europe for thirty years.
-
Gonners; It gives me no satisfaction to see the state of Scottish Labour - none whatsoever. As you know, I live in an area which was fed Labour with its' mother's milk - Kier Hardie country - heck, some still bow when they pass the bust of him outside Cumnock town Hall - and that is not an exaggeration. The cracks in the building that was SLAB started in the 'eighties, when folk started to see that, no matter how often they put that 'x' in the box for Labour, what they got was Thatcher. Remember when Labour was called a 'one party state' simply because there was no credable opposition to it in these parts? That wasn't healthy situation - niether is the present one, but I'll get to that. When we are faced with decades stretching in front of us when governments we reject election after election determine much of our macro-economic, welfare, defence and foriegn policy, then the frustration will simply build again - I see it coming. Last time that frustration ended in a double YES for a devolved parliament which Labour thought would guarantee their supremacy in Scotland - and we know how THAT worked out. Now, with the in-fighting in SLAB which began after Donald Dewar's untimely death, and has never really ceased, we see a Labour party in a rather pathetic third place in Scotland, and die hard Labour voters actually voting Tory to keep the independence wolf at bay - anpother symptom of Labour decay. Yes, in many ways, SNP has taken Labour's place - though I know that will change should independence happen. SNP will fragment into three or four parties, ranging from hard left to moderate right in outlook. Don't think that an independence vote guarantees an SNP government. What it DOES guarantee is that, for better or worse, Scotland will be governed by those we elect, and there will be no-one to blame but ourselves - and I think that's quite a healthy position to adopt.
So now you understand us Brexiteers. We voted UKIP and got Brussels election after election. Ruled by those we didn't want!
-
That makes you pro Brexit!!!
You missed the word appropriate. So you pool certain decisions bit not others. What appropriate is, is a harder question and yes, there are legitimate concerns aboùt Europe as indeed about the UK or a federal state.
-
So now you understand us Brexiteers. We voted UKIP and got Brussels election after election. Ruled by those we didn't want!
what did you get that you didn't want? Numbers needed to understand your point.
-
Just to pick up on Gonzo's point about plans, there is an element of chicken and egg here. To have a detailed plan, you have to have had the negotiations, to have the negotiations you have to have had the vote, hence why the Lib Dem policy of a second referendum on Brexit is a perfectly rational one. Problem with that, of course, is that it's politically unfeasible because what happens if the second referendum rejects the plan. Plus in the present 'will of the people' frenzy anyone who suggests such will be vilified by one side or another. I note that the Telegraph ran an op ed piece from Allison Pearson calling Nicola a liar and a traitor and calling for her head to be chopped off. Hyperbole, yes, but in the current climate badly advised I would suggest. We got through the last referendum with only the one murdered MP, but that is surely not a record to be proud of.
The added complexity here is Ireland, because many if the issues that might arise for an independent Scotland in the EU will be played out on the border between the Republic and North. Worse this could be against a back drop of direct rule, if the parties fail to get to an agreement, and that will fuel unification sentiment.
The people doing best here are the political pundits who are in demand to write pieces from all quarters.
If we do have a second referendum and the people reject the plan then we go to WTO rules.
-
If we do have a second referendum and the people reject the plan then we go to WTO rules.
is that two falls and a submission?
-
Which means that joining the EU doesn't necessitate joining the Euro, not that I'm opposed to that. It's all in the post you replied to.
For new members it does, after reaching some criteria.
-
that would be Gordon Wilson from thirty plus years ago. The SNP have campaigned on membership in Europe for thirty years.
Well, he's changed his mind now.
-
Well, he's changed his mind now.
Oh no Gordon hasn't he's always had an issue with the EU and gay people as well. That's why he was leader pre the change on position.
-
You missed the word appropriate. So you pool certain decisions bit not others. What appropriate is, is a harder question and yes, there are legitimate concerns aboùt Europe as indeed about the UK or a federal state.
I wouldn't say that an institution like the EU was not necessary at all just that its present format is grossly imbalanced about the powers it has and what it is trying to do. A vast amount of its duties should be returned to the nation states.
-
what did you get that you didn't want? Numbers needed to understand your point.
Numbers? What numbers?
We got directives we didn't like etc. Just as the Scots were and are ruled by the Tories that they don't like. What's hard to understand?
-
I wouldn't say that an institution like the EU was not necessary at all just that its present format is grossly imbalanced about the powers it has and what it is trying to do. A vast amount of its duties should be returned to the nation states.
while we might disagree on what powers (or maybe not) I agree the principle. Plus it would need to be hugely reformed in its own institutional structure given the change in size and make up.
-
Numbers? What numbers?
We got directives we didn't like etc. Just as the Scots were and are ruled by the Tories that they don't like. What's hard to understand?
that 'we don't like' is a random post assertion about things not about actually voting against a govt.
-
Oh no Gordon hasn't he's always had an issue with the EU and gay people as well. That's why he was leader pre the change on position.
=-
I knew Gordon yonks ago.He was National convenor - that's SNP speak for leader - long before Salmond, and when the 'Bannockburners' - the right wing of the party - were still quite a substantial voice.
Gordon is a very principled man - I don't a gree with a lot of his stance - and his somewhat conservative - with a small 'c' evangelical approach to certain issues.
However yesterday he confirmed that he will campaign for a YES in the next referendum - a sign that SNP, despite the many factions which make up the party, still shows a remarkable degree of unity.
-
=-
I knew Gordon yonks ago.He was National convenor - that's SNP speak for leader - long before Salmond, and when the 'Bannockburners' - the right wing of the party - were still quite a substantial voice.
Gordon is a very principled man - I don't a gree with a lot of his stance - and his somewhat conservative - with a small 'c' evangelical approach to certain issues.
However yesterday he confirmed that he will campaign for a YES in the next referendum - a sign that SNP, despite the many factions which make up the party, still shows a remarkable degree of unity.
Not surprisingly I agree with Gordon on almost nothing and calling the EU, the Fourth Reich as he did last night is problematic.
That said, the win in any Indyref2 will be only done the basis of non SNP supporters and there are numbers of voters who support independence who won't vote for this because they ate anti EU. Only the yesterday I talked to someone who voted No in Indyref1 because there was no commitment to get rid of the monarchy. There is an element of herding cats (and Jim Sillars) here.
-
In terms of how it plays out at the ballot box currently, factually correct. In terms of actual differences, nothing that might not change. But in terms of marrying responsibility and power, certainly.
Rationality only plays when you decide what you want. The idea that any vote can be based on rationality alone is deeply irrational.
I referred to the political compass.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/
So I thought the argument goes that Scotland wouldn't vote in a centre-right wing party yet has to endure centre-right wing policies. Perfectly fine argument I just don't think the Scots are politically different from rUK. In fact the SNP's tax policy is more right wing than both LibDems & Labour.
Accept its a valid argument that Scotland wants to take back control, where have I heard that before!
Assuming that Scotland voted for a socialist nirvana and raised taxes on the rich how long will it be before highly paid Scots flooded to rUK. Imagine all those heavily paid footballers leaving the mighty Celtic & Rangers, ohh wait they don't have highly paid footballers because Scottish football is shit. :)
-
I referred to the political compass.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/
So I thought the argument goes that Scotland wouldn't vote in a centre-right wing party yet has to endure centre-right wing policies. Perfectly fine argument I just don't think the Scots are politically different from rUK. In fact the SNP's tax policy is more right wing than both LibDems & Labour.
Accept its a valid argument that Scotland wants to take back control, where have I heard that before!
Assuming that Scotland voted for a socialist nirvana and raised taxes on the rich how long will it be before highly paid Scots flooded to rUK. Imagine all those heavily paid footballers leaving the mighty Celtic & Rangers, ohh wait they don't have highly paid footballers because Scottish football is shit. :)
Woo it's like Vlad has returned with all his straw. Can I suggest you deal with what I actually say rather than make stuff up? For a start, I'm about to pay 150 quid a month more in different taxes than I would in England, now that position was voted against in England by Labour, would seem to tell me you are a tad confused?
As for the very strange football thing??! Not a clue what you were on about.
-
Woo it's like Vlad has returned with all his straw. Can I suggest you deal with what I actually say rather than make stuff up? For a start, I'm about to pay 150 quid a month more in different taxes than I would in England, now that position was voted against in England by Labour, would seem to tell me you are a tad confused?
As for the very strange football thing??! Not a clue what you were on about.
Insults and obfuscation nice, lets try to avoid that please.If I haven't articulated something well please just say so.
I started contributing to this discussion with what I think is one argument for independence. Now I could be wrong but AMs & Gonzos position seems to be, in part, to be that Scotland has a different political compass to rUK.
Get rid of the rhetoric it a perfectly valid position, is this yours?
I would argue that actually Scotland isn't that different, then anecdotally referencing one policy and you refuted it be referencing another.
I enter:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2015/mar/26/three-things-the-latest-british-social-attitudes-survey-tells-us-about-scotland
You will have to concede surely that Scotland will have to have either austerity or higher taxes come independence?
Other arguments I can think of, "take back control", Scottish nationalism, Scotland has a different culture to rUK are all valid I think, just attempting to explore them in order to better understand them.
I support Scottish independence, the SNP are divisive and they have played the divide and rule game well, they will be better held to account if you vote yes, and rUK will better for it.
As to if it will happen, I'm not so sure, despite Gonzo's claim that Scots don't care about money I rather suspect they do. Sturgeon has to go now, when the UK leaves the EU Scotland will be locked in to UK.
-
My arguments are partly economic - Scotland needs to be part of the single market, whilst not necessarily a full EU member - yet - the 'Norway approach'. But my argument goes deeper than that. Were the UK federal, that might solve most of the problem; but that's a non-starter despite SLAB's ideas. Yet as devolution gives Scotland control of legal, educational, social, cultural, and some albeit limited welfare policies, the divergance from Westminster will naturally increase over the years, as both parliaments pursue separate legislative agendas. As differences increase, the chance of acrimony - resentment - on both sides will grow. There have been minor niggles already with both the LAB/LIB and SNP administrations and Westminster. Are the next twenty, thirty or whatever years to be plagued with similar disputes regardless of which parties are in power? The fact is that with every legislation passed in one parliament rather than both, we drift further apart. It's a gradual divorce, and will lead to estrangement in the long run anyway.
-
Dear Jakswan,
That is a very good question, do we Scots have a different political compass?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/14/scottish-independence-referendum-snp-vote-brexit
The above is good article posted by Sane, and it might go some way to answer your question.
My political leanings haven’t changed, I’m still pro-independence. I still believe in the earnest arguments for a better future – but to give this another go, it needs to be different because I’m fresh out of positivity. This campaign can’t afford to run on big dreams – the context has changed. This vote is no longer about going it alone, but about hanging on to what the rest of the UK rejected. It’s not a hearts and minds job – facts and figures must peal loudly above the rhetoric.
Please note the part I have highlighted in bold, one example ( in my humble opinion ) is immigration, which played a very big part in Brexit, I honestly don't think the vast majority of Scots see immigration as a big issue, in fact I will go further and say that immigration is a non issue, the big issue is how the Tories have treated your ordinary British citizen ( whatever that is ) or rather the way the Tories ignored them in their push for austerity, for me that is where all this resentment springs from, immigration is not the issue, Tory failure is the issue.
Gonnagle.
-
Insults and obfuscation nice, lets try to avoid that please.If I haven't articulated something well please just say so.
You're right I was bring a grump, sorry. Will pick up rest of post when I have time.
-
As has been pointed out, although the EU is a vital issue, Rose, it isn't the main one. That Scotland faces at least a further decade of Tory rule
This is nonsense: most decisions that affect Scots are now taken in Holyrood.
-
This is nonsense: most decisions that affect Scots are now taken in Holyrood.
-
Wot;
Like Trident
PIP
Eu membership
Foriegn trade agreements
Whether to go to war
Elected/unelected head of state....etc, etc...etc?
-
Which means that joining the EU doesn't necessitate joining the Euro, not that I'm opposed to that. It's all in the post you replied to.
This is not correct. One of the entry criteria for the EU is that your country commits to joining the Euro. There are, admittedly, no time scales attached but I think eyebrows would be raised if you didn't make some effort to fulfilling the Euro criteria.
Sweden joined the EU before the Euro was a thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they have an opt out deal like the UK.
-
So now you understand us Brexiteers. We voted UKIP and got Brussels election after election. Ruled by those we didn't want!
There are more UKIP MEPs that MPs. How ironic.
-
This is not correct. One of the entry criteria for the EU is that your country commits to joining the Euro. There are, admittedly, no time scales attached but I think eyebrows would be raised if you didn't make some effort to fulfilling the Euro criteria.
Sweden joined the EU before the Euro was a thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they have an opt out deal like the UK.
No, they don't. They just maintain they do unilaterally
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro
-
-
Wot;
Like Trident
PIP
Eu membership
Foriegn trade agreements
Whether to go to war
Elected/unelected head of state....etc, etc...etc?
You have listed six things. Of those, Scots had exactly the same say as everybody else on the EU membership. You have the same say on foreign trade agreements, whether to go to war and who is the head of state that I have, which is to say we both have no input at all.
Almost all the decisions that really affect you e.g. healthcare, education, infrastructure are made in Scotland.
-
Does that mean that Westminster will happilly withdraw weapons of mass destruction from Scotland? After all, Scotland's parliament has three times voted to remove them....firstly in 2004, then 2010, and finally 2016. Waiting.......
-
No, they don't. They just maintain they do unilaterally
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro
So they are using a loophole to stay out. Do you think Scotland will be afforded the same? And what currency will they use if they don't use the Euro?
-
Does that mean that Westminster will happilly withdraw weapons of mass destruction from Scotland? After all, Scotland's parliament has three times voted to remove them....firstly in 2004, then 2010, and finally 2016. Waiting.......
That's a non sequitur. Nobody denies that Scotland doesn't control everything. However, the only way in which Trident affects Scots on a day to day basis is in providing jobs for a lot of them. Frankly, I think the people of Plymouth or Portsmouth would be delighted with the extra work that would probably come their way.
Also, let's not pretend that Scotland would have any kind of shipbuilding industry without the Royal Navy.
-
So they are using a loophole to stay out. Do you think Scotland will be afforded the same? And what currency will they use if they don't use the Euro?
Not sure how they can be forced given the loophole but as i have said I'm not opposed to the Euro.
-
That's a non sequitur. Nobody denies that Scotland doesn't control everything. However, the only way in which Trident affects Scots on a day to day basis is in providing jobs for a lot of them. Frankly, I think the people of Plymouth or Portsmouth would be delighted with the extra work that would probably come their way.
Also, let's not pretend that Scotland would have any kind of shipbuilding industry without the Royal Navy.
Mmmm
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13078740.Labour_and_Tories_under_fire_for_inflating_Trident_job_losses/
-
Some strange reporting going on, with stories that May has blocked Indyref2, but in fact, she said that she didn't want it now. To which SNP has replied that they never suggested having it now. I'm just confused now.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-soon-isnt-now/
-
Her interview is a hoot: she says we can't have indyref2 until after Brexit so we know what we're voting for - the irony of this is just wonderful!
Still - it will reinforce resentment of the Tories here (including our hopeless home-grown ones), which is no bad thing.
-
It's possible that it's guaranteed Yes2.
-
And given the timescales outlined by Nicola, it seems to imply we won't know what the Brexit deal is by spring 2019!!!!
-
I think what was confusing me, is that Sturgeon did not suggest Indyref2 now, but after Brexit. So why is May saying 'not now', since nobody is suggesting that?
Yes, 'after Brexit' recedes into the future. Ten years?
-
My arguments are partly economic - Scotland needs to be part of the single market, whilst not necessarily a full EU member - yet - the 'Norway approach'.
Scotland needs to be part of the EU single market and out of the UK single market. Have to walk me through that one.
But my argument goes deeper than that. Were the UK federal, that might solve most of the problem; but that's a non-starter despite SLAB's ideas. Yet as devolution gives Scotland control of legal, educational, social, cultural, and some albeit limited welfare policies, the divergance from Westminster will naturally increase over the years, as both parliaments pursue separate legislative agendas. As differences increase, the chance of acrimony - resentment - on both sides will grow. There have been minor niggles already with both the LAB/LIB and SNP administrations and Westminster. Are the next twenty, thirty or whatever years to be plagued with similar disputes regardless of which parties are in power? The fact is that with every legislation passed in one parliament rather than both, we drift further apart. It's a gradual divorce, and will lead to estrangement in the long run anyway.
Not sure that follows... the EU countries followed different legislative agendas for centuries but are predicted to grow closer. Maybe it will go the other way the SNP harping on about "Tory austerity" but their failure to increase taxes make it "SNP austerity".
Anyway why are saying things like "over the years" you can win in 2018!
-
Her interview is a hoot: she says we can't have indyref2 until after Brexit so we know what we're voting for - the irony of this is just wonderful!
Still - it will reinforce resentment of the Tories here (including our hopeless home-grown ones), which is no bad thing.
-
Yep. You can guarantee that we will treat the words of a woman we did not vote for, leade of a party we couldn't care less about, with the contempt and disdain they deserve!
-
I think what was confusing me, is that Sturgeon did not suggest Indyref2 now, but after Brexit. So why is May saying 'not now', since nobody is suggesting that?
Yes, 'after Brexit' recedes into the future. Ten years?
It will take two years to complete Brexit, Nicola Sturgeon wanted a referendum in 2018.
By not now, I presume she means not in 2018 but once the two years is up and the dust starts settling, perhaps they will consider.
Obviously they are looking for a positive outcome to Brexit, which may influence the Scots. 💐🍹🙂
-
It will take two years to complete Brexit, Nicola Sturgeon wanted a referendum in 2018.
By not now, I presume she means not in 2018 but once the two years is up and the dust starts settling, perhaps they will consider.
Obviously they are looking for a positive outcome to Brexit, which may influence the Scots. 💐🍹🙂
What Nicola said was when details of Brexit became clear either late 2018 or early 2019. If details aren't clear in two years from now, this whole negotiation is a nonsense but then that was obvious from David Davis' performance
-
What Nicola said was when details of Brexit became clear either late 2018 or early 2019. If details aren't clear in two years from now, this whole negotiation is a nonsense but then that was obvious from David Davis' performance
I think Theresa May is saying no, give it a chance to work first, not just when plans are revealed.
-
I think Theresa May is saying no, give it a chance to work first, not just when plans are revealed.
Give what a chance to work?
If you mean Brexit then a) Scotland rejected 'it' by a substantial margin - so remember we don't want Brexit, and b) nobody yet knows what Brexit entails, including the party that were stupid enough to let it happen without the electorate or the politicians having any discernible knowledge of what was involved.
The sight of this hopeless and unappealing PM saying she wants us Scots to make an informed choice regarding independence while she's proceeding with an uninformed Brexit decision would be funny if it weren't so ironically pathetic.
We, and Northern Ireland, have been shafted by the voters of England and Wales so, as you can imagine, some of us have no time for a Tory party that does this - btw you guys in England and Wales are being shafted too but you just don't know it yet, but I suppose at least you did vote these Tory clowns in: so thanks for that!
-
Cannae argue wi the Dug here! https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/getting-the-last-word/
-
It will take two years to complete Brexit,
Oh Rose - it won't - we might have 'left' the EU but Brexit will not be complete. The reverberations will rattle on down the years and the negotiations with all and sundry will drag on till you and I are just memories to those that once loved us. That's how long it will take.
-
I think Theresa May is saying no, give it a chance to work first, not just when plans are revealed.
Except she precisely didn't say that, and if you think something's ngnis the wrong idea, why allow it to happen? And 'now' means none of that? Are we supposed to cast runes to find out that 'now' means in six years times?
-
Oh Rose - it won't - we might have 'left' the EU but Brexit will not be complete. The reverberations will rattle on down the years and the negotiations with all and sundry will drag on till you and I are just memories to those that once loved us. That's how long it will take.
Which apparently is 'now'
-
Give what a chance to work?
If you mean Brexit then a) Scotland rejected 'it' by a substantial margin - so remember we don't want Brexit,
Actually a majority of Scots voted no or abstained.
b) nobody yet knows what Brexit entails, including the party that were stupid enough to let it happen without the electorate or the politicians having any discernible knowledge of what was involved.
a) it means leaving the EU and b) most political parties voted for the vote.
We, and Northern Ireland, have been shafted by the voters of England and Wales so, as you can imagine, some of us have no time for a Tory party that does this - btw you guys in England and Wales are being shafted too but you just don't know it yet, but I suppose at least you did vote these Tory clowns in: so thanks for that!
Ahh rhetoric, good init.
[/quote]
-
Actually a majority of Scots voted no or abstained.
a) it means leaving the EU and b) most political parties voted for the vote.
Ahh rhetoric, good init.
So on the first point that means Brexit is wrong for the same reason?
-
Actually a majority of Scots voted no or abstained.
a) it means leaving the EU and b) most political parties voted for the vote.
Ahh rhetoric, good init.
If we are to include those who didn't vote as being equivalent to voting against Brexit there goes the argument that Brexit is the much vaunted 'will of the British people'.
-
So on the first point that means Brexit is wrong for the same reason?
No it means that 'Scotland rejected 'it' by a substantial margin' isn't technically correct.
-
If we are to include those who didn't vote as being equivalent to voting against Brexit there goes the argument that Brexit is the much vaunted 'will of the British people'.
Yes I guess it does, be sure to remind those that make that argument.
If you are to win the next vote petty point scoring, the vilification of the Tory party and a focus on the process isn't going to work. You need a calm coherent argument with a clear plan for the future.
-
No it means that 'Scotland rejected 'it' by a substantial margin' isn't technically correct.
Technically, in the way our democracy works I.e. that not voting is seen as a nul vote it is correct. Whether that is the right way to look at it is a different matter. And I would agree with you that we use these blanket statements too easily. David Cameron was has a habit of 'speaking on behalf of all of the people in country' when saying things I disagreed with.
It's also the same approach which is used in the current totemic use of 'the will of the people' to imply it is a single will in a strange echo of Ein Volk. I wonder if its prevalence is because, at least subconsciously, those using it are aware that it's possible that rarely, if ever, have we had more disparate and atomised views. So we have politicians battling to assert that they have a unanimity, when the truth is all is milling confusion.
To be honest, I am not sure how you get round this. We appear to have banished the word nuance in politics though perhaps as I move into the twilight of breathing, I am caught up in our inbuilt fantasy of previous golden ages.
-
Yes I guess it does, be sure to remind those that make that argument.
If you are to win the next vote petty point scoring, the vilification of the Tory party and a focus on the process isn't going to work. You need a calm coherent argument with a clear plan for the future.
Mmm surely that's exactly not the lesson of current times?
-
So May has rejected Indyref2 on the basis that
"It would be unfair to the people of Scotland that they would be being asked to make a crucial decision without the information they need to make that decision."
I guess it's okay for the UK to make a decision on Brexit without any information whatsoever about a deal (and for it then to be come the Unassailable Will of the British People) but not OK for Scotland to make a choice until it's all settled.
Staggering.
-
So May has rejected Indyref2 on the basis that
I guess it's okay for the UK to make a decision on Brexit without any information whatsoever about a deal (and for it then to be come the Unassailable Will of the British People) but not OK for Scotland to make a choice until it's all settled.
Staggering.
As I have noted before we have moved into a post-irony world, it is now coppery or even zincy.
Leaving aside the perceived need to sound strong, this in combination with David Davis performance before committee this week, surely indicates that the two year timetable is at best a notional aim? I don't think there could have been a step by step plan for Brexit prior to the referendum but it's not clear to me of we have moved much beyond Brexit means Brexit. As so often, I watch political leaders, and feel as if rather than leading, they are providing a running commentary on events to their supporters. In the words of Ledru-Rollin 'Je suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive!'.
-
Yes I guess it does, be sure to remind those that make that argument.
If you are to win the next vote petty point scoring, the vilification of the Tory party and a focus on the process isn't going to work. You need a calm coherent argument with a clear plan for the future.
I think the vilification of the Tory party is part of a sound strategy here in Scotland: albeit we are pushing at an open door that has been helpfully held open by the Tories themselves.
-
I think the vilification of the Tory party is part of a sound strategy here in Scotland: albeit we are pushing at an open door that has been helpfully held open by the Tories themselves.
Yes Tory & Westminster, code-word for English, makes SNP sound less like National Socialists. :)
In all seriousness I find the vilification of anyone pretty ugly, the SNP it is very good at what it does.
-
Yes Tory & Westminster, code-word for English, makes SNP sound less like National Socialists. :)
In all seriousness I find the vilification of anyone pretty ugly, the SNP it is very good at what it does.
We have Tories here too you know: I favour the non-nationalisitic vilification of Tories (including our home grown ones) on the basis of their political ethos and their demonstrable incompetence, such in facilitating Brexit for party reasons without planning for the outcome they got.
-
So May has rejected Indyref2 on the basis that
I guess it's okay for the UK to make a decision on Brexit without any information whatsoever about a deal (and for it then to be come the Unassailable Will of the British People) but not OK for Scotland to make a choice until it's all settled.
Staggering.
But we did have a deal. That pile of crap that Cameron brought back, which just showed how well the EU understood what was going on and so how to adjust to things to form a reasonable compromise to the prevailing situation - or to show what a load of arrogant cunts they are!!!
-
As I have noted before we have moved into a post-irony world, it is now coppery or even zincy.
Leaving aside the perceived need to sound strong, this in combination with David Davis performance before committee this week, surely indicates that the two year timetable is at best a notional aim? I don't think there could have been a step by step plan for Brexit prior to the referendum but it's not clear to me of we have moved much beyond Brexit means Brexit. As so often, I watch political leaders, and feel as if rather than leading, they are providing a running commentary on events to their supporters. In the words of Ledru-Rollin 'Je suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive!'.
I think you are missing the point. Sturgeon doesn't want a referendum now because she knows she'll lose (and that would be the end of the SNP's run of success) but is using it in a game of bluff as a threat to the Union - a gun against Mays head. However, May is calling her bluff on this and saying Sturgeon has no bullets in it for her. In fact the bullet will actually blow Sturgeons head off and May knows this, as Sturgeon has forced herself into a corner into a referendum she can't win, in the near future, at least.
-
We have Tories here too you know: I favour the non-nationalisitic vilification of Tories (including our home grown ones) on the basis of their political ethos and their demonstrable incompetence, such in facilitating Brexit for party reasons without planning for the outcome they got.
That is the type of game Sturgeon is playing - how two faced!!!
-
I think you are missing the point. Sturgeon doesn't want a referendum now because she knows she'll lose (and that would be the end of the SNP's run of success) but is using it in a game of bluff as a threat to the Union - a gun against Mays head. However, May is calling her bluff on this and saying Sturgeon has no bullets in it for her. In fact the bullet will actually blow Sturgeons head off and May knows this, as Sturgeon has forced herself into a corner into a referendum she can't win, in the near future, at least.
Calling her bluff would be to say have the referendum as soon as possible, and then absolutely I think the No side would win. Refusing for the next six years of so, is the opposite of calling a bluff and plays into the Yes sides narrative.
As my post made clear, I think most politicians here are being driven reactively.
-
But we did have a deal. That pile of crap that Cameron brought back...
Yes, that was one of the choices, the other was, well, err..... we'll leave and..... err, we'll have £350 million per week to spend on the NHS....and we'll have a points system for immigration, or not, and.... err... stay in the single market, or not and..... err....hum... err...
-
I don't understand the idea that Sturgeon is bluffing, and May is calling her bluff. First, that would mean that Sturgeon doesn't want Indyref2 and is pretending - that sounds very unlikely to me. Second, to call her bluff, May would surely say, OK, let's have one now, when it would probably lose.
I'm sure there is an element of game playing going on, but I also think that Sturgeon is serious about Indyref2. As to May's position, I don't know, perhaps she wants to string it along, hoping it will fade away, or that Brexit will be very successful, so independence seems less attractive.
-
Calling her bluff would be to say have the referendum as soon as possible, and then absolutely I think the No side would win. Refusing for the next six years of so, is the opposite of calling a bluff and plays into the Yes sides narrative.
As my post made clear, I think most politicians here are being driven reactively.
Has May said have it after Brexit is finalised? I can't tell were she stands but that is what I think she is saying(?). If so, then I think my analyse works with that in that Sturgeon is more likely to lose on the economic grounds and the long process of being put at the back of the queue to join the EU.
-
Yes, that was one of the choices, the other was, well, err..... we'll leave and..... err, we'll have £350 million per week to spend on the NHS....and we'll have a points system for immigration, or not, and.... err... stay in the single market, or not and..... err....hum... err...
Those weren't part of a deal they were arguments. Cameron should have got Whitehall to do a plan/assessment for Brexit. It wasn't for the Leave teams to set the agenda/plan/deal on this, as they weren't asked to do this.
-
Has May said have it after Brexit is finalised? I can't tell were she stands but that is what I think she is saying(?). If so, then I think my analyse works with that in that Sturgeon is more likely to lose on the economic grounds and the long process of being put at the back of the queue to join the EU.
she's said after it is implemented and settled down. It still doesn't natter it's not a calling of the bluff. There is no 'queue' to join the EU despitr the Spanish comment . If so then Turkey would have joined some time ago.
-
I don't understand the idea that Sturgeon is bluffing, and May is calling her bluff. First, that would mean that Sturgeon doesn't want Indyref2 and is pretending - that sounds very unlikely to me. Second, to call her bluff, May would surely say, OK, let's have one now, when it would probably lose.
I'm sure there is an element of game playing going on, but I also think that Sturgeon is serious about Indyref2. As to May's position, I don't know, perhaps she wants to string it along, hoping it will fade away, or that Brexit will be very successful, so independence seems less attractive.
Sturgeon doesn't want it now because she knows that the odds are she would lose, and that would end the debate for a generation or more. But she does want to get concessions on the Brexit deal for Scotland and to look tough and in charge and calling the shots against the Tory government to her Scottish electorate.
A Indyref2 now would mean Sturgeon could paint a bad picture of Brexit - project fear, i.e. sheer conjecture and no facts. I reckon May thinks she can get a favourable deal for the UK which would bode well against the Yes campaign and kill off any project fear etc. that is aimed at the Union Brexit deal. This would give her the attack on the Scottish economy and the laboured process of joining the EU, which would no doubt be a clincher. A Indyref2 just after Brexit would mean May could wax lyrical about the deal and its future positive prospects - i.e. conjecture etc., before it is truly put to the test of time. That's why I thought she was saying to have it just after the Brexit deal.
-
Those weren't part of a deal they were arguments. Cameron should have got Whitehall to do a plan/assessment for Brexit. It wasn't for the Leave teams to set the agenda/plan/deal on this, as they weren't asked to do this.
The point is that May is now saying (about Indyref2)
"I think we should be working to get the right deal for Scotland and the UK with our future partnership with the European Union. It would be unfair to the people of Scotland that they would be being asked to make a crucial decision without the information they need to make that decision."
So, the people of Scotland can't have a vote because they don't know the final Brexit deal but the whole Brexit question was settled and (in May's mind, that of the rabid anti-EU press, and what passes as the official opposition) cast in stone as the Unassailable Will of the British People, on far less information about the final details than we have even now.
Can you not spot the tiny, itsy-bitsy bit of inconsistency....?
-
she's said after it is implemented and settled down. It still doesn't natter it's not a calling of the bluff. There is no 'queue' to join the EU despitr the Spanish comment . If so then Turkey would have joined some time ago.
Your literal mode is working hard on the queue comment - you know what I mean.
If she is saying have Indyref2 after some time after the deal is signed and has shown its cards then her optimism is running too high.
-
But in theory the Brexit deal has to be done by Autumn 2018 to then be approved in the two year period following the triggering of Article 50 expected to be by the end of the month. That ties in with the timetable set out by Nicola to have the referendum late 2018, eatprly 2019. May is saying that it can't happen till after Brexit - note the deal won't be the actual Brexit, and after we have been out for some vague time.
-
Your literal mode is working hard on the queue comment - you know what I mean.
If she is saying have Indyref2 after some time after the deal is signed and has shown its cards then her optimism is running too high.
No, queue has no meaning here in any sense.
Just to clarify the 'she' here is May.
-
I think it does make sense for Scotland to wait it out and see if Brexit is really all that much of a disaster as people assume it will be. If Scotland leaves now in a hurry....and Brexit turns out to be a success and UK does benefit as some people think ...then Scotland might regret their decision.
-
I think it does make sense for Scotland to wait it out and see if Brexit is really all that much of a disaster as people assume it will be. If Scotland leaves now in a hurry....and Brexit turns out to be a success and UK does benefit as some people think ...then Scotland might regret their decision.
And contrariwise if it is a disaster then they would regret the decision to stay.
-
And contrariwise if it is a disaster then they would regret the decision to stay.
That is the time to seek independence, if necessary. Not prematurely.
-
That is the time to seek independence, if necessary. Not prematurely.
But then it's too late because you have had the disaster.
-
But in theory the Brexit deal has to be done by Autumn 2018 to then be approved in the two year period following the triggering of Article 50 expected to be by the end of the month. That ties in with the timetable set out by Nicola to have the referendum late 2018, eatprly 2019. May is saying that it can't happen till after Brexit - note the deal won't be the actual Brexit, and after we have been out for some vague time.
Do you real believe the EU will keep to this, knowing their record on negotiations to the eleventh hour. And with all the votes needed to ratify this thing someone is going to say go back and do that bit again - re. European Parliament. So the 2 years will be taken to the brink of the usual EU madness.
-
No, queue has no meaning here in any sense.
Just to clarify the 'she' here is May.
A Spanish geezer/official said that Scotland would have to go to the back of the queue. What ever way, Scotland would have to start from scratch in joining the EU.
Yes, she there is May.
-
Do you real believe the EU will keep to this, knowing their record on negotiations to the eleventh hour. And with all the votes needed to ratify this thing someone is going to say go back and do that bit again - re. European Parliament. So the 2 years will be taken to the brink of the usual EU madness.
Do I believe it, no. But it's what May is touring as the timescales. So the fact that Nicola is using it is precisely why May has to appear intransigent and cannot afford to call the bluff because it would be clear that the timetable won't work.
-
And contrariwise if it is a disaster then they would regret the decision to stay.
Sriram is right because if Brexit turns out to be bad then they can still leave.
-
A Spanish geezer/official said that Scotland would have to go to the back of the queue. What ever way, Scotland would have to start from scratch in joining the EU.
Yes, she there is May.
yes, I know I mentioned it earlier. There still is not a queue and here is an alternative about starting from scratch
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independent-scotland-would-fast-tracked-9798523#ICID=sharebar_facebook
-
Sriram is right because if Brexit turns out to be bad then they can still leave.
But since the disaster would have gaoiened wholly irrelevant. Look is fairly simple logic.
Sriram's position is:
If I do A (Stay), it might bring disaster, so don't do A.
So you can then change that to
If I do B (Leave), it might bring disaster, so don't do B
It's a logically useless argument.
-
Sriram is right because if Brexit turns out to be bad then they can still leave.
Whatever makes you think that Brexit is the only reason for wanting independence: it isn't, even if it does represent the material change of circumstances that supports indyref2.
The implosion of Labour opens the prospect of long-term Tory dominance in Westminster - not an enticing prospect for some Scots (like me)!
-
Exactly!
-
Do I believe it, no. But it's what May is touring as the timescales. So the fact that Nicola is using it is precisely why May has to appear intransigent and cannot afford to call the bluff because it would be clear that the timetable won't work.
These timescales are not hers they are the EU's; Tusks I think. So I don't see your point.
-
yes, I know I mentioned it earlier. There still is not a queue and here is an alternative about starting from scratch
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independent-scotland-would-fast-tracked-9798523#ICID=sharebar_facebook
Stop being literal!!! It is the fundamental idea that Scotland would have to start from scratch in applying to join the EU, whether they are fast tracked or not. They couldn't take up any of UK's opt outs..........and then there is Spain and possibly Belgium.
-
Stop being literal!!! It is the fundamental idea that Scotland would have to start from scratch in applying to join the EU, whether they are fast tracked or not. They couldn't take up any of UK's opt outs..........and then there is Spain and possibly Belgium.
This makes no sense how can you be fast tracked and start from scratch? Spain has already said it won't block it.
-
But since the disaster would have gaoiened wholly irrelevant. Look is fairly simple logic.
Sriram's position is:
If I do A (Stay), it might bring disaster, so don't do A.
So you can then change that to
If I do B (Leave), it might bring disaster, so don't do B
It's a logically useless argument.
It is wrong because Brexit isn't going to lead to a disaster. It may not be too great, especially at first, but it won't bomb. So they can leave if things aren't picking up and they don't think they will.
Sriram, was also right that during Indyref 1 they knew about the Brexit referendum. It was acknowledged in their, SNP's, white paper on what a Yes vote would mean.
-
This makes no sense how can you be fast tracked and start from scratch? Spain has already said it won't block it.
Fast is a relative term. Lets say compared to Turkey.
-
Whatever makes you think that Brexit is the only reason for wanting independence: it isn't, even if it does represent the material change of circumstances that supports indyref2.
The implosion of Labour opens the prospect of long-term Tory dominance in Westminster - not an enticing prospect for some Scots (like me)!
....and then there's the Scottish economy....
-
These timescales are not hers they are the EU's; Tusks I think. So I don't see your point.
they are one's she is agreeing tob ut I suspect, as you do, and I think Nicola that it won't happen. So the SNP stance is according to the UK govt details will be available, and if they are not we are willing to work on that. Now if May were to actually calk the bluff she would jyst agree to that. But she doesn't want to be seen as taking a position that Brexit will happen in those timescales because her own Brexiteers and the UKIP v1.0, or UKIP 2.0, or the People's Front of UKIP, will suddenly start calling her a traitor to the will of the people.
-
Fast is a relative term. Lets say compared to Turkey.
and as to starting from scratch it obviously goes against that.
-
It is wrong because Brexit isn't going to lead to a disaster. It may not be too great, especially at first, but it won't bomb. So they can leave if things aren't picking up and they don't think they will.
Sriram, was also right that during Indyref 1 they knew about the Brexit referendum. It was acknowledged in their, SNP's, white paper on what a Yes vote would mean.
The problem is that the electorate was told by a Tory PM (and other unionist types) that if we wanted to be part of the EU we'd best stay part of the UK - it is possible that some of the electorate, since we know from June last year that Scotland is pro-EU, voted against independence to safeguard EU status.
The Tories gambled to sort out their internal problems - they lost, and as a result we all lost.
-
It is wrong because Brexit isn't going to lead to a disaster. It may not be too great, especially at first, but it won't bomb. So they can leave if things aren't picking up and they don't think they will.
Sriram, was also right that during Indyref 1 they knew about the Brexit referendum. It was acknowledged in their, SNP's, white paper on what a Yes vote would mean.
That's not Sriram's position why are you misrepresenting what he said?
You second point is so confused and again not what Stpriam has said that I have no clue as your point.
-
The point is that May is now saying (about Indyref2)
So, the people of Scotland can't have a vote because they don't know the final Brexit deal but the whole Brexit question was settled and (in May's mind, that of the rabid anti-EU press, and what passes as the official opposition) cast in stone as the Unassailable Will of the British People, on far less information about the final details than we have even now.
Can you not spot the tiny, itsy-bitsy bit of inconsistency....?
No, if Scotland leaves it will have to negotiate with the rUK on Scexit but it will still be doing the finishing touches to Brexit. Not knowing a deal subject to negotiations is understandable indyref1 was conducted without knowing what the actual deal would be, it involves speculation.
Having indyref2 before Brexit is settled would result in speculation of a deal which relies on speculation of another deal.
I don't think anyone is bluffing I think Sturgeon feels she has to get this done before Brexit otherwise it will never happen and May just doesn't think its possible.
If polls suggested most Scots wanted another vote then I think May will cave. Despite most Scots here being Nicola fanboys I hear quite a few Scots dislike her a lot.
-
We have Tories here too you know: I favour the non-nationalisitic vilification of Tories (including our home grown ones) on the basis of their political ethos and their demonstrable incompetence, such in facilitating Brexit for party reasons without planning for the outcome they got.
Wow so someone who has a different opinion is worthy of vilification. No political party is perfect, how is education in Scotland?
-
No, if Scotland leaves it will have to negotiate with the rUK on Scexit but it will still be doing the finishing touches to Brexit. Not knowing a deal subject to negotiations is understandable indyref1 was conducted without knowing what the actual deal would be, it involves speculation.
Having indyref2 before Brexit is settled would result in speculation of a deal which relies on speculation of another deal.
Well, as I understand it Sturgeon wants the referendum before Brexit but after most of the negotiations, so the maximum information before Scotland is dragged off the insane Brexit cliff with the rest of us.
However, that's not the point. May is now wanting to stop a referendum because the people won't have all the information. So, if she believes in only having referendums under those circumstances, then the Brexit referendum was wrong and (at the very least) should be giving the UK another referendum when all the information of the Brexit deal are known. Instead of which, the result of the lie-ridden uninformed Brexit referendum (as interpreted by May, so not even what was voted on) has been given a kind of godlike status and nobody is allowed even to suggest that it might not have been perfect in every respect...
-
Wow so someone who has a different opinion is worthy of vilification. No political party is perfect, how is education in Scotland?
The Tories have been vilified here for quite some time now, and well before Brexit, in view of their political ethos: Mrs Thatcher sealed their reputation in the eyes of many Scots, and it has been downhill ever since.
The SNP aren't perfect but they aren't responsible for the current Brexit calamity: that would be the Tories putting party interests before the interests of the rest of us and having it backfire spectacularly.
-
Deja Vow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39309133
-
That's not Sriram's position why are you misrepresenting what he said?
You second point is so confused and again not what Stpriam has said that I have no clue as your point.
My position is that once a decision is taken, people should stick by it (at least for a reasonable time frame) and people who are unhappy with the result should just lump it and face it! Throwing tantrums like spoiled brats is not on!
In the 1300's in India we had a muslim king called Mohammad Bin Thuglak. He decided on a whim to change his capital from Delhi to some other place far away near the south. He made all his people pack up and move. Once there, he was not happy and decided to move back again. So...from then on, any such indecision or vacillation is normally referred to as 'Thuglak decision'. I think the people in the UK (Scotland in particular) have gotten themselves into that situation.
One referendum was conducted on the independence, it was a clear decision. So...just stick with it. Once the Brexit consequences are known more clearly, after a few years, maybe another look can be taken about the independence issue. It would be ridiculous to do it so soon after the first one... without seeing the Brexit issue through.
-
Well, as I understand it Sturgeon wants the referendum before Brexit but after most of the negotiations, so the maximum information before Scotland is dragged off the insane Brexit cliff with the rest of us.
Hang on do you think that Scotland can remain in the EU whist the UK leaves? Scexit will have to happen after Brexit.
However, that's not the point. May is now wanting to stop a referendum because the people won't have all the information.
No its about the extent of the information known.
So, if she believes in only having referendums under those circumstances, then the Brexit referendum was wrong and (at the very least) should be giving the UK another referendum when all the information of the Brexit deal are known.
That is not her position, she has not ruled out indyref2 just the timing.
Instead of which, the result of the lie-ridden uninformed Brexit referendum (as interpreted by May, so not even what was voted on) has been given a kind of godlike status and nobody is allowed even to suggest that it might not have been perfect in every respect...
By stating "lie-ridden uninformed Brexit referendum" suggests it wasn't perfect and you have just refuted yourself.
-
My position is that once a decision is taken, people should stick by it (at least for a reasonable time frame) and people who are unhappy with the result should just lump it and face it! Throwing tantrums like spoiled brats is not on!
We in Scotland did take a decision: we want to remain in the UK but are being dragged out by a party we didn't vote for (they have just one seat in Scotland). The UK is already broken beyond repair.
-
The Tories have been vilified here for quite some time now, and well before Brexit, in view of their political ethos: Mrs Thatcher sealed their reputation in the eyes of many Scots, and it has been downhill ever since.
What is wrong with the Tories political ethos, I hope your not going to say something that would fitting in gutter press like 'they are for the rich'.
The SNP aren't perfect but they aren't responsible for the current Brexit calamity: that would be the Tories putting party interests before the interests of the rest of us and having it backfire spectacularly.
Parliament passed the bill with support from both sides of the house. The electorate voted for Brexit based on arguments made from leave and remain. I was on the fence I debated the issue on here and you didn't make a convincing argument to me to vote remain.
Vilification and blaming seems to be the thing to do on this forum.
-
Deja Vow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39309133
-
Pair Gordy......second fiddle to Ed Balls at an event no-one cares a button about, so he trots out stuff he knows niether he nor an unelectable Labour party, has a hope of getting into any legislation.
Fool me once.......
-
What is wrong with the Tories political ethos, I hope your not going to say something that would fitting in gutter press like 'they are for the rich'.
I could mention the Poll Tax, the 'bedroom tax', what they are doing here right now with regard to Job Centre closures - plus the fact that we didn't vote for them: I'm now required by convention to note that there are more Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo than there are Tory MPs in Scotland.
Parliament passed the bill with support from both sides of the house. The electorate voted for Brexit based on arguments made from leave and remain. I was on the fence I debated the issue on here and you didn't make a convincing argument to me to vote remain.
So they did - but with no information about what it entailed so no basis to support it - up to them to make the case to Leave, else the status quo applies. However, that it happened at all was contrary to the rhetoric were we spun by a Tory PM in 2014 and where the majority of Scottish PMs voted against Brexit in Westminster.
Vilification and blaming seems to be the thing to do on this forum.
Only when it is merited.
-
they are one's she is agreeing tob ut I suspect, as you do, and I think Nicola that it won't happen. So the SNP stance is according to the UK govt details will be available, and if they are not we are willing to work on that. Now if May were to actually calk the bluff she would jyst agree to that. But she doesn't want to be seen as taking a position that Brexit will happen in those timescales because her own Brexiteers and the UKIP v1.0, or UKIP 2.0, or the People's Front of UKIP, will suddenly start calling her a traitor to the will of the people.
I don't follow your argument. It is within 2 years as per Art50. May could say that it might not be finalised by 18 months because the EP may come back and ask for some tweaks. What is wrong with that? Why would UKIP start playing up? They are more concerned with the contents than the time frame.
May doesn't want it now because she's got enough on her plate and after the deal the Scots would know what they are voting for or against.
-
and as to starting from scratch it obviously goes against that.
Who said they could be fast tracked. Often the people saying these things don't have the authority to offer them within the EU machine because there are others who could insist on other things, because of the rules, and so nullify their comments.
-
The problem is that the electorate was told by a Tory PM (and other unionist types) that if we wanted to be part of the EU we'd best stay part of the UK - it is possible that some of the electorate, since we know from June last year that Scotland is pro-EU, voted against independence to safeguard EU status.
The Tories gambled to sort out their internal problems - they lost, and as a result we all lost.
But the twisted thinking in that is that the SNP want independence (plus be in the EU, which isn't independence) which would take them out of the EU and yet their reason (and manic arm waving of indignation) for pushing for Indyref2 is because they have been taken out of the EU.....insane logic.
Anyway you lot voted No in Indyref1 and got to stay in the EU; which is what you wanted. No one said it would be forever!!!
-
That's not Sriram's position why are you misrepresenting what he said?
I wasn't backing up or not Sriram's position. I was attacking your bias and extreme assessment of what you think will most probably happen. The odds of a disaster are very very small.
You second point is so confused and again not what Stpriam has said that I have no clue as your point.
That is basically what he said, give or take. It is only confusing to you because you don't want to face up to reality.
-
I wasn't backing up or not Sriram's position. I was attacking your bias and extreme assessment of what you think will most probably happen. The odds of a disaster are very very small.
That is basically what he said, give or take. It is only confusing to you because you don't want to face up to reality.
Now you are misrepresenting me. At no point did I make a statement on likelihood. I suggest you read what is written rather more carefully.
-
We in Scotland did take a decision: we want to remain in the UK but are being dragged out by a party we didn't vote for (they have just one seat in Scotland). The UK is already broken beyond repair.
You mean that the SNP are trying to drag you out of the UK.....? Your post isn't clear.
-
Now you are misrepresenting me. At no point did I make a statement on likelihood. I suggest you read what is written rather more carefully.
So you were stating fact then? ::)
What you were doing was making an assertion that it would be a disaster. Unless you are God you don't know that.
-
I don't follow your argument. It is within 2 years as per Art50. May could say that it might not be finalised by 18 months because the EP may come back and ask for some tweaks. What is wrong with that? Why would UKIP start playing up? They are more concerned with the contents than the time frame.
May doesn't want it now because she's got enough on her plate and after the deal the Scots would know what they are voting for or against.
And again the use of now as you and May do is irrelevant, as no one has said Now.
-
And again the use of now as you and May do is irrelevant, as no one has said Now.
"Now" means in this context before the Brexit deal is ratified....ok?
-
"Now" means in this context before the Brexit deal is ratified....ok?
So now means an undefined time in the future? When you have worked out your new dictionary that you seem to be making up as you go along, get back to me. Otherwise discussion is pointless.
-
We in Scotland did take a decision: we want to remain in the UK but are being dragged out by a party we didn't vote for (they have just one seat in Scotland). The UK is already broken beyond repair.
Scotland: England's biggest county ::)
-
Scotland: England's biggest county ::)
obvious wum is obvious
-
So now means an undefined time in the future? When you have worked out your new dictionary that you seem to be making up as you go along, get back to me. Otherwise discussion is pointless.
What didn't you understand about my last post. No Indyref2 until after the Brexit deal is ratified. How hard is that?
-
obvious wum is obvious
His name should be Wumter.
-
What didn't you understand about my last post. No Indyref2 until after the Brexit deal is ratified. How hard is that?
understand all of it. But it's a specious use of the word now, and it isn't May's position.
-
We in Scotland did take a decision: we want to remain in the UK but are being dragged out by a party we didn't vote for (they have just one seat in Scotland). The UK is already broken beyond repair.
The Tories are not dragging you out of the UK.
-
The Tories are not dragging you out of the UK.
Wild punt here? Typo.
-
Some points that seem fairly obvious to me
Scotland cannot leave the UK before the UK leaves the EU. Even if Scotland voted to leave the UK tomorrow, there would still have to be a negotiation similar to the negotiation we haven't quite started yet with the EU. There's no way the UK government is going to even consider negotiating Scottish independence before we're done with the EU, it would be too much to handle at once.
Theresa May will never let the Scots have independence while she is prime minister. Conservatives are pretty much all unionists. To go against that will make her career toast.
If Brexit goes ahead, I think eventual Scottish independence is inevitable. It's just another way in which the Brexiteers have kicked us all in the goolies.
-
Some points that seem fairly obvious to me
Scotland cannot leave the UK before the UK leaves the EU. Even if Scotland voted to leave the UK tomorrow, there would still have to be a negotiation similar to the negotiation we haven't quite started yet with the EU. There's no way the UK government is going to even consider negotiating Scottish independence before we're done with the EU, it would be too much to handle at once.
Theresa May will never let the Scots have independence while she is prime minister. Conservatives are pretty much all unionists. To go against that will make her career toast.
If Brexit goes ahead, I think eventual Scottish independence is inevitable. It's just another way in which the Brexiteers have kicked us all in the goolies.
I hope it hurts old chap
-
Some points that seem fairly obvious to me
Scotland cannot leave the UK before the UK leaves the EU. Even if Scotland voted to leave the UK tomorrow, there would still have to be a negotiation similar to the negotiation we haven't quite started yet with the EU. There's no way the UK government is going to even consider negotiating Scottish independence before we're done with the EU, it would be too much to handle at once.
Theresa May will never let the Scots have independence while she is prime minister. Conservatives are pretty much all unionists. To go against that will make her career toast.
If Brexit goes ahead, I think eventual Scottish independence is inevitable. It's just another way in which the Brexiteers have kicked us all in the goolies.
Mostly I agree but Nicola had offered discussions about leavingthe EU and staying in UK, turned down, offers to discuss the timing of this referendum, turned down. It creates a narrative that plays well.
-
I hope it hurts old chap
Really? You want Brexit to hurt everybody?
-
Really? You want Brexit to hurt everybody?
only the sanctimonious
-
I could mention the Poll Tax, the 'bedroom tax', what they are doing here right now with regard to Job Centre closures - plus the fact that we didn't vote for them: I'm now required by convention to note that there are more Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo than there are Tory MPs in Scotland.
Those are policies not ethos. So an independent Scotland will never elect a party whose policies you disagree with?
I think its a solid argument to say that the electorate in Scotland would not elect a centre-right party but always go for centre\hard left and its out of kilter with rUK, i.e. the political compass or political ethos as you put it.
I think it would be a poor argument to claim that the electorate in Scotland will only ever elect a party that has policies you agree with.
-
Poor Walter appears to be one of those poor little englanders who think they are a cut above the rest.
I am what I am
Don't want praise don't want pity......
have a laugh Floo ;) ;) ;)
-
Mostly I agree but Nicola had offered discussions about leavingthe EU and staying in UK, turned down, offers to discuss the timing of this referendum, turned down. It creates a narrative that plays well.
I think Sturgeon wanted one foot in both unions that way at a later date she could easily drop out of one. If she gets dragged out of EU then she will have to reapply making independence a harder sell.
If May's play is to keep Scotland in the union its not a bad punt to do exactly as she is doing, Sturgeon will whine and throw a tantrum but what is new about that!
-
I think Sturgeon wanted one foot in both unions that way at a later date she could easily drop out of one. If she gets dragged out of EU then she will have to reapply making independence a harder sell.
If May's play is to keep Scotland in the union its not a bad punt to do exactly as she is doing, Sturgeon will whine and throw a tantrum but what is new about that!
I take it May will only start consulting people or bringing people on board WHEN brexit goes tits up and she needs suckers to act as a lightening rod for her in the ensuing shit storm.
-
I think Sturgeon wanted one foot in both unions that way at a later date she could easily drop out of one. If she gets dragged out of EU then she will have to reapply making independence a harder sell.
If May's play is to keep Scotland in the union its not a bad punt to do exactly as she is doing, Sturgeon will whine and throw a tantrum but what is new about that!
I think you have a certain amount of personal animosity which has lead to your portrayal of Nicola here.
-
I think you have a certain amount of personal animosity which has lead to your portrayal of Nicola here.
I know its wrong
but when she appears on telly all I see is Little Jimmy Krankie.
-
I think you have a certain amount of personal animosity which has lead to your portrayal of Nicola here.
Yes it's interesting how much vitriol seems to be directed at her South of the border. My cousin, usually the mildest mannered of women, posted a meme thingie on FB that had two photos one of Nicola Sturgeon and one of Jimmy Crankie (the similarity is there and is mildly amusing), but then referred to a ginger twat.
I was a little shocked. Maybe I shouldn't be, maybe it is just an indicator of the depths that public discourse has sunken to in these disunited islands.
But to me thoroughly depressing.
-
I know its wrong
but when she appears on telly all I see is Little Jimmy Krankie.
-
You see a Scottish nationalist politician as a Unionist member of the Conservative party?
Wow!
-
-
You see a Scottish nationalist politician as a Unionist member of the Conservative party?
Wow!
I have no idea what you're talking about ???
-
I have no idea what you're talking about ???
-
Obviously - otherwise you wouldn't see Nicola Sturgeon as Jimmy Krankie.
-
-
Obviously - otherwise you wouldn't see Nicola Sturgeon as Jimmy Krankie.
you can't deny the visual similarity though ;D
I have no interest in politics, especially the yappy kind you have in Scotland!
-
you can't deny the visual similarity though ;D
Yes she lacks the fragrance and wan Victorian beauty of Theresa May, but while Krankie reminds our Rose of England that her turdpolishing of Brexit will not go uncommented on.....It's fandabadozee!!!!!!!!!
-
Those are policies not ethos. So an independent Scotland will never elect a party whose policies you disagree with?
I think its a solid argument to say that the electorate in Scotland would not elect a centre-right party but always go for centre\hard left and its out of kilter with rUK, i.e. the political compass or political ethos as you put it.
I think it would be a poor argument to claim that the electorate in Scotland will only ever elect a party that has policies you agree with.
I'd have thought policies would be driven by ethos, and I've never said Scotland would only elect parties whose policies I agree with. It may well be that in an independent Scotland there would be some realignment of existing political parties.
-
Yes it's interesting how much vitriol seems to be directed at her South of the border. My cousin, usually the mildest mannered of women, posted a meme thingie on FB that had two photos one of Nicola Sturgeon and one of Jimmy Crankie (the similarity is there and is mildly amusing), but then referred to a ginger twat.
I was a little shocked. Maybe I shouldn't be, maybe it is just an indicator of the depths that public discourse has sunken to in these disunited islands.
But to me thoroughly depressing.
Of course, it's depressing but the cause of it is interesting. Anyway this piece is quite good on the abuse and the tediousness of the Jimmy Krankie thing. That an op ed piece from the Telegraph called metaphorically for Nicol's head this week is sad.
To be fair, there was similar expressions about Thatcher, with even Elvis Costello singing about Tramping the Dirt Down, so the discourse has been depressing for some time.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/stop-hatred-towards-scots-after-10047185
-
Don't forget there's the Northern Irish and Brexit too....and even Brexitland is pitching up at Phil Hammond's with the begging bowl for more money for Department for the exit from the European union and entry of the rectal fundament.
-
Interesting that Sturgeon cited the Claim of Right in her conference speech, which presumably refers to that of 1989, signed by Labour politicians, among others. But also referring to the Claim of Right of 1689, upon the accession of William and Mary. I think the latter is an important constitutional document which enshrines the sovereignty of the Scottish people, at the expense of the royal prerogative. Granted, I do not understand the relation of this to the Union, and the UK, and Scotland's place within those. But presumably the Scottish parliament is about to state that that the rights of the Scottish people supercede all? Or, if you like, take back control.
-
Looking back on the political gambles of May and Sturgeon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39302141
On the end of the article it talks about SNP members who want to leave the EU.
So the plan is to get the Scots worked up about leaving the EU( so they vote for independence) , only to raise the issue after independence to leave the EU anyway?
That's politics for you!
🙄
-
Looking back on the political gambles of May and Sturgeon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39302141
On the end of the article it talks about SNP members who want to leave the EU.
So the plan is to get the Scots worked up about leaving the EU( so they vote for independence) , only to raise the issue after independence to leave the EU anyway?
That's politics for you!
🙄
No, while there are members of the SNP who don't want to be in the EU, they are in a minority, and the party policy is to stay.
-
I think you have a certain amount of personal animosity which has lead to your portrayal of Nicola here.
No I have a great deal of respect for her as a politician, she portrays herself in rUK as a bit of a dick because that serves her purpose.
-
No I have a great deal of respect for her as a politician, she portrays herself in rUK as a bit of a dick because that serves her purpose.
having respect does not preclude animosity which is again apparent in your post.
-
No, while there are members of the SNP who don't want to be in the EU, they are in a minority, and the party policy is to stay.
Nothing would surprise me with politicians.
-
only the sanctimonious
How are you going to make sure it only hurts the sanctimonious?
-
Yes it's interesting how much vitriol seems to be directed at her South of the border.
Yes because those people north of the border never direct vitriol at anybody.
That was sarcasm, by the way.
IIRC Jakswan is both pro Brexit and pro Scottish independence. He's just arguing from the facts in this case.
My cousin, usually the mildest mannered of women, posted a meme thingie on FB that had two photos one of Nicola Sturgeon and one of Jimmy Crankie (the similarity is there and is mildly amusing), but then referred to a ginger twat.
I was a little shocked. Maybe I shouldn't be, maybe it is just an indicator of the depths that public discourse has sunken to in these disunited islands.
But to me thoroughly depressing.
What is depressing to me is that the idea of being compared to a member of a successful comedy act is considered to be an insult.
-
Yes because those people north of the border never direct vitriol at anybody.
That was sarcasm, by the way.
IIRC Jakswan is both pro Brexit and pro Scottish independence. He's just arguing from the facts in this case.
What is depressing to me is that the idea of being compared to a member of a successful comedy act is considered to be an insult.
Good use of the tu quoque fallacy.
-
I'd have thought policies would be driven by ethos, and I've never said Scotland would only elect parties whose policies I agree with. It may well be that in an independent Scotland there would be some realignment of existing political parties.
Yes policies are driven by ethos and the political ethos that you disagree with is centre right wing?
So you must think that the Scottish electorate will not elect a centre-right party. Which is a solid argument. I don't think its true but its your country / future.
-
Of course, it's depressing but the cause of it is interesting. Anyway this piece is quite good on the abuse and the tediousness of the Jimmy Krankie thing. That an op ed piece from the Telegraph called metaphorically for Nicol's head this week is sad.
To be fair, there was similar expressions about Thatcher, with even Elvis Costello singing about Tramping the Dirt Down, so the discourse has been depressing for some time.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/stop-hatred-towards-scots-after-10047185
The Krankie thing is harmless fun, the vitriol and vilification goes too far. Although Gordon has confessed its in the SNP playbook, its a pity political debate is at this low level.
-
The Krankie thing is harmless fun, the vitriol and vilification goes too far. Although Gordon has confessed its in the SNP playbook, its a pity political debate is at this low level.
Has Gordon got a senior role in the SNP?!!? He determines their playbook?
-
Good use of the tu quoque fallacy.
In response to some cheap shot whining about vitriol.
-
In response to some cheap shot whining about vitriol.
and followed by another tu quoque.
-
having respect does not preclude animosity which is again apparent in your post.
Not sure I'd use that word, I think if I was Scottish I'd be against her, being Welsh I do not like the Plids (Plaid) at all. There is a undercurrent of anti-English sentiment in Wales and a good politician could do for Wales what SNP have done for Scotland, given the small minded pathetic Welsh political establishment hopefully that never happens.
-
The Krankie thing is harmless fun, the vitriol and vilification goes too far. Although Gordon has confessed its in the SNP playbook, its a pity political debate is at this low level.
No I didn't - I said I think vilification can be merited, therefore I think it reasonable to vilify the Tories for the Brexit shambles since it was their doing, nor have I compared the Tories with, say, comedy figures in a similar manner to comments about Nicola Sturgeon.
I also note considerable friction between the EU Leavers and Remainers separate from any issues relating to Scotland - hence the irony of TMs comments about the SNP causing division in light of her determination to press on with Brexit.
I'm not an SNP member so I can't speak for them or their policy.
-
Has Gordon got a senior role in the SNP?!!? He determines their playbook?
I don't think anyone knows the playbook unless you are leading the SNP, we can only form opinions.
-
No I didn't - I said I think vilification can be merited, therefore I think it reasonable to vilify the Tories for the Brexit shambles since it was their doing, nor have I compared the Tories with, say, comedy figures in a similar manner to comments about Nicola Sturgeon.
I also note considerable friction between the EU Leavers and Remainers separate from any issues relating to Scotland - hence the irony of TMs comments about the SNP causing division in light of her determination to press on with Brexit.
I'm not an SNP member so I can't speak for them or their policy.
So the current level of debate where people are vilified is something of merit.
-
and followed by another tu quoque.
You clearly failed to understand my message.
I was saying "so fucking what?" You can continue with your "tu quoques" as long as you like. It won't alter the fact that Scotlanders whining about the vitriol directed at Jimmy Krankie and Nicola Sturgeon is the height of hypocrisy.
-
So the current level of debate where people are vilified is something of merit.
That depends surely on how it is expressed: I've made it quite clear that I vilify the Tories for their actions leading to Brexit but I haven't resorted to calling them names.
Synonyms such as disparage, denigrate and condemn also convey my view of the Tories.
-
You clearly failed to understand my message.
I was saying "so fucking what?" You can continue with your "tu quoques" as long as you like. It won't alter the fact that Scotlanders whining about the vitriol directed at Jimmy Krankie and Nicola Sturgeon is the height of hypocrisy.
Trent whose post you initially replied to isn't a 'Scotlander' and yes, you are still using a tu quoque plus an unwarranted generalization.
-
Trent whose post you initially replied to isn't a 'Scotlander' and yes, you are still using a tu quoque plus an unwarranted generalization.
I refer you to the first part of my previous answer.
-
That depends surely on how it is expressed: I've made it quite clear that I vilify the Tories for their actions leading to Brexit but I haven't resorted to calling them names.
Synonyms such as disparage, denigrate and condemn also convey my view of the Tories.
Fair enough, I'm guessing its fair for someone to do the same with regard to SNP/Scexit.
Right back to Scexit, so your reason for yes vote is the political ethos is different to rUK. Got that, I'm guessing you are pro-EU though which will mean Scotland will have to go with its fiscal rules, so increased tax or austerity?
I'm guessing, as your political ethos is at the very least centre left then increased taxes?
-
That depends surely on how it is expressed: I've made it quite clear that I vilify the Tories for their actions leading to Brexit but I haven't resorted to calling them names.
Synonyms such as disparage, denigrate and condemn also convey my view of the Tories.
I think the language is becoming a little intemperate. Words like "vilify" imply more than deserved criticism. It's true that this whole Brexit and hence Indyref2 was caused by the Tory leader of the time embarking on a poorly thought out strategy for silencing the Eurosceptics in his party. Yes he deserves criticism and Theresa May's handling since has hardly been stellar but "vilify" has a connotation of unjust criticism. Can't we just agree that the Conservative Party has fucked us all royally up the arse?
-
Fair enough, I'm guessing its fair for someone to do the same with regard to SNP/Scexit.
Right back to Scexit, so your reason for yes vote is the political ethos is different to rUK. Got that, I'm guessing you are pro-EU though which will mean Scotland will have to go with its fiscal rules, so increased tax or austerity?
I'm guessing, as your political ethos is at the very least centre left then increased taxes?
I was in favour of independence in 2014, so one aspect of my vilification of the Tories is the mixed messages between them and now: in 2014 we were told that voting for independence meant we'd leave the EU and this was portrayed as a proverbial 'bad thing' yet within 2 years we are to suffer this 'bad thing' at the hands of the very same people who previously appealed to us to avoid it by remaining in the UK.
So, when one considers that the primary reason for the EU referendum was to deal with Tory euro-sceptics/UKIP by shutting them up, since it was I think assumed the electorate would agree to remain the in the EU, then the Tory party deserves vilification - the referendum was advisory yet in view of the absence of plans for Brexit it seems the Tory government didn't stop to even consider the referendum result represented bad and ill-informed advice being given: they didn't know what accepting this advice would entail, but they accepted it anyway.
I'm moderately pro EU in that it is the status quo and since any decision to leave it would surely require clear and prior knowledge of the implications - this still isn't available even though we're apparently leaving. In addition the issue of immigration, which seems to be the prime xenophobic concern of the Leave brigade elsewhere in the UK, would be contrary to the interests of Scotland, as would be the loss of access the single market and we'd also lose the freedom to move and work that we now enjoy - for instance when my son's then fiance (now wife) was studying in Holland for a year he was able to work there. So, and while I'm not saying the EU is perfect, the loss of the likes of these aspects in response to the xenophobia of UKIP and some elements within the Tory party is an example of the tail wagging the dog.
I do think there is a case for taxation as an alternative to austerity, provided the case can be soundly made.
-
I think the language is becoming a little intemperate. Words like "vilify" imply more than deserved criticism. It's true that this whole Brexit and hence Indyref2 was caused by the Tory leader of the time embarking on a poorly thought out strategy for silencing the Eurosceptics in his party. Yes he deserves criticism and Theresa May's handling since has hardly been stellar but "vilify" has a connotation of unjust criticism. Can't we just agree that the Conservative Party has fucked us all royally up the arse?
that was NS with his tu quoques I think !
-
Can't we just agree that the Conservative Party has fucked us all royally up the arse?
Agreed.
-
I was in favour of independence in 2014, so one aspect of my vilification of the Tories is the mixed messages between them and now: in 2014 we were told that voting for independence meant we'd leave the EU and this was portrayed as a proverbial 'bad thing' yet within 2 years we are to suffer this 'bad thing' at the hands of the very same people who previously appealed to us to avoid it by remaining in the UK.
The leadership of the Tory party fought as hard as they could for a remain vote. The British electorate voted in a referendum supported by British MPs, in 2014 Scotland chose to remain British.
So, when one considers that the primary reason for the EU referendum was to deal with Tory euro-sceptics/UKIP by shutting them up, since it was I think assumed the electorate would agree to remain the in the EU, then the Tory party deserves vilification - the referendum was advisory yet in view of the absence of plans for Brexit it seems the Tory government didn't stop to even consider the referendum result represented bad and ill-informed advice being given: they didn't know what accepting this advice would entail, but they accepted it anyway.
So if you get a yes for Scexit it will be advisory?
I'm moderately pro EU in that it is the status quo and since any decision to leave it would surely require clear and prior knowledge of the implications - this still isn't available even though we're apparently leaving. In addition the issue of immigration, which seems to be the prime xenophobic concern of the Leave brigade elsewhere in the UK, would be contrary to the interests of Scotland, as would be the loss of access the single market and we'd also lose the freedom to move and work that we now enjoy - for instance when my son's then fiance (now wife) was studying in Holland for a year he was able to work there. So, and while I'm not saying the EU is perfect, the loss of the likes of these aspects in response to the xenophobia of UKIP and some elements within the Tory party is an example of the tail wagging the dog.
So lets take them one by one.
1. Knowledge of the implications on an exit vote, did this not apply in 2014?
2. The single market, which one, the British one or the EU one.
3. No one knows if freedom of labour is off the table, but assuming it is then Scots will be able to work in France but not in rUK.
I do think there is a case for taxation as an alternative to austerity, provided the case can be soundly made.
I see lets hear your case then. Bear in mind that if you tax the rich they will move very quickly.
-
you can't deny the visual similarity though ;D
I have no interest in politics, especially the yappy kind you have in Scotland!
-
Being blind, I can deny the visual similarity pretty well, actually......
-
-
Being blind, I can deny the visual similarity pretty well, actually......
please forgive me......no offence....
-
please forgive me......no offence....
-
Not a problem.
In my situation, you meet a nice class of lamp post.
'S a bugger when they answer you back, though.....
-
Apparently it's like a different country (and that was only Edinburgh)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-39321008
-
-
Not a problem.
In my situation, you meet a nice class of lamp post.
'S a bugger when they answer you back, though.....
and beware of soft dollops on the pavement, can make a right mess of your front room carpet!
-
The leadership of the Tory party fought as hard as they could for a remain vote. The British electorate voted in a referendum supported by British MPs, in 2014 Scotland chose to remain British.
The Tories need not have agreed a referendum in the first place: and they did for party reasons, and they did so without seemingly examining what a Leave result implied. That some wanted a Remain outcome doesn't excuse them having the referendum in the first place.
So if you get a yes for Scexit it will be advisory?
No idea - the details have yet to be agreed.
So lets take them one by one.
1. Knowledge of the implications on an exit vote, did this not apply in 2014?
In 2014 it wasn't known if there would even be a EU referendum since, iirc, it was a consequence of the result of the 2015 GE. In 2014 the pressing EU issue was 'leave the UK and you leave the EU'.Had the 2015 GE produced another Tory/Lib Dem coalition I doubt the EU referendum would have occurred.
2. The single market, which one, the British one or the EU one.
In terms of Brexit the EU one, and should Scotland become independent then both would be subject to negotiation.
3. No one knows if freedom of labour is off the table, but assuming it is then Scots will be able to work in France but not in rUK.
Again, subject to negotiation.
I see lets hear your case then. Bear in mind that if you tax the rich they will move very quickly.
The decision on variable rates and sources of taxation is part of the political governance process and involves an assessment of the balance between revenue requirements and preparedness to pay and what expenditure will be allowed, refused or constrained - these details in respect of an independent Scotland are no more clear now than are the details of the intended negotiations surrounding Brexit.
In both cases flesh on bones is needed: Brexit first.
-
It's interesting how little room for manouver Cameron had.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38402140
-
The Tories need not have agreed a referendum in the first place: and they did for party reasons, and they did so without seemingly examining what a Leave result implied. That some wanted a Remain outcome doesn't excuse them having the referendum in the first place.
The Labour and Libdems also agreed to a referendum for their own reasons. If you can't consider a referendum without knowing what the result implies then I think the SNP will currently fall foul of that rule.
No idea - the details have yet to be agreed.
You seemed to have evaded, you know want the Tories to back down on Brexit. If Scotland votes Yes but the unionist parties carry a majority in Holyrood will you be happy that they say it was advisory.
In 2014 it wasn't known if there would even be a EU referendum since, iirc, it was a consequence of the result of the 2015 GE. In 2014 the pressing EU issue was 'leave the UK and you leave the EU'.Had the 2015 GE produced another Tory/Lib Dem coalition I doubt the EU referendum would have occurred.
So you didn't know the implications in 2014 of voting yes or no, according to you then you should have opposed the vote.
In terms of Brexit the EU one, and should Scotland become independent then both would be subject to negotiation.
Hang on if access to a single market is a concern then the biggest one for Scotland is the rUK market, why do want to leave it?
Again, subject to negotiation.
So you are withdrawing that then?
The decision on variable rates and sources of taxation is part of the political governance process and involves an assessment of the balance between revenue requirements and preparedness to pay and what expenditure will be allowed, refused or constrained - these details in respect of an independent Scotland are no more clear now than are the details of the intended negotiations surrounding Brexit.
The government has a rolling plan for how much it is going to spend, what its deficit is. You can find out what the deficit for Scotland would be, so your planning to vote Yes and 'hope' that you will be able to raise taxes, based on a 'sound case' but when asked to provide the case come up with nothing.
In both cases flesh on bones is needed: Brexit first.
So agree with May 'not now', obs when she says 'not now' she means lets not set a date now.
-
It's interesting how little room for manouver Cameron had.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38402140
I think we generally overestimate the room for manoeuvre that politicians have. And even how much of what happens is a confluence of circumstances. Bercow's decision could not have been planned for.
I think the same happened to the SNP to an extent in that they had to put something in the manifesto given the huge increase in membership following on first Indyref, and then the vote on Brexit meant they had to make houses about what happened next. Hence the first statements were about looking to work in a possible deal thast would look like a good compromise, such as the highly unlikely Scotland somehow remaining in Europe with UK out, or some form of deal on the single market. And similarly May was in a position where that wouldn't play well with her Brediteers so the conflict is in a sense inevitable.
I think that both are playing to different audiences so both will be relatively pleased where they are after what has happened this week. That said I think that Nicola has a slight advantage in that she can afford to piss off the rest of the UK in a way that is counter productive for May in pissing off voters in Scotland.
-
The Labour and Libdems also agreed to a referendum for their own reasons. If you can't consider a referendum without knowing what the result implies then I think the SNP will currently fall foul of that rule.
Nope - as far as I can see the SNP intend to present their 'changing the status quo case' prior to indyref2: iirc correctly there was no case presented prior to the EU referendum result if it was Leave (changing the status quo).
You seemed to have evaded, you know want the Tories to back down on Brexit. If Scotland votes Yes but the unionist parties carry a majority in Holyrood will you be happy that they say it was advisory.
The unionist parties don't have a majority in Holyrood, as will become apparent this week, and I think the outcome of indyref2 should be mandatory.
So you didn't know the implications in 2014 of voting yes or no, according to you then you should have opposed the vote.
The SNP presented their case for exiting the UK before the 2014 vote, the non-status quo outcome, whereas for the EU referendum it seems nobody envisioned the result they got!
Hang on if access to a single market is a concern then the biggest one for Scotland is the rUK market, why do want to leave it?
Because as things stand, given the implosion of Labour, the option of a UK under a long-term Tory majority is unacceptable given the different voting patterns here in Scotland.
So you are withdrawing that then?
Nope - I want Scotland to leave the UK.
The government has a rolling plan for how much it is going to spend, what its deficit is. You can find out what the deficit for Scotland would be, so your planning to vote Yes and 'hope' that you will be able to raise taxes, based on a 'sound case' but when asked to provide the case come up with nothing.
I'm not a politician or an economist, and the detailed circumstances of an independent Scotland will require these skills and I do think that it isn't unreasonable to conclude an independent Scotland would sort out its budgetary plans in much the same way that the UK does currently (even though we've just seen the nonsense of a Tory chancellor having to back-track his Budget within a couple of days of announcing it).
So agree with May 'not now', obs when she says 'not now' she means lets not set a date now.
Nobody has suggested now anyway, but 2018/19 - I'd have thought this was sensible since more will be known about Brexit by then (hopefully) and presumably if it is known whether or not Scotland will be leaving the UK at the point the UK formally leaves the EU this would be important in terms of planning. For example - if Scotland leaves the UK then fisheries policy agreed in any Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU would be superseded at the point Scotland left the UK for those waters that would no longer be under UK control.
-
Nope - as far as I can see the SNP intend to present their 'changing the status quo case' prior to indyref2: iirc correctly there was no case presented prior to the EU referendum result if it was Leave (changing the status quo).
So vote leave should have got the crystal balls out and known how the negotiations would pan out? In 2014 the SNP couldn't tell what your currency would be and what control they would have over it. Sorry Gordon this is double standards.
The unionist parties don't have a majority in Holyrood, as will become apparent this week, and I think the outcome of indyref2 should be mandatory.
If the unionist parties had a majority, a vote could take place after 2020. I think indyref2 will be advisory, could be wrong.
The SNP presented their case for exiting the UK before the 2014 vote, the non-status quo outcome, whereas for the EU referendum it seems nobody envisioned the result they got!
Vote leave had a case, vote remain had a case. They can't tell you everything that will happen because there are known unknowns.
Because as things stand, given the implosion of Labour, the option of a UK under a long-term Tory majority is unacceptable given the different voting patterns here in Scotland.
So you want remain in the EU market but leave the UK market because you don't like the government. You like the French / German ones then?
Nope - I want Scotland to leave the UK.
And end freedom of movement between rUK and Scotland?
I'm not a politician or an economist, and the detailed circumstances of an independent Scotland will require these skills and I do think that it isn't unreasonable to conclude an independent Scotland would sort out its budgetary plans in much the same way that the UK does currently (even though we've just seen the nonsense of a Tory chancellor having to back-track his Budget within a couple of days of announcing it).
So you will want to raise taxes presenting a good case for doing so, but will leave that to someone else.
How do you know the Scottish people won't vote in a centre-right austerity party, like the SNP?
Nobody has suggested now anyway, but 2018/19 - I'd have thought this was sensible since more will be known about Brexit by then (hopefully) and presumably if it is known whether or not Scotland will be leaving the UK at the point the UK formally leaves the EU this would be important in terms of planning. For example - if Scotland leaves the UK then fisheries policy agreed in any Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU would be superseded at the point Scotland left the UK for those waters that would no longer be under UK control.
The 'now' refers to setting a date now.
-
So vote leave should have got the crystal balls out and known how the negotiations would pan out? In 2014 the SNP couldn't tell what your currency would be and what control they would have over it. Sorry Gordon this is double standards.
To a degree I'll concede that, but I'd mention the Brexit nonsense: the trumpeted £350,000,000 a week for the NHS (not sure if this includes here since the NHS here is separate from that in E&W), the xenophobia surrounding immigration that didn't play out here in Scotland and, of course, that UKIP aren't an issue here either.
If the unionist parties had a majority, a vote could take place after 2020. I think indyref2 will be advisory, could be wrong.
In Holyrood? Seems unlikely as things stand.
Vote leave had a case, vote remain had a case. They can't tell you everything that will happen because there are known unknowns.
I don't recall a Leave case that didn't involve lies or unappealing politicians talking about issues that were germane to Scotland.
So you want remain in the EU market but leave the UK market because you don't like the government. You like the French / German ones then?
Why would we need to leave any markets if staying involved in them would be mutually beneficial.
And end freedom of movement between rUK and Scotland?
Why would that be a result beyond the same basic checks that apply when going to France? Presumably this would be part of any agreement between Scotland and the UK, and no doubt the forthcoming arrangement in Ireland will give clues.
So you will want to raise taxes presenting a good case for doing so, but will leave that to someone else.
As is the case now in the UK: we elect politicians to do this stuff and if we don't like what they do we can vote to remove them.
How do you know the Scottish people won't vote in a centre-right austerity party, like the SNP?
I don't, but then I suspect internal Scottish politics would shift post-independence, especially for the SNP - but that would be an internal choice for the people of Scotland whereas the shift away from the traditional unionist parties here means we have a Westminster government UK government that doesn't reflect the political climate here in Scotland.
The 'now' refers to setting a date now.
Nicola Sturgeon has already suggested a window for this.
-
Just to note that any referendum is likely to be advisory. Also Nicola's original speech flagged tgat any date set was flexible dependent on events and ongoing discussions. So May is getting that wrong and so by following on from that is jakswan
-
Just to note that any referendum is likely to be advisory. Also Nicola's original speech flagged tgat any date set was flexible dependent on events and ongoing discussions. So May is getting that wrong and so by following on from that is jakswan
The problem with that is that legally the Brexit referendum was advisory but is being treated as legally binding.
Can you really see anyone getting away with trying to use that for Indyref2 if the vote is to leave the UK?
-
The problem with that is that legally the Brexit referendum was advisory but is being treated as legally binding.
Can you really see anyone getting away with trying to use that for Indyref2 if the vote is to leave the UK?
Not really especially if the UK govt is still filled with the will of the people guys. However, that doesn't stop the likelihood that it will be advisory.
-
To a degree I'll concede that, but I'd mention the Brexit nonsense: the trumpeted £350,000,000 a week for the NHS (not sure if this includes here since the NHS here is separate from that in E&W), the xenophobia surrounding immigration that didn't play out here in Scotland and, of course, that UKIP aren't an issue here either.
So you will concede double standards, wow. The Brexit "nonsense" is irrelevant its your spin on vote leave.
In Holyrood? Seems unlikely as things stand.
You can't see either Labour\LibDems\Tories picking up 3 seats in the next Holyrood elections, wow again!
I don't recall a Leave case that didn't involve lies or unappealing politicians talking about issues that were germane to Scotland.
So Jim Sillars is a liar or unappealing, good to know the SNP are not perfect.
Why would we need to leave any markets if staying involved in them would be mutually beneficial.
The Uk is leaving the EU single market, so there will be a UK single market and EU single market. You won't be able to be in both.
Why would that be a result beyond the same basic checks that apply when going to France? Presumably this would be part of any agreement between Scotland and the UK, and no doubt the forthcoming arrangement in Ireland will give clues.
So if the UK does a deal on freedom of movement of labour with EU then it won't be an issue for you, good, glad we cleared that up.
As is the case now in the UK: we elect politicians to do this stuff and if we don't like what they do we can vote to remove them.
Yes and Tories won.
I don't, but then I suspect internal Scottish politics would shift post-independence, especially for the SNP - but that would be an internal choice for the people of Scotland whereas the shift away from the traditional unionist parties here means we have a Westminster government UK government that doesn't reflect the political climate here in Scotland.
So you want independence because you know the political ethos is different in Scotland but don't know it is? I'm confused.
Nicola Sturgeon has already suggested a window for this.
When is she talking about the window..... now.... now is not the time.
-
On a second independence referendum...
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/13/news/economy/scotland-independence-brexit/index.html
*************
Here's another thing for investors to worry about: The very real chance of a new independence referendum in Scotland.
1. Currency question: An independent Scotland would have to decide which currency to use. Those campaigning for independence in 2014 suggested it should continue to use the pound in a currency union with England. But U.K. lawmakers said they were not ready to share.
2. Finance: It's unclear what would happen to Scotland's finance industry if it decided to fly solo.
Edinburgh is the U.K.'s second largest financial center after London and home to a cluster of asset management companies. The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is headquartered there.
Many of the biggest banks threatened to leave the country if Scotland voted for independence back in 2014, but the tide has shifted since then.
3. Oil: The U.K. is the largest oil producer in the EU, and about 90% comes from areas that are likely to be claimed by an independent Scotland.
4. Debt: Scotland runs a major budget deficit at almost 10% of GDP, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Facing low oil prices and without the support of the rest of the U.K., an independent Scotland would have to look for revenues elsewhere or cut back on spending.
The question of how to manage Scotland's share of U.K. debt would also need to be addressed. If there was a split, an independent Scotland could owe Britain as much as £150 billion -- its share of the debt based on population.
**************
-
So you will concede double standards, wow. The Brexit "nonsense" is irrelevant its your spin on vote leave.
Nope - I'm conceding that the cases being made by political agencies (inc. the SNP) may be incomplete or inaccurate in some ways: in other words I don't regard the SNP as being incapable of error, but what is the case is that the Tories initiated Brexit without assessing the risks or having a plan for a Leave outcome.
You can't see either Labour\LibDems\Tories picking up 3 seats in the next Holyrood elections, wow again!
Which are in 2021, and I don't have a crystal ball: hence my point there will be no change in the near future.
So Jim Sillars is a liar or unappealing, good to know the SNP are not perfect.
Never said they were, hence the first point in this reply.
The Uk is leaving the EU single market, so there will be a UK single market and EU single market. You won't be able to be in both.
Possibly, but not certainly, but subject to negotiations.
So if the UK does a deal on freedom of movement of labour with EU then it won't be an issue for you, good, glad we cleared that up.
You means like now: that it may change is part of the problem with Brexit.
Yes and Tories won.
Unfortunately, but then you guys voted for them in enough numbers - we didn't.
So you want independence because you know the political ethos is different in Scotland but don't know it is? I'm confused.
You misunderstand - my point is that post-independence the internal politics of Scotland may change. Whether the SNP remain dominant is an unknown, as is what the voting system would be (Holyrood currently involves a mix of FPP and 'list').
When is she talking about the window..... now.... now is not the time.
So it seems 'now' extends to 2019?
-
Nope - I'm conceding that the cases being made by political agencies (inc. the SNP) may be incomplete or inaccurate in some ways: in other words I don't regard the SNP as being incapable of error, but what is the case is that the Tories initiated Brexit without assessing the risks or having a plan for a Leave outcome.
They initiated a vote on Brexit, the electorate voted for it. I think the Government made the case for remain since that was their position, will the SNP be making a case for remain UK, no they will be making a case leave (remain / leave relative to Scexit).
Which are in 2021, and I don't have a crystal ball: hence my point there will be no change in the near future.
To recap you seemed to be advocating that the UK government should not proceed with Brexit since it will be damaging and it was advisory. You have to be consistent; so if indyref2 gets voted for comes before Holyrood in 2021 for approval if there is a unionist majority at that time you will be comfortable with them voting it down.
Never said they were, hence the first point in this reply.
You said "don't recall a Leave case that didn't involve lies or unappealing politicians" so is Jim Sillars a liar or unappealing?
Possibly, but not certainly, but subject to negotiations.
Almost certainly, so to recap you do not want to leave the EU single market because that will be economically damaging but to do so prepared to risk leaving a more important single market that will be more damaging.
Whilst I want Scotland to leave I don't think the economic case is a good one unless you go down the Irish route of cutting taxes to big business.
Unfortunately, but then you guys voted for them in enough numbers - we didn't.
I didn't vote Tory and I'm Welsh, we are all British and Scotland voted to remain to remain British.
You misunderstand - my point is that post-independence the internal politics of Scotland may change. Whether the SNP remain dominant is an unknown, as is what the voting system would be (Holyrood currently involves a mix of FPP and 'list').
No I do understand and its your best argument which I support but it has to be coherent. If want to leave because you do not like being governed by a centre-right party then you have to prove a case that Scotland will never elect a centre-right party.
So it seems 'now' extends to 2019?
No setting the date now extends to now. You set a date for 2019 NOW but in 2018/9 the EU could say 'this is a minefield lets have a 10 year transitional arrangement' so you have set a date NOW but along the road find that 2019 is not the right time. So NOW is not the time to set a date.
-
To recap you seemed to be advocating that the UK government should not proceed with Brexit since it will be damaging and it was advisory. You have to be consistent; so if indyref2 gets voted for comes before Holyrood in 2021 for approval if there is a unionist majority at that time you will be comfortable with them voting it down.
I'd have thought indyref2 should occur within the lifetime of the current Scottish Parliament - that we voted for.
Almost certainly, so to recap you do not want to leave the EU single market because that will be economically damaging but to do so prepared to risk leaving a more important single market that will be more damaging.
Staying in the UK implies that the politics of rUK prevail. In times gone by it was the case that Scottish politics, in terms of elections, returned unionist parties - that has changed.
No I do understand and its your best argument which I support but it has to be coherent. If want to leave because you do not like being governed by a centre-right party then you have to prove a case that Scotland will never elect a centre-right party.
You're not getting it: currently one option for Scottish centre-right voters would be the Tories, but they are a UK unionist party and have just one Westminster seat. In an independent Scotland there might be alternatives to the Tories.
No setting the date now extends to now. You set a date for 2019 NOW but in 2018/9 the EU could say 'this is a minefield lets have a 10 year transitional arrangement' so you have set a date NOW but along the road find that 2019 is not the right time. So NOW is not the time to set a date.
Now would be time to agree the Scottish Government should arrange the details of indyref2, since the Scottish Parliament require this.
-
If, in indyref2, there are regions that vote quite heavily to remain in the UK, do you think there should be special arrangements for these regions following Scotland becoming independent?
-
I expect some of you may have seen this.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642
-
If, in indyref2, there are regions that vote quite heavily to remain in the UK, do you think there should be special arrangements for these regions following Scotland becoming independent?
No - Scotland, just like the current UK, has defined boundaries: the scope of the Scottish Parliament being the obvious one for indyref2. If 'we' are all currently UK citizens, and this is sufficient to make Brexit applicable in areas that rejected it in the referendum, then the same principle would apply to indyref2.
-
No - Scotland, just like the current UK, has defined boundaries: the scope of the Scottish Parliament being the obvious one for indyref2. If 'we' are all currently UK citizens, and this is sufficient to make Brexit applicable in areas that rejected it in the referendum, then the same principle would apply to indyref2.
Thought not.
-
Thought not.
So, are you planning to allow Scotland (or London) to opt-out of Brexit?
Thought not.
-
I'd have thought indyref2 should occur within the lifetime of the current Scottish Parliament - that we voted for.
It was hypothetical are you evading... again
If indyref2 gets voted for and it comes before Holyrood in 2021 for approval, if there is a unionist majority at that time you will be comfortable with them voting it down?
Staying in the UK implies that the politics of rUK prevail. In times gone by it was the case that Scottish politics, in terms of elections, returned unionist parties - that has changed.
This with regard to the UK single market, don't see how it is relevant.
You're not getting it: currently one option for Scottish centre-right voters would be the Tories, but they are a UK unionist party and have just one Westminster seat. In an independent Scotland there might be alternatives to the Tories.
I'm getting it but I don't think the penny dropped with you quite yet. You want to leave UK because you don't want a government which has centre-right policies but actually you seem willing to concede that Scotland could actually elect a centre-right government. That completely undermines your position.
Now would be time to agree the Scottish Government should arrange the details of indyref2, since the Scottish Parliament require this.
Good glad to see you understand the context of now, I agree now is the time, in fact its last chance.
-
No - Scotland, just like the current UK, has defined boundaries: the scope of the Scottish Parliament being the obvious one for indyref2. If 'we' are all currently UK citizens, and this is sufficient to make Brexit applicable in areas that rejected it in the referendum, then the same principle would apply to indyref2.
The Shetlands if it rejects indyref2 has the right to self-determination though yeah?
-
The Shetlands if it rejects indyref2 has the right to self-determination though yeah?
Yes. I am friends with someone campaigning for Orcadian statehood, and there is nothing in principle against it. Svotland just has ceraun advantages in being recognised in many ways as a nation and in having has separate legal, educational and clerical structures some of the accoutrements of states.
Obviously there are some practical restrictions to statehood, e.g. I can't just declare my house NearlySaneLand but other than those the principle applies.
-
I'm getting it but I don't think the penny dropped with you quite yet. You want to leave UK because you don't want a government which has centre-right policies but actually you seem willing to concede that Scotland could actually elect a centre-right government. That completely undermines your position.
No - the issue for my perspective isn't with centre-right politics per se but specifically with the Tory party: I can't see how the Tory party will ever represent Scotland by us voting for them is at least reasonable numbers (sufficient, say. for them to have more than one Westminster seat) and since it seems Labour have imploded then the prospect of a perpetual Tory dominated Westminster isn't appealing.
We'll see which way the wind is blowing soon enough - when, during Brexit, EU powers are repatriated then we'll see just how committed the Tories are to Scotland.
-
The Shetlands if it rejects indyref2 has the right to self-determination though yeah?
In principle, yes: then it becomes a matter of amending current state boundaries and making workable arrangements.
However, you could end up with a reductio here - do we envisage the independent republic of Yorkshire, or London or Cornwall?
-
In principle, yes: then it becomes a matter of amending current state boundaries and making workable arrangements.
However, you could end up with a reductio here - do we envisage the independent republic of Yorkshire, or London or Cornwall?
There is a Cornish independence movement. And the idea of London as a city state has been floated hypothetically by i think all of its last three mayors to different degrees.
-
No - Scotland, just like the current UK, has defined boundaries: the scope of the Scottish Parliament being the obvious one for indyref2. If 'we' are all currently UK citizens, and this is sufficient to make Brexit applicable in areas that rejected it in the referendum, then the same principle would apply to indyref2.
But the whole notion of a second referendum is an approach to take steps in one part of the UK to remove itself from UK-wide applied brexit by leaving the UK. That being the case then by exactly the same argument parts of Scotland (e.g. Shetland, Dumfries & Galloway) should equally be allowed to remove themselves from Scotland-wide independence through democratic means that allows them to remain in the UK.
And by the way both Shetland and Dumfries & Galloway have defined boundaries too - indeed in the case of Shetland rather for overtly defined by geography than for Scotland, where the boundary with England is arbitrary and has shifted over the years.
-
No - the issue for my perspective isn't with centre-right politics per se but specifically with the Tory party: I can't see how the Tory party will ever represent Scotland by us voting for them is at least reasonable numbers (sufficient, say. for them to have more than one Westminster seat) and since it seems Labour have imploded then the prospect of a perpetual Tory dominated Westminster isn't appealing.
Wow so how is centre-right different if its from..... oh wait I see its because they are English. Oh dear, thought that might be it, I often thought that Westminster\Tories are SNP code words for English.
By the way who is the opposition in Holyrood, clue: it ain't labour.
-
So, are you planning to allow Scotland (or London) to opt-out of Brexit?
Thought not.
But JP has a point. If Scots insist that Scotland overwhelmingly voted against Brexit...and because of that they should now have the option to move out of the UK, then those areas in Scotland that vote overwhelmingly to stay with UK should also have the option to do so. Yes..indeed!
There must be some psychological explanation for the way people are behaving. Maybe it is some 'break away from family syndrome' or something like that...which is making people so insecure they are unable to take the breakaway from the EU. Some people in the US are also behaving similarly after the reverse in globalization.
-
The question of a centre-right government, or a government one does't like, goes to the heart of statehood, doesn't it? I mean that those seeking self-determination must be prepared to accept unpleasant governments. In the early history of Irish independence, there was much conflict over the Free State, rejected by some Republicans. But you could say that Ireland became a stable state, when left-wing Republicans accepted a Fine Gael government, which descended from the pro-Treaty forces at the time of the Free State.
Thus an independent Scotland might see right-wing governments.
-
In principle, yes: then it becomes a matter of amending current state boundaries and making workable arrangements.
However, you could end up with a reductio here - do we envisage the independent republic of Yorkshire, or London or Cornwall?
Coolio, it was on the cards in 2014.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-9217514.html
-
Wow so how is centre-right different if its from..... oh wait I see its because they are English. Oh dear, thought that might be it, I often thought that Westminster\Tories are SNP code words for English.
Nope -I don't have a problem with England: did part of my schooling there.
By the way who is the opposition in Holyrood, clue: it ain't labour.
True - but Labour are a shambles here too, so the Tories here have picked up Holyrood support from ex-Labour voters who can no longer support Labour but don't support independence.
-
Coolio, it was on the cards in 2014.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-9217514.html
As already covered I am friends with one of the organisers of this, and i know even they would say it wasn't and isn't 'on the cards' .
I'm not really sure of the significance of this though, or the posts from Prof D and JP on this. Unless you are against the principle of self determination, the only possible use would be if someone said no to one of these suggestions, in which case so what it woukd be a use of the tu quoque fallacy. Worse unless you think i can set up NearlySaneLand in my house it's not even worth that.
-
As already covered I am friends with one of the organisers of this, and i know even they would say it wasn't and isn't 'on the cards' .
I'm not really sure of the significance of this though, or the posts from Prof D and JP on this. Unless you are against the principle of self determination, the only possible use would be if someone said no to one of these suggestions, in which case so what it woukd be a use of the tu quoque fallacy. Worse unless you think i can set up NearlySaneLand in my house it's not even worth that.
I thought that it's an attempt at a reductio. "This is how ridiculous self-determination is, that London could arguably be independent. Or Barnsley. Therefore national self-determination is also ridiculous." Sorry Ireland.
-
I thought that it's an attempt at a reductio. "This is how ridiculous self-determination is, that London could arguably be independent. Or Barnsley. Therefore national self-determination is also ridiculous." Sorry Ireland.
As an argument that would be absurd! ;)
-
But JP has a point. If Scots insist that Scotland overwhelmingly voted against Brexit...and because of that they should now have the option to move out of the UK, then those areas in Scotland that vote overwhelmingly to stay with UK should also have the option to do so. Yes..indeed!
There must be some psychological explanation for the way people are behaving. Maybe it is some 'break away from family syndrome' or something like that...which is making people so insecure they are unable to take the breakaway from the EU. Some people in the US are also behaving similarly after the reverse in globalization.
I'm not sure about 'psychological explanation', but I thought that national self-determination has been a driving force in political life for a long time. Many countries became independent of Westminster in the past, e.g. Ireland, and it is still going on in Europe today, e.g. Slovakia. I suppose some people might argue that Scotland is not a nation, or that the UK is not imperial, or some such thing. But if it is a union, don't the parties to a union have the right to separate? Rather similar to a Brexit argument.
-
Just leave this here for the 'too small' argument.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39325206
-
So, are you planning to allow Scotland (or London) to opt-out of Brexit?
Thought not.
I am not planning anything. If people do not wish to accept the result of a national referendum or election that is their choice. What I find most amusing is the self centred hypocrisy that usually accompanies it.
-
I'm not really sure of the significance of this though,
Just thought it was interesting.
-
Just thought it was interesting.
OK, I await JP and Prof D (coming soon to a screen near you, the Indy stoppers extraordinaire!) clarifying any significance.
-
Nope -I don't have a problem with England: did part of my schooling there.
True - but Labour are a shambles here too, so the Tories here have picked up Holyrood support from ex-Labour voters who can no longer support Labour but don't support independence.
I'm baffled, you want Scotland to leave because you don't like a party, not the ethos of the party but the personalities or policies, not sure which.
I'm not sure that is coherent, to say the political compass is different in Scotland compared to UK is coherent, to be fair to Sturgeon that is one of her arguments. Although she likes to spin things to be tory e.g. "tory hard brexit", "tory austerity", somewhat odd as she was against raising taxes so is actually for austerity.
Another of hers is the single market which I don't understand since you can't be in two single markets can you?
-
OK, I await JP and Prof D (coming soon to a screen near you, the Indy stoppers extraordinaire!) clarifying any significance.
I meant in a previous post, that comparing national self-determination with territorial self-determination is plausible, but has been seen negatively by many states, as destructive of their physical integrity. It does happen, as with N. Ireland and Crimea, but historically seems to give rise to further conflict, particularly if one territory is absorbed into another, e.g. Calais.
In fact, territorial integrity used to be part of international law, but I don't know the current standing.
-
OK, I await JP and Prof D (coming soon to a screen near you, the Indy stoppers extraordinaire!) clarifying any significance.
I think you need to consider self determination not just in terms of breaking away from someone (e.g. independence) but chosing to remain part of something.
And both elements are relevant to the discussion. The current trigger for a 2nd indy referendum is to allow Scotland not just to be independent (breaking away) but to remain part of the EU (the remaining part).
So in the context of Shetland and Dumfries/Galloway I don't think we'd necessarily see them wanting (via self determination) to become independent, rather that, under the concept of self determination, that they should be allowed to remain part of the UK, rather than be required to follow the overall Scottish vote, were that to be for independence. The argument is pretty well entirely analogous to that of Scotland wanting a route to exercise its self determination when it voted counter to the UK-wide result on brexit.
-
I think you need to consider self determination not just in terms of breaking away from someone (e.g. independence) but chosing to remain part of something.
And both elements are relevant to the discussion. The current trigger for a 2nd indy referendum is to allow Scotland not just to be independent (breaking away) but to remain part of the EU (the remaining part).
So in the context of Shetland and Dumfries/Galloway I don't think we'd necessarily see them wanting (via self determination) to become independent, rather that, under the concept of self determination, that they should be allowed to remain part of the UK, rather than be required to follow the overall Scottish vote, were that to be for independence. The argument is pretty well entirely analogous to that of Scotland wanting a route to exercise its self determination when it voted counter to the UK-wide result on brexit.
And? I still don't see any significant point here. So what if they did want self detemination?
Just to note you answered a later post than whete i tried to lay out my confusiib as to the three peopke making this point. Jajswan then confirmed it had no real significance from his persoective but here is the expansion
"I'm not really sure of the significance of this though, or the posts from Prof D and JP on this. Unless you are against the principle of self determination, the only possible use would be if someone said no to one of these suggestions, in which case so what it woukd be a use of the tu quoque fallacy. Worse unless you think i can set up NearlySaneLand in my house it's not even worth that.'
Can you lay put what the sigificance of your point is given the expansion because your answer seems to have no relevance to it?
-
I think you need to consider self determination not just in terms of breaking away from someone (e.g. independence) but chosing to remain part of something.
And both elements are relevant to the discussion. The current trigger for a 2nd indy referendum is to allow Scotland not just to be independent (breaking away) but to remain part of the EU (the remaining part).
So in the context of Shetland and Dumfries/Galloway I don't think we'd necessarily see them wanting (via self determination) to become independent, rather that, under the concept of self determination, that they should be allowed to remain part of the UK, rather than be required to follow the overall Scottish vote, were that to be for independence. The argument is pretty well entirely analogous to that of Scotland wanting a route to exercise its self determination when it voted counter to the UK-wide result on brexit.
I'm not sure that that's 'entirely analogous'. Presumably, a Scottish government upon independence would claim the physical (territorial) integrity of the state, as described in international law. Of course, parts of one state can move to another - as has just happened with Crimea, or can remain with one state, as with N. Ireland. But territorial integrity is pretty important in the definition of states. Otherwise, you start to get patchwork effects - e.g. what if a part of Shetland wanted to join an independent Scotland? In theory, this could happen, but it tends not to. I don't see it as an argument against national self-determination.
-
Is that what Prof D is on about, wigginhall? If so thanks for at least making something clear even if it makes the case entirely confuse.
Is the idea that Scotlabf by wantind self determination cannot want to be a member of the EU? Because that would mean that France doesn't exist as a nation?
Or that because Scotland was self determining but wanted to be part of the EU that would justify Dumfries and/or Galloway being able to self determine and remain in the UK? Because surely that would be justified by Latvia, amongst many others in the EU.
-
I don't know, NS. That's just one interpretation, but I find this 'hypocrisy' argument confusing.
-
I don't know, NS. That's just one interpretation, but I find this 'hypocrisy' argument confusing.
I am glad you can give it a title because I can't see it as making enough sense to be called an argument, never mind the 'hypocrisy' one.
-
Interesting article by Paul Mason in The Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/can-england-avoid-a-meltdown-of-national-identity
Whilst not agreeing entirely with his proposals at least he is showing more thought in his one mind that the entire cabinet appear capable of in their collective hive mind.
And his comments about English identity are in my opinion spot on.
-
Interesting article by Paul Mason in The Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/can-england-avoid-a-meltdown-of-national-identity
Whilst not agreeing entirely with his proposals at least he is showing more thought in his one mind that the entire cabinet appear capable of in their collective hive mind.
And his comments about English identity are in my opinion spot on.
One of the consequences of Indy Ref 1 should have been the establishment of a Commission to examine the effectiveness of existing constitutional arrangements and to suggest plans for modernisation. Cameron reject the idea - clearly putting party interests before national interests. A grateful Conservative Party booted him in the bollocks for shooting himself in the foot ...
I don't think that Mrs May really has a clue. She appears to be following what she perceives as the national will in the total absence of any strategy. She has no idea of what will result from "Brexit". Who knows, future generations of English children may have to cope with a culture of exclusion and failure. England may have to adopt to the role of being Europe's "Argentina".
-
Richard Murphy on the issue of the GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) figures
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/15169186.Professor_Richard_Murphy__Why_you_can_t_rely_on_GERS_figures_to_judge_Scotland_s_financial_state/?ref=twtrec
-
Richard Murphy on the issue of the GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) figures
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/15169186.Professor_Richard_Murphy__Why_you_can_t_rely_on_GERS_figures_to_judge_Scotland_s_financial_state/?ref=twtrec
That if true has been spun "Scotland will be have more tax or austerity come a yes vote" and I have no doubt the SNP will spin it the other way. Very interesting article though!
-
That if true has been spun "Scotland will be have more tax or austerity come a yes vote" and I have no doubt the SNP will spin it the other way. Very interesting article though!
Essentially this points out that the use if the figures is inappropriate either way. I understand the demand for facts on what would happen but I don't think that it is possible in many ways.
-
Essentially this points out that the use if the figures is inappropriate either way. I understand the demand for facts on what would happen but I don't think that it is possible in many ways.
Other views are available though.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/richard-murphy-gers-denier.html
No.1 result in google even though its a bog standard blogger site. I'm no economist and won't be voting in indyref2 anyway. :)
-
Other views are available though.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/richard-murphy-gers-denier.html
No.1 result in google even though its a bog standard blogger site. I'm no economist and won't be voting in indyref2 anyway. :)
Good lin and it makes many valid points. It illustrates the problem for most if not all voters, that there is a kernel of truth in Michael Gove's comment on experts - despite appearances to the contrary they are in the area of politics subject to their own biases, and for the rest of us it is often difficult to see what the truth is when they disagree. Further economics is despite all the numbers not a science, though it is often dismal.
-
Mostly I agree but Nicola had offered discussions about leavingthe EU and staying in UK, turned down, offers to discuss the timing of this referendum, turned down. It creates a narrative that plays well.
But I don't think a significant number of the Scots are buying it though, and the Big Fish knows it.
-
I'd have thought policies would be driven by ethos, and I've never said Scotland would only elect parties whose policies I agree with. It may well be that in an independent Scotland there would be some realignment of existing political parties.
But you Scots don't have the money to live out your wet dreams. You may whinge about how the Tories have imposed this and that but what would you lot do if and when you get your independence?
-
I was in favour of independence in 2014, so one aspect of my vilification of the Tories is the mixed messages between them and now: in 2014 we were told that voting for independence meant we'd leave the EU and this was portrayed as a proverbial 'bad thing' yet within 2 years we are to suffer this 'bad thing' at the hands of the very same people who previously appealed to us to avoid it by remaining in the UK.
So, when one considers that the primary reason for the EU referendum was to deal with Tory euro-sceptics/UKIP by shutting them up, since it was I think assumed the electorate would agree to remain the in the EU, then the Tory party deserves vilification - the referendum was advisory yet in view of the absence of plans for Brexit it seems the Tory government didn't stop to even consider the referendum result represented bad and ill-informed advice being given: they didn't know what accepting this advice would entail, but they accepted it anyway.
I'm moderately pro EU in that it is the status quo and since any decision to leave it would surely require clear and prior knowledge of the implications - this still isn't available even though we're apparently leaving. In addition the issue of immigration, which seems to be the prime xenophobic concern of the Leave brigade elsewhere in the UK, would be contrary to the interests of Scotland, as would be the loss of access the single market and we'd also lose the freedom to move and work that we now enjoy - for instance when my son's then fiance (now wife) was studying in Holland for a year he was able to work there. So, and while I'm not saying the EU is perfect, the loss of the likes of these aspects in response to the xenophobia of UKIP and some elements within the Tory party is an example of the tail wagging the dog.
I do think there is a case for taxation as an alternative to austerity, provided the case can be soundly made.
That confirms what I think of you.
-
Unless you are against the principle of self determination
This is a nonsensical concept except on the level of the individual. In what way will Scottish independence make the people of Scotland more self determining than they are now? Their lives will still be ruled by a small handful of people who live far away (from most Scots). A factory worker in Glasgow probably has more in common with a factory worker in Manchester than Nicola Sturgeon and her ilk.
The same applies to Brexit. Apparently,it's a great victory for our self determination (the UK's this time) but I look at our political landscape and the state of Her Majesty's Opposition and I realise we are likely stuck with the current shower for at least eight years. I don't really feel like I'm determining myself very much.
-
Good article on 10 years of SNP govt and next steps
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/03/24/ten-years-of-the-snp-and-beyond/
-
Dear Jeremyp,
A factory worker in Glasgow probably has more in common with a factory worker in Manchester than Nicola Sturgeon and her ilk.
Damn!! What's that line from the Godfather 3 "just when I think I am out they drag me back in".
The only thing that is going to change my mind over this Indyref 2 is if the whole country gets behind Corbyn, and that is full on Corbyn, scrap Trident, renationalise railway, water, gas, electricity.
But ( always a but ) I see this Indyref 2 as a chance to show that Tory thinking is dead thinking, the Tory party should go away and never be heard from again, small government thinking, capitalism is a failure, we need a government with a backbone, a government that is in touch with all the people, rich and poor, a government that takes charge of the infrastructure and does not hand it to private investors.
To end my little Monday morning rantette, we need a government who will increase taxes, if you want a country to run properly you need to pay for it and that also means making the giant conglomerates pay their taxes to our coffers not siphoned off to some off shore tax haven.
Gonnagle.
-
OK; If this mess controlled by Westminster is supposed to be an 'equal and incorporating union' (as per the 1707 Act), why is this woman my country did not elect, leader of a government we wouldn't waste on a recycling bin, contemplating using measures drawn from a parliamentary system which supposedly no longer exists? So much for her 'precious union,' then. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/781048/Theresa-May-Henry-VIII-convert-EU-law-Brexit
-
OK; If this mess controlled by Westminster is supposed to be an 'equal and incorporating union' (as per the 1707 Act), why is this woman my country did not elect, leader of a government we wouldn't waste on a recycling bin, contemplating using measures drawn from a parliamentary system which supposedly no longer exists? So much for her 'precious union,' then. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/781048/Theresa-May-Henry-VIII-convert-EU-law-Brexit
I think you'll find that it is an equal and incorporating union in that Theresa May is going to shaft all of us equally.
-
If the Westminster rabble want to antagonise us further, then by dragging up tripe from a cretin who was never either ruler or claimed authority over this nation (whilst slaughtering many of our citizens, then she isn't doing too well on saving her 'precious union', is she?
-
If the Westminster rabble want to antagonise us further, then by dragging up tripe from a cretin who was never either ruler or claimed authority over this nation (whilst slaughtering many of our citizens, then she isn't doing too well on saving her 'precious union', is she?
Who's been slaughtering who?
-
Who's been slaughtering who?
henry the eighth
-
The legislation of Henry VIII - definately diddly squat to do with either Scotland or britain, Rose. The Tudor maniac slaughteresd quite a few Scots - after Flodden - in an insane attempt to have Mary of Scotland married to the brat who would become Edward VI of England. Google 'Rough Wooing'.
-
So in order to force Brexit, the Tories rely on that well known champion of democracy, tolerance, & free speech, King Henry VIII.
As far as I am concerned, let Scotland find her own place in the world. It will be a better place than those left behind will have to inhabit.
-
OK; If this mess controlled by Westminster is supposed to be an 'equal and incorporating union' (as per the 1707 Act), why is this woman my country did not elect, leader of a government we wouldn't waste on a recycling bin, contemplating using measures drawn from a parliamentary system which supposedly no longer exists? So much for her 'precious union,' then. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/781048/Theresa-May-Henry-VIII-convert-EU-law-Brexit
This is one of the key differences from Ireland, isn't it? I think Ireland wasn't defined as a colony, but many Irish people have seen it as colonized, and hence resisted, including by force of arms. But Scotland is explicitly in 'union' with England, which makes May's haughty attitude even more bizarre. In any union, (e.g. marriage), don't both parties have the right to split? Well, of course, so do colonies, under various rights to self-determination.
-
OK; If this mess controlled by Westminster is supposed to be an 'equal and incorporating union' (as per the 1707 Act), why is this woman my country did not elect, leader of a government we wouldn't waste on a recycling bin, contemplating using measures drawn from a parliamentary system which supposedly no longer exists? So much for her 'precious union,' then. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/781048/Theresa-May-Henry-VIII-convert-EU-law-Brexit
That still doesn't explain the situation in detail, but if this Henry VIII bill is so not liked etc. why wasn't it removed years ago.
-
That still doesn't explain the situation in detail, but if this Henry VIII bill is so not liked etc. why wasn't it removed years ago.
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/henry-viii-clauses/
-
Because the burach which is the so-called united kingdom parliament is no such thing - just the English pseudodemocracy with bits added on, rather than the 'new' parliament the 1707 Act said was supposed to happen.
-
Because the burach which is the so-called united kingdom parliament is no such thing - just the English pseudodemocracy with bits added on, rather than the 'new' parliament the 1707 Act said was supposed to happen.
Look at the EU. The stronger, richer countries have taken charge. That is the fact of the matter and is just life. Do you really think Scotland would get a better, fairer deal being in the EU. For your future in the EU just look at Greece.
-
Look at the EU. The stronger, richer countries have taken charge. That is the fact of the matter and is just life. Do you really think Scotland would get a better, fairer deal being in the EU. For your future in the EU just look at Greece.
and hello to the tu quoque fallacy, and ignoring the point post from Jack Knave. Effectively your post is a non sequitur to the post you answered, why was that?
-
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/henry-viii-clauses/
So they are adding this to the Great Repeal Bill? Or was it added to the EEC 1972 act at the time and May's using that?
-
So they are adding this to the Great Repeal Bill? Or was it added to the EEC 1972 act at the time and May's using that?
it is being added to the GRP.
-
and hello to the tu quoque fallacy, and ignoring the point post from Jack Knave. Effectively your post is a non sequitur to the post you answered, why was that?
Don't you know? You wrote it!!!......and NS is back to his neurotic antics again.
-
Don't you know? You wrote it!!!......and NS is back to his neurotic antics again.
So no answer
-
it is being added to the GRP.
Wow. Sounds like the kind of thing Erdogan would like.
-
So no answer
That's your trait in these circumstances, old chap!
-
That's your trait in these circumstances, old chap!
is it? Because we can go on like this interchangeably for too long. If you actually want to deny how it was a tu quoque fallacy, then please do so.
-
is it? Because we can go on like this interchangeably for too long. If you actually want to deny how it was a tu quoque fallacy, then please do so.
Did I say I did?
-
Look at the EU. The stronger, richer countries have taken charge. That is the fact of the matter and is just life. Do you really think Scotland would get a better, fairer deal being in the EU. For your future in the EU just look at Greece.
-
What has that to do with a woman we didn't vote for using laws which were not part of our nation to steamroller her ideas?
-
-
What has that to do with a woman we didn't vote for using laws which were not part of our nation to steamroller her ideas?
This is what you said:-
Because the burach which is the so-called united kingdom parliament is no such thing - just the English pseudodemocracy with bits added on, rather than the 'new' parliament the 1707 Act said was supposed to happen.
In 1957, which is what the EU is celebrating this year, do you think they created the proto-EU for it to be for the Germans, and perhaps the French etc., to take control and have the dominate power? Yet that is what has happened. No, they saw it as a union of equals. Yet that is not what has happened. The EU is the 4th Reich with bits added on. Do you think Greece is equal to Germany in the EU hierarchy?
-
Did I say I did?
when you get to the room for an argument, just stay there because unless you have any interest in a discussion, which you appear not to,
Best place for you.
-
This is what you said:-
Because the burach which is the so-called united kingdom parliament is no such thing - just the English pseudodemocracy with bits added on, rather than the 'new' parliament the 1707 Act said was supposed to happen.
In 1957, which is what the EU is celebrating this year, do you think they created the proto-EU for it to be for the Germans, and perhaps the French etc., to take control and have the dominate power? Yet that is what has happened. No, they saw it as a union of equals. Yet that is not what has happened. The EU is the 4th Reich with bits added on. Do you think Greece is equal to Germany in the EU hierarchy?
My point was that May has no right to use laws belonging to a parliament which was supposed to cease to exist after the 1707 Act.
Any laws passed by an English parliament should be illegal in a UK parliament.
-
Nice wee comment on May's visit this afternoon. (What do you mean 'I didn't know'?) Any comment that has May and Obi Wan Kenobi in the sane sentence has to be worth reading...... http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/03/27/plan-for-britain/
-
The legislation of Henry VIII - definately diddly squat to do with either Scotland or britain, Rose. The Tudor maniac slaughteresd quite a few Scots - after Flodden - in an insane attempt to have Mary of Scotland married to the brat who would become Edward VI of England. Google 'Rough Wooing'.
Blimey. I thought the chip on your shoulder was only three hundred years old.
-
Blimey. I thought the chip on your shoulder was only three hundred years old.
So you support May's approach?
-
Blimey. I thought the chip on your shoulder was only three hundred years old.
-
Would you prefer a more 'high brow' vocabulary to discuss the relative foreign policies of Scotland and England, the precarious position of the regent Marie de Guise at court in the ferment of the nascent Reformation and the first stirrings of the iconoclasm which would define the character of religio-political thought in Scotland for the next five generations?
Or the relative poor health of the child of the Tudor who was obsessed both with prestige and grabbing as many Protestant states as allies -despite none of those states being 'his' kind of Protestant?
I could do so, if you wish.
I could also contrast the relative governmental systems of the two kingdoms, and show that the measures Henry VIII tried to subvert Commons were alien to Scotland, where monarchical power was never absolute, and royal authority frequently ignored if the main power players felt like it?
The two systems were diametrically opposite - matching the ethos and mind set of the two nations.
The Act of Union simply bolted on a handful of measures onto the English Parliament, ignoring that of Scotland entirely.
Had the takeover been complete - and all the institutions of state been incorporated into the new system, things would have been radically different today.
They were not, however - and, yes, there has been a simmering resentment for three centuries - read Scots literature over the time period and you will see that. Even the most pro-Union writers such as Scott kept that flame of resentment burning.
Recent Westminster attitudes have only fanned it.
-
when you get to the room for an argument, just stay there because unless you have any interest in a discussion, which you appear not to,
Best place for you.
Try putting that into English, it makes no sense.
-
-
Would you prefer a more 'high brow' vocabulary to discuss the relative foreign policies of Scotland and England, the precarious position of the regent Marie de Guise at court in the ferment of the nascent Reformation and the first stirrings of the iconoclasm which would define the character of religio-political thought in Scotland for the next five generations?
Or the relative poor health of the child of the Tudor who was obsessed both with prestige and grabbing as many Protestant states as allies -despite none of those states being 'his' kind of Protestant?
I could do so, if you wish.
I could also contrast the relative governmental systems of the two kingdoms, and show that the measures Henry VIII tried to subvert Commons were alien to Scotland, where monarchical power was never absolute, and royal authority frequently ignored if the main power players felt like it?
The two systems were diametrically opposite - matching the ethos and mind set of the two nations.
The Act of Union simply bolted on a handful of measures onto the English Parliament, ignoring that of Scotland entirely.
Had the takeover been complete - and all the institutions of state been incorporated into the new system, things would have been radically different today.
They were not, however - and, yes, there has been a simmering resentment for three centuries - read Scots literature over the time period and you will see that. Even the most pro-Union writers such as Scott kept that flame of resentment burning.
Recent Westminster attitudes have only fanned it.
You left out that the Scots had made a bad bet in Panama, I think, and needed the English to bail them out. ;D
-
Do you really wish me to enter the debate on the perfidy of William the second in choosing England over Scotland? Really?
-
So you support May's approach?
Sorry, I didn't realise she is advocating slaughtering a load of Scots on the battlefield and forcibly uniting the English and Scottish Royal families (which would be a spectacular failure given that they already are united).
-
-
Would you prefer a more 'high brow' vocabulary to discuss the relative foreign policies of Scotland and England
I'd prefer a rational approach and not one that harks back to things that were done to people five hundred years ago.
What the English parliament was like in Henry VIII's time is utterly irrelevant to the UK parliament today. In fact, it was pretty much irrelevant at the time of the Acts of Union given that, by then, we'd already executed one king for getting too big for his boots.
I'm as upset about Brexit as you, in fact, probably more so because I have no potential escape route, I can't run away like a rat from a sinking ship, unlike the people of Scotland may be able to. It disturbs me deeply that Theresa May keeps trying to subvert the democratic process to push through this disastrous course of action. So please stop harping on about perceived injustices that were done to your ancestors by my ancestors and try to live in the present.
-
It disturbs me deeply that Theresa May keeps trying to subvert the democratic process to push through this disastrous course of action.
It isn't Theresa May that is trying to undermine the democratic process, but those wanting to ignore the referendum.
A course of action that dictated her actions, in BOTH cases, i.e. the vote in Scotland determined they should stay as part of the UK.
It's all a done deal, people ( the majority) on both causes have spoken, time to move on.
-
It's all a done deal, people ( the majority) on both causes have spoken, time to move on.
For the EU yes, but things have changed since 2014 and Scotland rejected both Brexit and the Tories who are responsible for this madness, so it isn't time to 'move on' in respect of what constitutes the UK in the long-term: the fat lady has yet to cease singing on that score, and some of us want to ensure she gets another chorus (and we'll also try to ensure it won't be of Rule Brittania).
-
It isn't Theresa May that is trying to undermine the democratic process, but those wanting to ignore the referendum.
A course of action that dictated her actions, in BOTH cases, i.e. the vote in Scotland determined they should stay as part of the UK.
It's all a done deal, people ( the majority) on both causes have spoken, time to move on.
What does the above have to with the use of Henry VIII clauses by for Brexit?
-
Depends on what you mean by moving on. The Scottish parliament is moving on by asking for a second referendum. Very democratic.
On Brexit, there are plenty of worries about hard Brexit. It's possible that this is a bluff by the British government, as in actuality, they can't really just leave the EU, with no trade agreements at all. Then just moving goods into Europe becomes difficult, hence the prediction of 30 miles queues at Dover, as trucks and documents have to be checked manually, (at the moment, all done electronically). I suspect May is trying to get a softish Brexit through, without alarming the Ultras.
So, challenging a hard Brexit is surely our democratic right, in fact, so is asking for another referendum.
-
What does the above have to with the use of Henry VIII clauses by for Brexit?
Henry v111 is done and dusted, irrelevant.
-
Henry v111 is done and dusted, irrelevant.
Not to the use of Henry VIII clauses in passing any Gexit bills which was the context of the post you replied to.
-
Depends on what you mean by moving on. The Scottish parliament is moving on by asking for a second referendum. Very democratic.
On Brexit, there are plenty of worries about hard Brexit. It's possible that this is a bluff by the British government, as in actuality, they can't really just leave the EU, with no trade agreements at all. Then just moving goods into Europe becomes difficult, hence the prediction of 30 miles queues at Dover, as trucks and documents have to be checked manually, (at the moment, all done electronically). I suspect May is trying to get a softish Brexit through, without alarming the Ultras.
So, challenging a hard Brexit is surely our democratic right, in fact, so is asking for another referendum.
Nope, we have already voted, now the government in power tries to turn that into reality.
-
Not to the use of Henry VIII clauses in passing any Gexit bills which was the context of the post you replied to.
We are living in a different age now, scrutinising the past for opt out is just sad.
-
We are living in a different age now, scrutinising the past for opt out is just sad.
Eh? It's the Govt using the use of the so called Henry VIII clauses to avoid parliamentary scrutiny that is being discussed. If you think that the lopt out and using then is wrong then you are agreeing with hetemyp's post and disagreeing with your own reply to it.
-
Eh? It's the Govt using the use of the so called Henry VIII clauses to avoid parliamentary scrutiny that is being discussed. If you think that the lopt out and using then is wrong then you are agreeing with hetemyp's post and disagreeing with your own reply to it.
I don't think the vast majority of people give a toss about history.
What matters is how people voted in the last referendum.
To stay within the uk
-
I don't think the vast majority of people give a toss about history.
What matters is how people voted in the last referendum.
To stay within the uk
it's got nothing to do with Indyref either. It's about how the UK govt intends to use the Henry VIII clauses to avoid parliamentary scrutiny for Brexit decisions.
And since that referendum the majority of people voted in parties to the Scottish govt with manifesto promises to have a second referendum is there was a material change in circunstances such as a Brexit vote.
-
I don't think the vast majority of people give a toss about history.
What matters is how people voted in the last referendum.
To stay within the uk
Have to say Rose I suspect your perspective on Scotland arises from reading the Express or the Mail.
What matters now is that things have fundamentally changed thanks to the Tory government that you guys, not us, elected. TM might bleat on about us 'all pulling together' as we head towards the iceberg (or cliff, take your pick) - but sod that: some of us here in Scotland want out and fervently hope that the impending Tory-concocted disaster is sufficient to turn the tide.
You need to understand that some of us no longer want to be part of the UK, have no sense of loyalty towards the UK and we won't go sit quietly while Mother Theresa lectures us. The UK is finished, albeit some haven't realised this yet: the demise of Labour removes any (current) UK-wide alternative to a long-term Tory government that we don't vote for in any great numbers here in Scotland, and this can't be conveniently ignored.
-
Succinctly put, Gordon. I'd add that many wouldn't shed a tear if the Union flag were consigned to the garbage heap of that history Rose doesn't care about. History, however, is important. It is the foundation for any nation, union, political ideology, etc; and without an understanding of history there is no real point in any nation, state, political ideology - or, for that matter, a moribund political union three centuries past its sell by date.
-
I think history has an effect that we can't ignore but ancient grudges are uninteresting to me. It's an accident of history has gat certain places end up with the accoutrements and decorations of a country. This is why the comparison of Maidenhead to Scotland by May is a category error. I also think that just because those attributes exist in Scotland is not sufficient reason for independence.
I would be much happier if we had had a 60% threshold for change on our previous referendums and indeed this one should it happen. And also that people are very clear on whether referendums are advisory or not. I would argue that with a higher threshold you have a much better case for making them binding.
I also find the idea that if you think something will be disastrous, your right to fight against that is somehow invalidated by a referendum, bizarre. But then we seem to have reduced political discussion and an understanding of our democratic process done to calling names. The entirety of the next few years are going to be just more echo chamber politics.
-
Have to say Rose I suspect your perspective on Scotland arises from reading the Express or the Mail.
What matters now is that things have fundamentally changed thanks to the Tory government that you guys, not us, elected. TM might bleat on about us 'all pulling together' as we head towards the iceberg (or cliff, take your pick) - but sod that: some of us here in Scotland want out and fervently hope that the impending Tory-concocted disaster is sufficient to turn the tide.
You need to understand that some of us no longer want to be part of the UK, have no sense of loyalty towards the UK and we won't go sit quietly while Mother Theresa lectures us. The UK is finished, albeit some haven't realised this yet: the demise of Labour removes any (current) UK-wide alternative to a long-term Tory government that we don't vote for in any great numbers here in Scotland, and this can't be conveniently ignored.
I doubt it, I never buy or read the express or the mail.
Scotland voted to remain in the UK.
That's that!
People who lost think if they keep moaning and groaning they can overturn the will of the majority, it's not happening.
Brexit is going through because the majority voted for it ( I voted remain) and Scotland is staying in the uk, again because most Scots voted for it.
It's done.
Lots of people in England didn't vote for the conservatives either, we have to put up with the winners if the ones we voted for lost.
Thats life.
-
I doubt it, I never buy or read the express or the mail.
Scotland voted to remain in the UK.
That's that!
It isn't, no matter how much you think so since quite a few of us don't want to remain in a Tory-dominated UK, and as the disaster of Brexit unfolds I suspect more of us will take this view.
People who lost think if they keep moaning and groaning they can overturn the will of the majority, it's not happening.
The majority of Scots who voted want to remain part of the UK: this may be an inconvenient truth but it is true nonetheless, and as the details unfold issues such as any attempted power-grab by Westminster regarding controls returning from the EU will further increase the tension between Holyrood and Westminster (or more accurately the Tories we've rejected here).
Brexit is going through because the majority voted for it ( I voted remain) and Scotland is staying in the uk, again because most Scots voted for it.
It's done.
Trust me - it isn't done, and if you can't see that the landscape has changed since 2014 then your head is firmly stuck in the sand. Forget 2014, since that was when we were advised that if we wanted to remain in the EU we'd best remain in the UK - even you must see how that assurance now reads given where we are today.
Lots of people in England didn't vote for the conservatives either, we have to put up with the winners if the ones we voted for lost.
That will be because you don't have an option to do otherwise.
Thats life.
Certainly is, and of course 'life' isn't static. The UK is finished though, and it's now just a matter of how long it takes for us to lower the lifeboat and escape the disaster.
-
I think history has an effect that we can't ignore but ancient grudges are uninteresting to me. It's an accident of history has gat certain places end up with the accoutrements and decorations of a country. This is why the comparison of Maidenhead to Scotland by May is a category error. I also think that just because those attributes exist in Scotland is not sufficient reason for independence.
I would be much happier if we had had a 60% threshold for change on our previous referendums and indeed this one should it happen. And also that people are very clear on whether referendums are advisory or not. I would argue that with a higher threshold you have a much better case for making them binding.
I also find the idea that if you think something will be disastrous, your right to fight against that is somehow invalidated by a referendum, bizarre. But then we seem to have reduced political discussion and an understanding of our democratic process done to calling names. The entirety of the next few years are going to be just more echo chamber politics.
-
Of course history cannot determine a nation's future, NS -thankfully, if one looks at Northern Ireland as an example.
The blood soaked past is no example for any succeeding generation.
We've had our fair share of blood as well, both from invader and internal struggles. In many ways they shaped who we are today.
The character of our nation, our attitude to issues which differ from those in Westminster - two examples being the centre-left nature of our mainstream politics and our more open attitude to immigration, for example.
We are what we are.
I've argued before that, had the religious, legal, educational and social structures been subsumed into those of the 'UK' in 1707, the nationhood of Scotland would have gradually died or morphed into the realms of tradition.
They were not, and, despite Empire and clearances offering opportunities for advancement - many of those unwilling opportunities - that undercurrent of nationhood persisted.
I suppose the flames were ignited, not on a shortbread tin, but in the fields of Flanders and the shipyards of the Clyde in 1916-19.
Churchill's sending of tanks into Glasgow,manned with English troops, the Scots being confined to barracks, didn't help the situation.
Since then that current of nationhood has risen exponentially.
Regardless of any second referendum, with a strong, legislative Holyrood, the divisions in the union will not go away, and the simmering estrangement which would exist as the years go on, regardless of which governments are in power, is not healthy for either side of the border.
We can't reverse history: Holyrood exists and will always seek more power regardless of which party governs it - that's the natural state of a small nation in bed with a larger one.
Independence will be tough - no tartan utopia - but in the long run, better for both sides of the border.
-
I am not really a fan of the grievance approach, what Churchill did is something that I think was wrong but the sane could have happened in Liverpool, and worse happened at Tonypandy. I agree that the maintenance of some separate Scottish institutions is central to the its continuance as a on nation and as as notion. Since we moved into the Democratic age, past the time when Dundas ran Scotland as his fiefdom, the tension between the structure and how the responsibility of it within the UK are what had lead us to where we are.
Tam Dalyell was right at warning Labour that devolution would exacerbate that tension rather than defuse it, but Tam o the Binns was, as often, acting as a Cassandra, warning people about taking actions that they had no choice but to take. The various attempts at dealing with the guddle, including the latest transfer of powers, are by nature of the UK structure piecemeal and not systemic. Many of the Yes voters I know have moved from a form of federalism to independence as the only choice. A few of my No voting friends see the problems but believe that we should move to the complete dismantling of the institutions that exist.
A combination of people randomly painting bits of the floor has created a divide and placed these divided sides into their respective corners. Neither side quite painted themselves there, but stuck they are.
-
Of course a grievance - perceived or otherwise - is unhealthy. Nevertheless I cited it as being made part of the pschyche which formed a radical stream in the '20's and '30's, blooming intio the 'Red Clydesiders' on the one hand, and the arts represented by the Lailyard school and McDairmid on the other. All three had elements of romanticism about them - of course - but nevertheless they are woven into the tapestry which now forms Scotland in 2017.
-
Is there the stomach to do it all again? From what I have read the figure is hovering around the high side of 50% for those who do not want to see a second referendum at this time.
-
Is there the stomach to do it all again? From what I have read the figure is hovering around the high side of 50% for those who do not want to see a second referendum at this time.
That's very good phrasing. I am not sure there is the stomach for it, and yet the polls on voting intentions are still highly in favour of the SNP, which may change over this. As noted, given the manifesto promise, and the intransigence(which I think they had little choice in either)of the UK govt to the non referendum proposals as regards Brexit, the vote in the Scottish parliament was inevitable.
I think we need to be careful when looking at the numbers against a second referendum that this is part of the issue of representative democracy. MSPs and MPs are not there as delegates and the election of 2016 has provided a majority of members who were committed to a Indyref2 if there was a significant change in circumstances such as the Brexit vote. In part, this is why I think that any referendums should have a threshold for change much higher than 50% because it would be easier to argue that a 55% representation in Parliament would not 'feel' like enough.
I don't think, though, that the 'Not Now' line of the UK govt will be helpful in keeping that number opposed to a Indyref2 as high, as long as they propose an idea that it won't happen till after both current parliaments are reelected and for the foreseeable future after that. That said, I don't think their calculation is about that but as a holding strategy.
Rarely have local govt elections assumed such importance which is unfortunate because when local govt is looked on as an opinion poll on bigger issues, local govt inevitably suffers. May's speech at the Scottish spring conference indicated on it being some form of referendum on Brexit, Indyref2, and the UK and Scottish govts, which is an awful lot for a set of elections with a likely turnout of 40% to bear. Even assuming the febrile atmosphere nudges the turnout up, it's a farce to take too much out of it.
Now I think May, or rather her advisors, was making the calculation that the Tories are likely to do 'well' here but it's not the position I would have taken. The Tories are likely to do 'well' against their previous votes which was not far off their historic lows. This is the benefit from collapse of stout Labour party. If the SNP and Greens do well, then the mandate question would have been raised by May, and a further mandate for the referendum would have been decided, and that reads like a tactical error.
On current opinion polls, which for local elections have to be taken with a Lot's wife of salt, the above scenario is perfectly feasible. Of course these may change with people paying their council tax bills this week with the 10% increase in highest rated properties as a result of the Scottish govt, but then 75% of properties have no increase at all.
-
That's very good phrasing. I am not sure there is the stomach for it, and yet the polls on voting intentions are still highly in favour of the SNP, which may change over this. As noted, given the manifesto promise, and the intransigence(which I think they had little choice in either)of the UK govt to the non referendum proposals as regards Brexit, the vote in the Scottish parliament was inevitable.
I think we need to be careful when looking at the numbers against a second referendum that this is part of the issue of representative democracy. MSPs and MPs are not there as delegates and the election of 2016 has provided a majority of members who were committed to a Indyref2 if there was a significant change in circumstances such as the Brexit vote. In part, this is why I think that any referendums should have a threshold for change much higher than 50% because it would be easier to argue that a 55% representation in Parliament would not 'feel' like enough.
I don't think, though, that the 'Not Now' line of the UK govt will be helpful in keeping that number opposed to a Indyref2 as high, as long as they propose an idea that it won't happen till after both current parliaments are reelected and for the foreseeable future after that. That said, I don't think their calculation is about that but as a holding strategy.
Rarely have local govt elections assumed such importance which is unfortunate because when local govt is looked on as an opinion poll on bigger issues, local govt inevitably suffers. May's speech at the Scottish spring conference indicated on it being some form of referendum on Brexit, Indyref2, and the UK and Scottish govts, which is an awful lot for a set of elections with a likely turnout of 40% to bear. Even assuming the febrile atmosphere nudges the turnout up, it's a farce to take too much out of it.
Now I think May, or rather her advisors, was making the calculation that the Tories are likely to do 'well' here but it's not the position I would have taken. The Tories are likely to do 'well' against their previous votes which was not far off their historic lows. This is the benefit from collapse of stout Labour party. If the SNP and Greens do well, then the mandate question would have been raised by May, and a further mandate for the referendum would have been decided, and that reads like a tactical error.
On current opinion polls, which for local elections have to be taken with a Lot's wife of salt, the above scenario is perfectly feasible. Of course these may change with people paying their council tax bills this week with the 10% increase in highest rated properties as a result of the Scottish govt, but then 75% of properties have no increase at all.
Polls aren't much help because it depends who they ask.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/nicola-sturgeon-touch-scots-brexit-poll-shows-support-theresa/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/poll-shows-support-scottish-independence-rising-ahead-brexit/
The telegraph swings from one to another.
The problem with polls is you can give a false impression just by going to different areas to ask , or choosing a different age group.
I think most of it is just propaganda. So people get influenced to voting one way or another.
We had it with Brexit, we have it with the independence vote.
What the people vote at the end of the day, isn't really reflected in the polls.
I think too many people use polls to convince people to vote with the " majority" and the polls reflect what agenda the group citing them have.
Polls are useless at getting a good idea how people are going to vote, imo it's a bit of a con, by both sides of the issue.
Many Polls predicted Remain was going to win in Brexit. The real outcome appeared to be a shock once the polls and propaganda was done.
It's the same with polls on the results of a second independence referendum.
TBH I don't trust any of the media, politicians or any of them to give an accurate picture of how people feel. It doesn't matter whether it's the snp or the lot at Westminster.
There is too much stuff put out by people with an agenda, be it media or governments, on both sides.
If the second vote gets granted, the only way we will know, will be by the actual vote.
All these speculations, most of it is propaganda either by one side or the other.
Polls are so abused they are pretty much worthless.
When it comes to politicians, of any stripe I'm just cynical.
-
Interesting blog post from one No to Yes voter
http://www.gcat.org.uk/blog/?p=1496
-
I don't think the vast majority of people give a toss about history.
What matters is how people voted in the last referendum.
To stay within the uk
Referendums are not for all time Rose. People change their minds, new information becomes available, there are new people.
One of the main points that destroyed Alex Salmond's credibility in the last Indyref was his handling of the question of Scotland's relationship with the EU. Many people tore him to shreds on the basis of his unrealistic assertions. However, there was always the assumption that Scotland wanted to remain in the EU and staying in the UK would be the easiest way to make that happen. That assumption turns out to be false. Of course there is a legitimate reason to rerun the vote.
-
Polls aren't much help because it depends who they ask.
No shit Sherlock.
You don't think polling companies don't know this? They go to extreme lengths to try to make sure they poll a representative sample.
Many Polls predicted Remain was going to win in Brexit. The real outcome appeared to be a shock once the polls and propaganda was done.
Probably not to the polling companies. The actual result was within the margin of error of the final polls.
-
It isn't, no matter how much you think so since quite a few of us don't want to remain in a Tory-dominated UK, and as the disaster of Brexit unfolds I suspect more of us will take this view.
You have still failed to identify exactly what you don't like about the Tories as i recall. Are you sure you are not just chanting SNP slogans without first understand what they mean?
I think coherent arguments for Scexit are tribalistic nationalism, political diversity, cultural separation, economic benefits but you don't seem to subscribe to any of those.
The UK is finished though, and it's now just a matter of how long it takes for us to lower the lifeboat and escape the disaster.
Hey Jack Knave have a look in the mirror.
-
You have still failed to identify exactly what you don't like about the Tories as i recall.
Well there is their history in Scotland, such as Thatcher's imposition of the poll tax, then there are the more recent issues from Cameron's spurious assurances to us in 2014, his putting the Tory party first by having the referendum, and of course the shambles of Brexit - and of course they only have one MP here!
Then there is local stuff, like the DWP seemingly closing job-centres here by looking at Google-maps, the sole Tory MP in Scotland (so the only option for Scottish Secretary) telling is what is best for us (which is highly ironic bearing in mind his sole Tory MP in Scotland position) and the unedifying sight of Ruth Davidson's recent conversion into Mother Theresa's pet poodle.
So in addition to my settled disdain for the Tories the implosion of Labour just about everywhere seems to remove the possibility of any UK-wide alternative party of government for the foreseeable future, so thanks to the voting patterns elsewhere in rUK Scotland is stuck with a permanent Tory government that has minimal support here - so no thanks.
-
You have still failed to identify exactly what you don't like about the Tories as i recall. Are you sure you are not just chanting SNP slogans without first understand what they mean?
I think coherent arguments for Scexit are tribalistic nationalism, political diversity, cultural separation, economic benefits but you don't seem to subscribe to any of those.
Hey Jack Knave have a look in the mirror.
What? Why? Jaks are you feeling all right?
-
Scots MEP predicts break up of Britain if things continue as they are. (And, no, he is not an SNP MEP) http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15204625.Veteran_Labour_MEP___Scotland_will_split_from_UK_over_May_s_Brexit_approach_/
-
Well there is their history in Scotland, such as Thatcher's imposition of the poll tax, then there are the more recent issues from Cameron's spurious assurances to us in 2014, his putting the Tory party first by having the referendum, and of course the shambles of Brexit - and of course they only have one MP here!
Then there is local stuff, like the DWP seemingly closing job-centres here by looking at Google-maps, the sole Tory MP in Scotland (so the only option for Scottish Secretary) telling is what is best for us (which is highly ironic bearing in mind his sole Tory MP in Scotland position) and the unedifying sight of Ruth Davidson's recent conversion into Mother Theresa's pet poodle.
So in addition to my settled disdain for the Tories the implosion of Labour just about everywhere seems to remove the possibility of any UK-wide alternative party of government for the foreseeable future, so thanks to the voting patterns elsewhere in rUK Scotland is stuck with a permanent Tory government that has minimal support here - so no thanks.
So your main argument for breaking up a really successful union is that you hate the Tories.
-
So your main argument for breaking up a really successful union is that you hate the Tories.
No - I recognise that my distaste for the Tories is personal but the reality is that there is now, compared to previously when Scotland returned a substantial number of Labour MPs, a Tory-dominated Westminster in the long-term that doesn't reflect the voting patterns here.
Then there are the actions of this Tory government to consider - Brexit being the obvious one.
-
Well there is their history in Scotland, such as Thatcher's imposition of the poll tax, then there are the more recent issues from Cameron's spurious assurances to us in 2014, his putting the Tory party first by having the referendum, and of course the shambles of Brexit - and of course they only have one MP here!
But you don't know that Scotland wouldn't vote in the Tory party in a future independent Scotland in the future and introduce similar policies.
The 'shambles of Brexit' is different to the 'shambles of Scexit'?
Then there is local stuff, like the DWP seemingly closing job-centres here by looking at Google-maps, the sole Tory MP in Scotland (so the only option for Scottish Secretary) telling is what is best for us (which is highly ironic bearing in mind his sole Tory MP in Scotland position) and the unedifying sight of Ruth Davidson's recent conversion into Mother Theresa's pet poodle.
As above, you don't like temporary people and policies so you want to permanently leave and for all you know then be ruled over by people with pretty much the same policies.
Sorry it is incoherent, if you argued that Scotland has a different political compass that would be logical.
Ahh.. I see, are you suggesting that the Union is too big and a smaller country like Scotland will have politicians that are more accountable... That makes sense... although the EU...
[quote
So in addition to my settled disdain for the Tories the implosion of Labour just about everywhere seems to remove the possibility of any UK-wide alternative party of government for the foreseeable future, so thanks to the voting patterns elsewhere in rUK Scotland is stuck with a permanent Tory government that has minimal support here - so no thanks.
[/quote]
What really has shot Labours fox is Scotland's support for the SNP, Corbyn could go tomorrow without support from Scotland a new leader would not make much difference.
Actually I think the LibDems might get a say in that, forcing another coalition. In fact if you wanted to prevent the 'shambles of Brexit' this is your best chance, the SNP main game is an independent Scotland if it comes at the price of EU membership I dare say they will pay that price.
-
Sorry it is incoherent, if you argued that Scotland has a different political compass that would be logical.
That is surely what I've emphasised: the political compass is already different here as is indicated by both the last general election and EU referendum results.
-
That is surely what I've emphasised: the political compass is already different here as is indicated by both the last general election and EU referendum results.
No the political compass refers to ideology, which informs some policy. Some policy you disagree with, policy can change ideology doesn't.
So if you disagree with centre right ideology and claim that Scotland will never vote in a centre-right party that is coherent, I don't think its true but we can debate that. To suggest in that Govts in an indy Scotland will only ever introduce policies that you like is just unrealistic.
It is also coherent to argue that policies can only be introduced in Scotland by Govts directly held to account by the Scottish electorate, however that appears to me to be inconsistent with wanting to remain in the EU.
-
No the political compass refers to ideology, which informs some policy. Some policy you disagree with, policy can change ideology doesn't.
Might changes in ideology be reflected in voting patterns within Scotland in relation to changes to the representation in both Holyrood and Westminster of late, and then there is the result of the EU referendum in Scotland to consider (which it seems has been noted elsewhere in the EU).
So if you disagree with centre right ideology and claim that Scotland will never vote in a centre-right party that is coherent, I don't think its true but we can debate that. To suggest in that Govts in an indy Scotland will only ever introduce policies that you like is just unrealistic.
Which is an unknown, just like the possibility of the LibDems being in another coalition as you suggested earlier. We can only anticipate based on an assessment of what seems likely - as things stand the UK-wide parties aren't strong here even though the Tories have benefitted from the implosion of Labour and the LibDems being on the naughty step for getting into bed with the Tories. I suspect the LibDems will recover better than the Tories.
It is also coherent to argue that policies can only be introduced in Scotland by Govts directly held to account by the Scottish electorate, however that appears to me to be inconsistent with wanting to remain in the EU.
Remember much here is already fully devolved: the NHS, justice and education, and there is now a difference in when higher income tax applies. Voters here see the EU more positively than voters elsewhere in rUK, and the negativity from both some Tories and UKIP is less relevant here.
-
Might changes in ideology be reflected in voting patterns within Scotland in relation to changes to the representation in both Holyrood and Westminster of late, and then there is the result of the EU referendum in Scotland to consider (which it seems has been noted elsewhere in the EU).
That is a fair argument, I don't think it is true, I suspect it is a case that the Tories have been demonised by the SNP, which is a good tactical move on their part but doesn't mean that Scotland necessarily has a different political compass to rUK.
Which is an unknown, just like the possibility of the LibDems being in another coalition as you suggested earlier. We can only anticipate based on an assessment of what seems likely - as things stand the UK-wide parties aren't strong here even though the Tories have benefitted from the implosion of Labour and the LibDems being on the naughty step for getting into bed with the Tories. I suspect the LibDems will recover better than the Tories.
Unknown? I can't believe that you would find a party in which you agreed 100% with every policy.
Remember much here is already fully devolved: the NHS, justice and education, and there is now a difference in when higher income tax applies. Voters here see the EU more positively than voters elsewhere in rUK, and the negativity from both some Tories and UKIP is less relevant here.
Yes the EU are not English so handing power that way is fine it seems. :)
Right so you want to vote leave because you don't like the policies of the UK government but that doesn't apply because many things have been devolved?
There are UKIP/Tory nationalists and there are SNP nationalists, the SNP are better politicians but it is still 'negative' as you put it, in my opinion.
-
That is a fair argument, I don't think it is true, I suspect it is a case that the Tories have been demonised by the SNP, which is a good tactical move on their part but doesn't mean that Scotland necessarily has a different political compass to rUK.
Recent election and the EU referendum results suggest otherwise;
Unknown? I can't believe that you would find a party in which you agreed 100% with every policy.
Neither do I, but the emerging politics of an independent Scotland is an unknown.
Yes the EU are not English so handing power that way is fine it seems. :)
Why mention 'English' specifically: I'm not anti-English - I did all my secondary school education in England and I've been on holiday there several times. However, voters there do seem to rate the Tories!
Right so you want to vote leave because you don't like the policies of the UK government but that doesn't apply because many things have been devolved?
Not everything is devolved, so the political compass of the UK government remains relevant (Brexit being the obvious example).
There are UKIP/Tory nationalists and there are SNP nationalists, the SNP are better politicians but it is still 'negative' as you put it, in my opinion.
I think the UKIP/Tory nationalists are negative since they seem inclined to dismiss the different perspective here in Scotland by clinging to the 'the people have spoken' mantra whilst ignoring what people in Scotland have said.
I can't see this changing for as long as voters in rUK support the Tories, which as things stand seems to be for the long-term - so I want out of the UK.
-
Hold it. What's this about SNP demonising the Tories? I'm happy to say Labour, the Lib Dems, and anyone else with half a brain up here were very happily demonising the Tories before SNP rose to power in Holyrood. Nice to see at least some unity up here, then.
-
Hold it. What's this about SNP demonising the Tories? I'm happy to say Labour, the Lib Dems, and anyone else with half a brain up here were very happily demonising the Tories before SNP rose to power in Holyrood. Nice to see at least some unity up here, then.
Yes seems to be welcomed in Scotland, I'm a Times man the Daily Mail style of the SNP is a reason to support vote leave on Scexit.
-
Yes seems to be welcomed in Scotland, I'm a Times man the Daily Mail style of the SNP is a reason to support vote leave on Scexit.
excellent irony there.
-
excellent irony there.
Nope. The divide and rule toxic nature of SNP politics is a valid reason to want Scotland out.
-
Watching the Scottish Labour broadcast last night for the council elections on Thursday, apparently I am voting about Indyref2, the NHS, and overall education policy. Pity none of those are are in the remit of the council. So far I have received three leaflets for the council elections, one from the Tories which tells me they are all about indyref2 again, no mention of any council activities, one from the SNP which covered urban regeneration and that most council of all topics, bin collection, and one from the Greens which mentioned various initiatives in the ward I live in that they want to introduce.
-
Watching the Scottish Labour broadcast last night for the council elections on Thursday, apparently I am voting about Indyref2, the NHS, and overall education policy. Pity none of those are are in the remit of the council. So far I have received three leaflets for the council elections, one from the Tories which tells me they are all about indyref2 again, no mention of any council activities, one from the SNP which covered urban regeneration and that most council of all topics, bin collection, and one from the Greens which mentioned various initiatives in the ward I live in that they want to introduce.
-
Yep.
I had the same-ish selection drop through my letterbox - with the added addition of a a Lib Dem leaflet which landed on the same day May dropped her GE bombshell. That leaflet also mentioned indyref 2, Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond (@), and one small paragraph naming the local council candidates.
Mind you, the only local canvassers who have actually bothered to go round the streets are the SNP local authority candidates' campaign.
Says it all, really.
-
Had a Dumbass Labour tract popped through the letterbox which claimed and I quote:
"Aberdeen has been deprived of almost £400 million in funding by the SNP Government in Holyrood over the past five years.
The Granite City has always been a cash cow for the central belt. It's time for the people of Aberdeen to get a fairer deal.
We pay more in income tax, council tax and business rates than anywhere else in the country, yet we are the lowest funded local authority in Scotland.
The SNP is ripping you off.
If Aberdeen Labour is elected on May 4th, we promise to continue the fight for a fairer funding settlement.
Vote Aberdeen Labour on May 4th and stop Nicola Sturgeon swindling our citizens."
Which is a heap of bullshit - Aberdeen council is run by a Labour-led coalition and seems to be ready to squander millions they are going to receive from something known as the Aberdeen City Region Deal which is valued to be worth £826.2 million over a ten year period.
Significant investment is being provided by UK Government (£125m). Scottish Government (£125m). Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils £20,000. Universities £23,500. Private Sector £485,450. Other economic partners £47,250 - Total £826,200.
-
.......and they're always willing to pay for redevelopment projects on land that just happens to be owned by a Labour cooncilor and his faither.........
-
I fear the council election results in Scotland have a stronger whiff of Ulsterfication than previously. Not that it had ever been entirely absent but it now looks way more obvious.
-
I fear the council election results in Scotland have a stronger whiff of Ulsterfication than previously. Not that it had ever been entirely absent but it now looks way more obvious.
I sincerely hope the future is absolutely, definately and completely NOT Orange.
Mind you, two Tory candidates in my area were elected - both of whom appeared to be Billyites with about as much grasp of politics, whether local or national, as a Pot Noodle - and nearly as much intelligence.
-
From another site..... "If you end up having to vote Tory to save the union; What does that say about the union you are trying to save?"
-
Can I just say I am a life-long Labour supporter who is ashamed to say voted for Tory Blair before realising that was a mistake...
So my vote will always be socialist based...
I will always vote for Independence from Westminster rule regardless of the bent of the party promoting it, Scottish Labour is shooting themselves in the foot following the Blairite stance of the numpties down sowf.. so have totally fucked themselves in Scotland.. The only party left open for the Yoonatics is the "Conservative and UNIONIST Party". Dumbassed Orange lodge twats.....
-
Unfortunately, the unionists Tories - both red and blue - have Billyite councillors elected. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15270068.Orange_Order_elected_to_councils_as_Labour_and_Tory_members/
-
"Wings over Scotland" is a provocative, non party Independence site. However, here's a link to a story charting Labour's clarity - or not - regarding a second referendum. https://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-labour-indyref-clarity-grows/
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40415457
-
So instead of following immediately any Brexit deal, it will follow any Brexit deal maybe sometime.
-
I seem to recall the Dalriadan contingent on this forum once very comfortable and smugly assured the land in which they lived was largely empty and immune from Tories and was anyway on it's way out of the union.
How times change.
-
I seem to recall the Dalriadan contingent on this forum once very comfortable and smugly assured the land in which they lived was largely empty and immune from Tories and was anyway on it's way out of the union.
How times change.
Stop lying
-
I seem to recall the Dalriadan contingent on this forum once very comfortable and smugly assured the land in which they lived was largely empty and immune from Tories and was anyway on it's way out of the union.
How times change.
Thing is Vlad, iirc re. your place of birth, you are one of us 'Daldriadans' too!.
-
Business as usual! https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/the-u-turn-that-wasnt/
-
It's quite odd, in part because it has been the recess and school holidays, but in part because currently no one knows anything, not only has indyref2 slipped off the agenda but politics in Scotland has sort of stopped. We are in a time of navelgazing and Trumpwatching
-
Here we go again! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44188668
-
I really hope not
-
I really hope so. Ihope they become independent and stay in, or re-join, the EU. It'd be worth moving to Scotland if that happened.
-
I really hope so. Ihope they become independent and stay in, or re-join, the EU. It'd be worth moving to Scotland if that happened.
They’ll have a juicy immigration policy to stop you doing that.
-
They’ll have a juicy immigration policy to stop you doing that.
Actually, no.
As far as I understand current SNP and Green thinking (Both parties are indy minded) Immigration would be less restrictive than it is under Tory thinking now.
For what it's worth, I think this is the start of the debate toward a second referendum, and is aimed mainly at putting pressure on Westminster to devolve the powers due Scotand from Brussels, and perhaps wring a few more out of them.
Of course I favour Indyref 2...but I want it AFTER the shambles of Brexit shows how disasterous the exit from the EU really is for the Scots economy.
-
..but I want it AFTER the shambles of Brexit shows how disasterous the exit from the EU really is for the Scots economy.
..but I want it AFTER the shambles of Brexit shows how disastrous the exit from the EU really is for the whole UK economy.
-
I really hope so. Ihope they become independent and stay in, or re-join, the EU. It'd be worth moving to Scotland if that happened.
They wouldn’t have to let you in. We’ll have a hard border with the EU.
-
They wouldn’t have to let you in. We’ll have a hard border with the EU.
'Twas just a vague thought. I wouldn't actually move.
-
So next year then? Presumably before Salmond's trial >:(
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50036176
-
So next year then? Presumably before Salmond's trial >:(
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50036176
Depends if we can wring a section 30 order out of Westminster.
Oh, and I'd probably vote for Henry McLeish to be convenor of a new YES campaign.
-
So .. will a "deal" with the RoUK be arranged before an independence vote or will there have to be a 3rd referendum on the exact manner of leaving, or will Scotland leaving be dependent on rejoining the EU at the same time?
Or something else?
-
So next year then? Presumably before Salmond's trial >:(
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50036176
I can't see BoJo agreeing to an a Scottish Independence referendum.
-
I can't see BoJo agreeing to an a Scottish Independence referendum.
Neither can I but not sure where we will be by then, and who or why decisions will be made. A lot of this is mood music for supporters, then is a substantial group pushing for ignoring WM approval, and a lot of positioning is going on as regards the next leader of the SNP. There is a lot of talk about the trial being likely to result in Sturgeon's resignation.
-
The procedural hearing on the trial is next month, and talk is that the case will be heard early next year, given the possible results, any idea that there is anything definite about even calling for a referendum is incorrect.
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1441749-alex-salmond-s-criminal-court-case-to-call-this-month/
-
I haven't got my head around why Salmond's case decides whether Scotland has another referendum?
-
I haven't got my head around why Salmond's case decides whether Scotland has another referendum?
Not so much 'can as will. Firstly independence is still closely associated with Salmond. If he were to be found guilty, it's going to have an effect on the support for it, even if that isn't for rational reasons. but then rationality isn't that big in voting.
Secondly there is a split in the SNP about how to approach the next referendum. The part that is most closely associated with Salmond is also that which is pushing hardest for a referendum. A guilty verdict on any of the charges will push more power to the gradualists.
Thirdly, there is a belief that the process of the initial investigation by the Scottish govt, already demonstrably flawed as shown by having to pay Salmond's cost when he sued them, may also in terms of what is revealed by the court as to who knew what when, show that Sturgeon behaved incorrectly - this may well lead to her having to step down. And that's even if Salmond is found guilty. This is turn will lead to a battle in the SNP between the already mentioned factions which unlike the last few leadership elections is likely to be very damaging.
In order to get a referendum, I think the SNP and the independence movement as a whole will have to be united in thinking that a win is close. Most of the results of the trial will damage the reputation in some way, and it will be a media circus in which even the best outcomes will have distracted the party and the people.
-
Thanks.
-
Today's offering from the Dug.
It's not all about money.
Alba gu brath.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/the-saltire-strikes-back/
-
Today's offering from the Dug.
It's not all about money.
Alba gu brath.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/the-saltire-strikes-back/
I find that sort of argument puts me off independence. It feels like a mountain of chips. This whole idea that somehow Scots, and in the end it is only people that matter, not land, not poetry, not flags, have individually benefitted but that there is some mystical purity that is maintained is way too blood and sand for me.
-
I find that sort of argument puts me off independence. It feels like a mountain of chips. This whole idea that somehow Scots, and in the end it is only people that matter, not land, not poetry, not flags, have individually benefitted but that there is some mystical purity that is maintained is way too blood and sand for me.
We used to call it the 'Bannockburner' strand of SNP thought, es espoused by Gordon Wilson, Compton Mackenzie, Wendy Wood, etc. Yes, it sounds a bit mystic, but nevertheless it is a strand of argument which has its' place.
Incidentally, I like the reference to Ian Hamilton; he hasn't changed one bit in all the years I've known him.
-
Of course having said that I have often used the phrase 'Je ne suis pas anglais, je suis ecossais' and similar when abroad. But that's a selfish calculation rather than a heartfelt declaration.
-
And, of course the real Stone of Destiny is in the Arlington Bar.
-
The lesser known nicking of the sword attributed to Wallace from the Wallace monument has a connection to my town. No- it wisny me; I was six at the time it vanished for the second time. It spent three weeks hidden in a lum of a council house not a hundred yards from my gaffe.
-
Death of democracy? Good comment from the Dug. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/when-democracy-becomes-a-sham/
-
Death of democracy? Good comment from the Dug. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/when-democracy-becomes-a-sham/
Something weird went on with that link. To all intents and purposes, it looks like a massive and broken Facebook link. However, when I clicked "quote" to tell you the link is broken, it resolved itself to
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/when-democracy-becomes-a-sham/
which is perfectly fine.
ETA: I get it now. You fixed the link yourself just before I hit the quote button.
-
Death of democracy? Good comment from the Dug. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/when-democracy-becomes-a-sham/
There is something disingenuous though about the use of landslide here, since a landslide in seats isn't a landslide in votes because of FPTP. The SNP could get 55+ seats on 40% of the vote. Now that isn't to say there isn't a huge wodge of hypocrisy in the other parties who were they to get a similar 'landslide' at WM as a whole would be proclaiming that as just the bestest landest slidiest landslide.
Part of people's issues with what democracy is is the continual hypocrisy of parties.
-
Death of democracy? Good comment from the Dug. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/when-democracy-becomes-a-sham/
Yeah, it's bullshit.
-
How many referendums will they have on the same subject? Best of threes or something?!! ???
How about one more on Brexit then?!
Take a look at the BBC's reporting now they are legally obliged to treat all of the parties up for election equally, it'l be interesting to see how the manage to change their presentation process without making it look too obvious how their previously continual biased presentation has been against anything that supports leaving the EU.
Regards, ippy.
-
Take a look at the BBC's reporting now they are legally obliged to treat all of the parties up for election equally, it'l be interesting to see how the manage to change their presentation process without making it look too obvious how their previously continual biased presentation has been against anything that supports leaving the EU.
Regards, ippy.
I'm more concerned that the views of Scotland are properly represented: most of us aren't keen on Brexit, ippy, so we need to make sure that other parts of the UK are fully aware of this when they bang on about 'the country'.
I'm sure you can appreciate our concern - hence we need indyref2, and hopefully the UK becomes your problem and not ours, and you can Brexit until the cows come home.
-
Take a look at the BBC's reporting now they are legally obliged to treat all of the parties up for election equally, it'l be interesting to see how the manage to change their presentation process without making it look too obvious how their previously continual biased presentation has been against anything that supports leaving the EU.
Regards, ippy.
You need to show evidence of bias rather than assert it. Also you don't understand election rules - so for example it is perfectly within election rules for the BBC to have a debate with Johnson and Corbyn and not invite the others.
-
I'm more concerned that the views of Scotland are properly represented: most of us aren't keen on Brexit, ippy, so we need to make sure that other parts of the UK are fully aware of this when they bang on about 'the country'.
I'm sure you can appreciate our concern - hence we need indyref2, and hopefully the UK becomes your problem and not ours, and you can Brexit until the cows come home.
There is a huge issue here though that the constitutional settlement makes a nonsense of this. You can't sensibly have a UK election where you need a minimum of 320 seats (assuming Sinn Fein as a 6/7 seats) to form a majority and then treat a party standing in 59 as just as likely to form a govt as parties standing in enough seats to form a govt.
-
Ippy several times you've criticised the Beeb for bias. I honestly can't see it and I do look at quite a few BBC programmes.
-
There is a huge issue here though that the constitutional settlement makes a nonsense of this. You can't sensibly have a UK election where you need a minimum of 320 seats (assuming Sinn Fein as a 6/7 seats) to form a majority and then treat a party standing in 59 as just as likely to form a govt as parties standing in enough seats to form a govt.
Indeed, that is true, hence given the direction of travel in the electorate in large parts of England as regards Brexit, and given the numbers involved, I think if Brexit goes ahead then Scotland needs to be free of the UK.
The odd thing here is that in UK terms the SNP have more seats than the Lib-Dems - perhaps the idea of UK-wide parties having some kind of precedence is becoming problematic, where the Tory party is a minority party in Scotland.
-
Arguably there should be Scotland, NI and Wales debates. And them some Uk wide debate but I am not sure how you judge who should be in it.
-
Me neither: possibly whatever happens with Brexit, either way, in tandem with this GE, will indicate what happens next since there are various combinations that could be problematic: if Brexit happens and the Tories form the next government then I think indyref2 would see are different result from in 2014, if Brexit happens and the DUP lose influence in NI then perhaps a border poll becomes more likely than not, and if Brexit doesn't happen then probably Labour are in government and there may be a reaction to that in England (mainly).
If the UK is to survive I suspect that FPTP needs to be replaced.
-
Mmm I think if FPTP is replaced, it makes break up more likely
-
Ippy several times you've criticised the Beeb for bias. I honestly can't see it and I do look at quite a few BBC programmes.
It's not just me Robin, try these three sources, Lord Pearson cuts through the Brexit betrayal, Robin Aitken on BBC Bias, Rod Liddle Live: the great Brexit betrayal -- The Brendan O'Neill Show; all available via YouTube.
No doubt someone or another on this thread'll be condemning all of them as mad, liars or something similar but listen out for L Pearson's figures for three percent, if he were 10% or more out it'd still be damning for the BBC's figures.
Regards, ippy.
-
That's always happened ippy and always will. I don't care what anyway says or thinks - they may have an agenda or been offended by something - I do not see evidence of bias in the BBC.
I remember a good view years ago some people saying the BBC was anti religion particularly anti Christianity. I couldn't see that then either and I do look at these issues carefully.
The BBC is pretty neutral but like anything, it isn't perfect.
-
That's always happened ippy and always will. I don't care what anyway says or thinks - they may have an agenda or been offended by something - I do not see evidence of bias in the BBC.
I remember a good view years ago some people saying the BBC was anti religion particularly anti Christianity. I couldn't see that then either and I do look at these issues carefully.
The BBC is pretty neutral but like anything, it isn't perfect.
'I do look at these issues carefully'.
I was going to reply Robbie but in your case words fail me, I give up?
Regards, ippy.
-
I'm more concerned that the views of Scotland are properly represented: most of us aren't keen on Brexit, ippy, so we need to make sure that other parts of the UK are fully aware of this when they bang on about 'the country'.
I'm sure you can appreciate our concern - hence we need indyref2, and hopefully the UK becomes your problem and not ours, and you can Brexit until the cows come home.
Yes I can see your point and have certain amount of sympathy for it but what has that got to do with the BBC's wholesale rather obvious, (unless you don't want to see it), bias for remain?
Regards, ippy.
-
Yes I can see your point and have certain amount of sympathy for it but what has that got to do with the BBC's wholesale rather obvious, (unless you don't want to see it), bias for remain?
Regards, ippy.
Actually, the BBC has a bias for Brexit, if anything. It's like giving equal time to Andrew Wakefield. Now, let's all shut up about this so the thread can return to topic.
-
Ippy - fair enough. In the grand scheme of things our opinion of the BBC is not that important.
-
Actually, the BBC has a bias for Brexit, if anything. It's like giving equal time to Andrew Wakefield. Now, let's all shut up about this so the thread can return to topic.
Of course the BBC wouldn't seem to have a bias to you I can understand that.
Regards, ippy.
-
There is nothing new about BBC bias it is well-known.
Here is an interesting interview with ex-BBC journalist Robin Aitken who has written two books on the subject.
How BBC Bias Works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aucDmK5E4bU&t=1378s
John Humphrys also has a similar view.
-
There is nothing new about BBC bias it is well-known.
Here is an interesting interview with ex-BBC journalist Robin Aitken who has written two books on the subject.
How BBC Bias Works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aucDmK5E4bU&t=1378s
John Humphrys also has a similar view.
Anybody that doesn't see the bias the BBC has for remaining doesn't want to see it, they, the BBC, don't even try to hide their bias.
Regatrds, ippy
-
SweetPea, good to see you!
I spent a long time a bit earlier composing a post in reply to you including links but somehow I lost it! Drat. Nevertheless when that happens I adopt a fatalistic attitude, 'it wasn't meant to be ' :-) (or else I'm too lazy to do it all again).
If you have time - anyone - do watch and listen to the Nigel Farage interview with Trump on LBC last week. It was funny in a way, a mutual admiration society, lots of fawning :-) and DT saying stupid things. Such as:- if Farage and BlowJob joined forces they would be powerful leaders & that would be the ideal scenario for Britain (according to the Donald). He waffles away. At least Nigel, much as I dislike his politics, knows how to speak eloquently, ask questions, steer a conversation and keep the audience interested. Sheesh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7WsHoHgUP8
-
Anybody that doesn't see the bias the BBC has for remaining doesn't want to see it, they, the BBC, don't even try to hide their bias.
Regatrds, ippy
Yeah, yeah. Your own bias is distorting your judgement:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17631396.bbc-has-explaining-to-do-over-record-farage-question-time-appearance/
-
SweetPea, good to see you!
I spent a long time a bit earlier composing a post in reply to you including links but somehow I lost it! Drat. Nevertheless when that happens I adopt a fatalistic attitude, 'it wasn't meant to be ' :-) (or else I'm too lazy to do it all again).
If you have time - anyone - do watch and listen to the Nigel Farage interview with Trump on LBC last week. It was funny in a way, a mutual admiration society, lots of fawning :-) and DT saying stupid things. Such as:- if Farage and BlowJob joined forces they would be powerful leaders & that would be the ideal scenario for Britain (according to the Donald). He waffles away. At least Nigel, much as I dislike his politics, knows how to speak eloquently, ask questions, steer a conversation and keep the audience interested. Sheesh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7WsHoHgUP8
Hello Robbie, good to see you too, hope you are keeping well.
Yes, I have seen the Farage/Trump conversation on LBC. I do watch LBC videos quite often and actually caught that particular one live. It was a real surprise, and it also seemed as though we were eavesdropping on two mates having a chat. They are, I believe good friends. It was probably deliberate of Farage to arrange the telephone call as an offset to launching his party's election campaign the following day. Some folk would be in awe?? I agree with you on Trump's waffling and Farage's delivery being clear and concise. Again, whatever you think of his politics he is a great orator.
-
That he is sweetPea which is why so many people who are opposed to his politics, at the same time quite like him. He is entertaining (can imagine him doing after dinner speeches in a different life). If ever he's on telly such as Question Time (which he's been on a lot!), I always make a point of watching. It's been boring recently, same old thing each week (the B word), with half the panel in favour and the other half not. My mind wanders. I hope we're not all going to be sitting here this time next year making the same arguments.
-
Yeah, yeah. Your own bias is distorting your judgement:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17631396.bbc-has-explaining-to-do-over-record-farage-question-time-appearance/
I can see that wanting to leave the EU can be taken as having a bias for leaving the EU and in theory news agencies whatever the title they work under happens to be should be reporting current events with equality, surprisingly not many do.
Seriously if you don't think the BBC has a rather obvious bias for remain, it makes me wonder why when they don't even try to disguise their bias any more, but at the mo they'll have to comply with the broadcasting rules that apply running up to elections or referendums.
Regards, ippy.
-
So why do they give farage so much coverage and exposure.?
-
Meanwhile, in Parliament today, this was passed.
https://www.gov.scot/news/referendums-bill/
-
So why do they give Farage so much coverage and exposure.?
Why not!
Regards, ippy.
-
Why not!
Regards, ippy.
I agree.
The fool gives us something to laugh about.
-
Why not!
Regards, ippy.
And you see no bias in giving excessive air time to Farage rather than say Caroline Lucas of the Green party?
-
I agree.
The fool gives us something to laugh about.
Well exactly if that's what you wish to do.
Regards, ippy.
-
And you see no bias in giving excessive air time to Farage rather than say Caroline Lucas of the Green party?
I've no problem with equal representation of both sides of most arguments but having said that if you think they're, the media in general, are presenting a bit more of the leave side of this disagreement it's more because during this period of the pre election the media is legally required to give equal representation to all political sides, you would be right they would be but only because they're legally obliged to do so, otherwise.
Regards, ippy.
-
I've no problem with equal representation of both sides of most arguments but having said that if you think they're the media in general are presenting a bit more of the leave side of this disagreement it's more because during the pre election the media is legally required to give equal representation to all political sides you're right they would be but only because they're legally obliged to do so, otherwise.
Regards, ippy.
Bollocks. The papers by a huge majority promoted Brexit. If you are to have equalrepresentation the printed press needs to be included.
-
Bollocks. The papers by a huge majority promoted Brexit. If you are to have equalrepresentation the printed press needs to be included.
I can appreciate it must be annoying when the media stops feeding peoples conformation biases.
Regards, ippy.
-
Well exactly if that's what you wish to do.
Regards, ippy.
Well, given that this topic mainly concerns Scotland, on the occasons Farage had ventured forth north of the Tweed to meet ordinary Scots, his reception has been less than cordial, then, yes; amusement at his stupidity comes to mind.
-
May I say something about Farage which is not relevant to the 2nd Indy Referendum?
-
May I say something about Farage which is not relevant to the 2nd Indy Referendum?
As long as iy shows him for the fool he is, then, by all means!
-
No, it'll show me for the fool I am so let us forget it.
-
Corbyn says he would prevent a second independence referendum if he became PM, so I heard on the lunchtime news.
-
Corbyn says he would prevent a second independence referendum if he became PM, so I heard on the lunchtime news.
Problem with that, though, is that iif, as expected, most Labour seats in Scotland are wiped out, should he try to stymie the indyref, the SNP will simoply use it as an anti-Scottish recruiting policy frrom Westminster.
Failure to implement a secomd indyref on a rising tide of nationalist MPs simply destabilises the 'union' further.
-
Not my perspective by some distance but an interesting one
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-have-pushed-me-towards-independence-sz0mnncqp?shareToken=fc3617febb73a12c84881da867e85f5b&fbclid=IwAR3rvU7-q8fEaK8e3EXvhnuutNjwRajV0_sJGar3VeDYGtDzxU-DADMeiU0
-
Because you need to be big....
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-has-third-highest-quality-of-life-in-world-says-un-report-1.4110646
-
Good article on the impact of Brexit on Scexit
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18108471.snp-will-start-putting-case-hard-scexit/?ref=twtrec
-
I can appreciate it must be annoying when the media stops feeding peoples conformation biases.
Regards, ippy.
I look forward to the day when that happens.
-
SNP only got such a high number of seats because of FPTP. They are saying they have a mandate for Indyref 2 but if you go by the overall proportion of votes they got, maybe they don't have one?
-
SNP only got such a high number of seats because of FPTP. They are saying they have a mandate for Indyref 2 but if you go by the overall proportion of votes they got, maybe they don't have one?
Then maybe, by the same token, the GE result does not give Johnson a mandate for Brexit - yet he insists he has one.
-
SNP only got such a high number of seats because of FPTP. They are saying they have a mandate for Indyref 2 but if you go by the overall proportion of votes they got, maybe they don't have one?
I would agree - though it means that the Tories don't have a mandate either and no govt has had one in recent times. Of course Thatcher said that if the SNP got the majority of seats in Scotland then it was a mandate for Scottish independence - not just a referendum. Effectively their mandate comes from the Scottish Parliament elections, which are proportional, and given the vote yesterday was 68 - 54 for the referendum bill, then that's where the argument lies.
-
Then maybe, by the same token, the GE result does not give Johnson a mandate for Brexit - yet he insists he has one.
I would agree - though it means that the Tories don't have a mandate either and no govt has had one in recent times. Of course Thatcher said that if the SNP got the majority of seats in Scotland then it was a mandate for Scottish independence - not just a referendum. Effectively their mandate comes from the Scottish Parliament elections, which are proportional, and given the vote yesterday was 68 - 54 for the referendum bill, then that's where the argument lies.
I agree - Tories got 13.9 million votes, other parties about 15 or 16 million (can't recall which) between them. Greens almost 1 million and they only got 1 seat.
-
Problem with that, though, is that iif, as expected, most Labour seats in Scotland are wiped out, should he try to stymie the indyref, the SNP will simoply use it as an anti-Scottish recruiting policy frrom Westminster.
Failure to implement a secomd indyref on a rising tide of nationalist MPs simply destabilises the 'union' further.
I think all the unionist parties will say no until we are out of EU, not a thing SNP can do about it.
-
I think all the unionist parties will say no until we are out of EU, not a thing SNP can do about it.
Numerically, no.
But the YES movemebnt was relaunched last year, and umbrella groups such as All under one banner attract more and more with each event. There's abnother march planned for next month, and I wouldn't be surprised if it tops 100, 000 - scale that up to London levels and it would be over a million.
These gestures asdded to the continuing gievance factor here simply stoke the case.
All through the 1980s, the Tories vehemently opposed a second devolution referendum - and stood against devolution when the referendum was called in 1997.
The collective feeling of rebelling against a decade-long government Scotland did not elect, combined with a need for change, made the vote a shoe-in.
Unless Johnson is suddenly transformed into Mt Loveable here - and the chances of THAT are non-ex
istant - he might face a similar situation down the line.
The democratic deficit plays into the independence cause's hands, just as it did the devolutionists'.
-
The democratic deficit plays into the independence cause's hands, just as it did the devolutionists'.
Definitely think opinion polls will shift, if SNP win in 2022 then the government will cave in.
By this time, Scotland will have to negotiate leaving the Union and applying to join the EU, resulting in support for independence collapsing.
Nicola will throw a tantrum, but Boris will just ignore her.
-
An interesting view: https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/29/an-independent-scotland-isn-t-ready-for-eu-membership-it-needs-a-constitution-first-view
-
Definitely think opinion polls will shift, if SNP win in 2022 then the government will cave in.
By this time, Scotland will have to negotiate leaving the Union and applying to join the EU, resulting in support for independence collapsing.
Nicola will throw a tantrum, but Boris will just ignore her.
Yep. We have been a member of the EU for less than 50 years and the details on how we sever the relationship are a chaotic nightmare. Scotland has been part ofd the UK for over three hundred years. It's much more tightly integrated into the UK than the UK was into the EU. The negotiations will make the Brexit negotiations look like a mild spat.
It's never going to happen.
-
People of Scotland, lock up your fridges.... He's a-comin..... https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18592846.boris-johnson-visit-scotland-bid-save-union/?fbclid=IwAR1AZWmF7GOwptjX6KbwD9F-fwYxaf2Fm_XTSgVek60g_NyXTKOmc1uXIg8
-
People of Scotland, lock up your fridges.... He's a-comin..... https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18592846.boris-johnson-visit-scotland-bid-save-union/?fbclid=IwAR1AZWmF7GOwptjX6KbwD9F-fwYxaf2Fm_XTSgVek60g_NyXTKOmc1uXIg8
Excellent news: a visit from Boris the Liar is bound to aid the 'cause' (and the 'cause' isn't the UK).
-
Excellent news: a visit from Boris the Liar is bound to aid the 'cause' (and the 'cause' isn't the UK).
Yep...
I can still remember Thatcher coming out of 'retirement' in 1997 to boost the NO/NO side in the devolution referendum.
After her bleating, the polls jumped from about 60% in favour of YES/YES, to nearer 70%....C'mon, Doris, bring it on.....
-
No doubt too his visit will be carefully stage-managed so that he only meets 'those and such as those' so that they can pretend he was well-received in Scotland.
Sadly, I doubt they'd let him risk going walkabout in, say, George Square or St Enoch's so as to allow him to interact freely with us friendly Glaswegians and obtain our thoughts on matters political.
-
No doubt too his visit will be carefully stage-managed so that he only meets 'those and such as those' so that they can pretend he was well-received in Scotland.
Sadly, I doubt they'd let him risk going walkabout in, say, George Square or St Enoch's so as to allow him to interact freely with us friendly Glaswegians and obtain our thoughts on matters political.
Blast.
Little prospect of the forceful relocation of a certain traffic cone in the near future, then.
-
Bernard isn't in favour of Scottish independence but he's a good journalist
https://news.stv.tv/opinion/what-its-like-trying-to-report-on-a-prime-ministers-visit?amp&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR38w0PM_SJi6UTRYjs8IySbvw5dXkCx703J6BeA90HMx3VHYzye0D5xC6U
-
The Internal Markets Bill, in addition to breaking international law, is being argued to not just being a rollback of devolution, but a breach of the Act of Union. There is a lot of irritation amongst some Scottish independence supporters that Nicola is not makinv more of it.
-
The Internal Markets Bill, in addition to breaking international law, is being argued to not just being a rollback of devolution, but a breach of the Act of Union. There is a lot of irritation amongst some Scottish independence supporters that Nicola is not makinv more of it.
From what I've read, and I may not fully understand the detail, one part of this bill involves legal restrictions on challenges to it. Bearing in mind the the concerns in legal circles, hopefully the likes of Joanna Cherry will be looking at legal options before this bill gets passed, since the news this evening of a fudge to calm worried Tory MPs doesn't appear to resolve the breaking international law aspects.
The SNP need to do everything they can to frustrate this, as do the other non-Tory parties who have also expressed concerns.
-
Need to trust the Tory govt...
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18725368.scottish-government-must-trust-westminster-not-abuse-sweeping-powers/?ref=twtrec
-
From what I've read, and I may not fully understand the detail, one part of this bill involves legal restrictions on challenges to it. Bearing in mind the the concerns in legal circles, hopefully the likes of Joanna Cherry will be looking at legal options before this bill gets passed, since the news this evening of a fudge to calm worried Tory MPs doesn't appear to resolve the breaking international law aspects.
The SNP need to do everything they can to frustrate this, as do the other non-Tory parties who have also expressed concerns.
Yes.
Let's use it as a further tool to weaken the union.
It seems to me the FM is managing things reasonably well - the latest survation poll puts indy at 55%; a record for that particular group - and the longest series of sustained polls favouring independence on record.
-
Need to trust the Tory govt...
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18725368.scottish-government-must-trust-westminster-not-abuse-sweeping-powers/?ref=twtrec
Trust. Them. Fuck that.
-
New independence poll 58 yes v 42 no
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-scotland-idUSKBN26Z1KP
-
New independence poll 58 yes v 42 no
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-scotland-idUSKBN26Z1KP
I don't recall a sustainned YES lead in so many polls. I think we can stop dismissing them as blips now.
-
I don't recall a sustainned YES lead in so many polls. I think we can stop dismissing them as blips now.
There has never been but in the end if the question cannot be asked, then it's pointless. There are deep dark waters before any referendum.
-
There has never been but in the end if the question cannot be asked, then it's pointless. There are deep dark waters before any referendum.
Agreed; however the polls seem to indicate another majority SNP government next year - assuming there ARE elections.
They also show the continuing slow death of Labour in Scotland ....which, though I don't support the present Labour leadership - well, in common with most of SLAB - saddens me.
-
Agreed; however the polls seem to indicate another majority SNP government next year - assuming there ARE elections.
They also show the continuing slow death of Labour in Scotland ....which, though I don't support the present Labour leadership - well, in common with most of SLAB - saddens me.
I think we haven't seen the fall out of the Salmond inquiry yet, and we are at a very different place with Covid than we were a month ago. There have been indications in the most recent polls that Labour may be picking up from an incredibly low base.
-
Agreed; however the polls seem to indicate another majority SNP government next year - assuming there ARE elections.
They also show the continuing slow death of Labour in Scotland ....which, though I don't support the present Labour leadership - well, in common with most of SLAB - saddens me.
By the way I take it you know about Paul Kavanagh's stroke?
https://www-tmp.thenational.scot/news/18790427.national-columnist-paul-kavanagh-wee-ginger-dug-suffers-stroke/
-
By the way I take it you know about Paul Kavanagh's stroke?
https://www-tmp.thenational.scot/news/18790427.national-columnist-paul-kavanagh-wee-ginger-dug-suffers-stroke/
Yes.
Last I heard, he was able to speak, which sounds hopeful.
-
I'm not sure how much of a derail this might be, but what chance do you (all Forum posters) think there is of Independence Referenda for Wales and Northern Ireland, should Scotland achieve
Independence?
In the case of Northern Ireland, how long do you think that an Independent Northern Ireland would remain independent before it was absorbed into a United Ireland?
-
I'm not sure how much of a derail this might be, but what chance do you (all Forum posters) think there is of Independence Referenda for Wales and Northern Ireland, should Scotland achieve
Independence?
In the case of Northern Ireland, how long do you think that an Independent Northern Ireland would remain independent before it was absorbed into a United Ireland?
There is no chance of an independent NI, it's UK or UI. There is a chance that a UI could happen before Scottish independence.
Welsh independence is hugely unlikely
-
I'm not sure how much of a derail this might be, but what chance do you (all Forum posters) think there is of Independence Referenda for Wales and Northern Ireland, should Scotland achieve
Independence?
In the case of Northern Ireland, how long do you think that an Independent Northern Ireland would remain independent before it was absorbed into a United Ireland?
NI's the problem for unionists both there and in Scotland.
Should Brexit prove the mess we think it will be, many, both unionists and nationalists in the province, will want closer connections with the Republic. A referendum might mean a face-saver state guaranteede by both Westminster and Dublin as a sop to the britishers in 'Ulster'....but that would be a very short term patch till reunification.
Meanwhile, there is a rather unsavory element of sectarians connected to Ulster in the West of Scotland, an element most folk treat with wary scepticism....untill they start marching with flute bands, then the opposition grows.
If they rear their head, both in support of Ulster' brits' and the Union, the support for independence in the West of Scotland will grow even further.
Incidentally, much of the Tory support in the West and Central belt of Scotland - such as it is - has little to do with policy, and more to do with the perception of the Tories as champions of the union.
-
Welsh independence is hugely unlikely
Why so?
-
Why so?
Because since their high water mark in 1999, Plaid Cymru have fallen away rather than kicked on. The time was had the 2014 referendum in Scotland the SNP had been the govt for 7 years. The push for the second has been backed by further electoral successes way beyond the reach of Plaid.
That said there is record support in polling for Welsh independence but it is still below a third of the electorate.
-
There was a time when potential candidates were begging local party HQs for a hearing, since acceptance was a virtual guarantee of a job for life. Now this article shows the dire state of the Labour party in Scotland. https://www.thenational.scot/news/18797989.scottish-labour-cant-find-candidates-2021-holyrood-election/?ref=fbshr&fbclid=IwAR2o2_o_TR8wu90wP7bTplfBgs74soNDTBPQ6MpglpnVyeZZx-cX1wBOGkc
-
By the way I take it you know about Paul Kavanagh's stroke?
https://www-tmp.thenational.scot/news/18790427.national-columnist-paul-kavanagh-wee-ginger-dug-suffers-stroke/
It appears that the dug has his bark back.
options
options
-
It appears that the Tories are getting nervous.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/u-k-s-tories-start-war-gaming-to-stop-scottish-independence
-
Party arguing for independence but outside the EU set up
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18815380.ex-snp-msp-chic-brodie-launches-new-independence-party-scotia-future/?ref=twtrec
-
Interesting analysis of polling trend of 'swing' voters.
https://www.politico.eu/article/loathing-of-boris-johnson-fueling-surge-in-support-for-scottish-independence-poll/?fbclid=IwAR0TqUzyYF7Qo-xIjqWp93oCW0aBjo4ycquhB6IqmvtN3_LE5m699Lrk0i0
-
Interesting analysis of polling trend of 'swing' voters.
https://www.politico.eu/article/loathing-of-boris-johnson-fueling-surge-in-support-for-scottish-independence-poll/?fbclid=IwAR0TqUzyYF7Qo-xIjqWp93oCW0aBjo4ycquhB6IqmvtN3_LE5m699Lrk0i0
Yep, despite some in the independence movement seeing Nicola's ca' canny approach as too slow, it chimes with swing voters. I think the SNP need to carefully make the 2021 election enough about independence that it is seen as a clear mandate for another referendum.
That said it may be that the unionist parties may do their work for them.
-
Yep, despite some in the independence movement seeing Nicola's ca' canny approach as too slow, it chimes with swing voters. I think the SNP need to carefully make the 2021 election enough about independence that it is seen as a clear mandate for another referendum.
That said it may be that the unionist parties may do their work for them.
JI kind of agree with the article, in that Nicola, far from banging on about indy at the drop of a hat, has been pretty restrained - thus wrong footing the opposition, who seem heel bent in saying and doing everything in their power to further widen the gap between Scotland and the RUK.
Johnson, self styled 'minister for the union', is the best advert we have for breaking it.
-
The latest poll - the twelfth in a row - confirms the trend toward supporting regaining independence.
This is the longest run of sustained support for independence from multiple poll sources on record.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18850307.new-poll-finds-support-independence-uptick-scottish-labour/
-
'Will of the people'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54965585
-
'Will of the people'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54965585
For those of us who support Scottish independence, Boris is the gift that keeps on giving.
-
For those of us who support the Scottish independence, Boris is the gift that keeps on giving.
For a fraction of a second, I almost felt Sorry for the Tory placeman in Scotland, Ross, as he tried to plaster over the chasm Johnson opened up last night.
As the self-titled 'minister for the Union', he's not exactly firing on tubular wotsits, is he?
-
I see Robert Jenrick has been saying that it would be foolish to leave a union in the middle of a pandemic
-
I see Robert Jenrick has been saying that it would be foolish to leave a union in the middle of a pandemic
No arguments there.....
But by the time a second indyref is called, a vaccination programme will have done its' stuff, and we won't BE in the middle of a pandemic.
Johnson's words, however, will be a great rallying point.
-
No arguments there.....
But by the time a second indyref is called, a vaccination programme will have done its' stuff, and we won't BE in the middle of a pandemic.
Johnson's words, however, will be a great rallying point.
It was the irony of the remark that I was wondering about.
-
It was the irony of the remark that I was wondering about.
And presumably wise to leave the union afterwards?
-
Alex Massie on Johnson
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/blundering-boris-will-regret-insulting-scotland/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
And Marina Hyde
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/17/boris-johnson-saboteur-prime-minister-scottish-devolution?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
-
And Marina Hyde
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/17/boris-johnson-saboteur-prime-minister-scottish-devolution?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
The London tory nabobs are going to have to decide just how important the union is for them - and quickly.
If we go into the next Holyrood elections with Johnson in charge in London and a semi-deyatched Ross technically in charge here, there could be a Tory meltdown to match that of Labour,
-
15th poll in a row shows the trend continues, and a rather improbable result for SNP, were the election tomorrow. https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-set-for-majority-at-2021-scottish-parliament-election?top
-
This is interesting from Wee Ginger Dug
https://archive.vn/eJR2i
-
The London tory nabobs are going to have to decide just how important the union is for them - and quickly.
If we go into the next Holyrood elections with Johnson in charge in London and a semi-deyatched Ross technically in charge here, there could be a Tory meltdown to match that of Labour,
Do what you have to do. Defeat the Tories.
-
With the caviat that 'the National' is very much influenced by propaganda, this is, nevertheless a good read.
Nairn is a well respected thinker, author and lecturer.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18936542.union-will-within-five-years-one-scotlands-greatest-thinkers-says/?fbclid=IwAR21xPJHu0B1s1E1fKB_dr6u856qcyHaTmNY3f2arb1h1urMk_lEgBgn0B8
-
We put three in a row as a blip.
Ten in a row as remarkable.
Now the seventeenth poll in a row has 58% in favour of independence.
-
The idea that the election should not be held is fitless wuckery
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55545738
-
The idea that the election should not be held is fitless wuckery
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55545738
I think Johnson, so-called 'minister for the Union', would dearly like to postpone the election, but this would be a daft idea, since all other parties would milk his idea as Tory gerrymandering.
-
I think Johnson, so-called 'minister for the Union', would dearly like to postpone the election, but this would be a daft idea, since all other parties would milk his idea as Tory gerrymandering.
Hmm... The first suggestion I saw about this was from Labour.
-
Hmm... The first suggestion I saw about this was from Labour.
Given Leonard's dire performance, a delay in the election would be the only way he could remain leader. Whatever happens on election day, his coat's on a shoogly nail.
-
Given Leonard's dire performance, a delay in the election would be the only way he could remain leader. Whatever happens on election day, his coat's on a shoogly nail.
SLAB are in their own wee internecine war. TBH the entirety of Scottish politics at the moment is just parties fighting themselves, or being so crap that they can't even manage that.
-
Case to avoid the UK govt having to approve a 2nd indyref. The position of the Lord Advocate is an odd one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55751064
-
Stay out of independence debate for the sake of the Union, Unionist says to Johnson
https://news.stv.tv/politics/pm-should-stay-out-of-independence-debate-no-campaign-boss-urges?amp&__twitter_impression=true
-
Stay out of independence debate for the sake of the Union, Unionist says to Johnson
https://news.stv.tv/politics/pm-should-stay-out-of-independence-debate-no-campaign-boss-urges?amp&__twitter_impression=true
You can't blame him after the orange twit's latest political jaunt up north,.
-
Ha!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229625/amp/Secret-No-10-plan-send-Prince-Edward-live-Edinburgh-save-Union.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
Ha!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229625/amp/Secret-No-10-plan-send-Prince-Edward-live-Edinburgh-save-Union.html?__twitter_impression=true
As a strategy I find that somewhat unconvincing.
-
When old Phil pops his clogs - and I wish him every good wish for continued health - Eddy will be 'Duke of Edinburgh'. The women of Edinburgh were wont to cast their refuse and sewerage into the streets in the nineteenth century, with the warning cry 'Gardyloo'! In Eddy's case, they should refrain from the warning.
-
Seen elsewhere
'Last time the English sent someone called Edward to help solve a Scottish problem, it didn't really end well.'
-
Seen elsewhere
'Last time the English sent someone called Edward to help solve a Scottish problem, it didn't really end well.'
You meanEdward Balliol, 'Toom tabard's' son?
He was installed by Edward III of the English as puppet king, David II being in exile.
He didn't last long.
-
You meanEdward Balliol, 'Toom tabard's' son?
He was installed by Edward III of the English as puppet king, David II being in exile.
He didn't last long.
I think they were referring to Eddie II
-
Ha!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229625/amp/Secret-No-10-plan-send-Prince-Edward-live-Edinburgh-save-Union.html?__twitter_impression=true
I wonder which genius thought this up since I suspect it may well have exactly the opposite effect from that intended.
In my experience, which is of course based on an unrepresentative sample of people I know, most of those I do know who support Scottish Independence also envisage Scotland becoming a republic a.s.a.p. after independence.
-
I think they were referring to Eddie II
Whether Longshanks of England was really Edward I of England is moot.
Surely theitr 'Edward the Confessor' would be Edward I.
Scotland has had only three Edwards.
Edward Balliol.
Edward, Vicky's son,
And Edward, Hitler's pal.
We don't need any more.
-
I wonder which genius thought this up since I suspect it may well have exactly the opposite effect from that intended.
In my experience, which is of course based on an unrepresentative sample of people I know, most of those I do know who support Scottish Independence also envisage Scotland becoming a republic a.s.a.p. after independence.
Yep.
Though, having met wee Eddy, if he comes here as 'chookie Embro', he'll forward the Yes cause no end.
-
Meanwhile the factionalism in the independence movement is highlighted by a theoretically unifying group being announced.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/02/now-scotland/
-
This is quite brutal on the SNP, and Mandy Rhodes has been sympathetic to them in the past.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,something-rotten?fbclid=IwAR1ROtwJEQddzt1MwBLvbwAsRufrQX1cr7xUBG9WXggYszhf6AdxY-CpH9U
-
Disregard the source. "the National" can be a bit of a rabble-rouser; nevertheless the author of this article is a respected ex BBC figure, and his musings are thought provoking.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19106059.gavin-esler-journey-end-britain/?fbclid=IwAR2UThIyro3h5XSSEf9XRIPQdkAIhBgdLfioxYBJdgHhyy4Dqy4UQGI3eUI
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/most-scots-would-back-remaining-in-uk-new-poll-suggests
Funny how things change so quickly.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/most-scots-would-back-remaining-in-uk-new-poll-suggests
Funny how things change so quickly.
Covid recovery and vaccine bounce will give way to economic wasteland once the smoke clears. Recovery elsewhere will reveal the brexit damage.
Scotland, keep preparing the life raft.
-
Covid recovery and vaccine bounce will give way to economic wasteland once the smoke clears. Recovery elsewhere will reveal the brexit damage.
Scotland, keep preparing the life raft.
I don't disagree. I just think it's wise to remember things are never as fixed as we would like them to be, particularly when polls align with our own personal viewpoint.
-
I don't disagree. I just think it's wise to remember things are never as fixed as we would like them to be, particularly when polls align with our own personal viewpoint.
Yes, but the pattern seems to be that we now tolerate worse and worse.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/most-scots-would-back-remaining-in-uk-new-poll-suggests
Funny how things change so quickly.
Not sure it's been that quick. Given what's been happening with the Salmond inquiry, I am struggling to understand why it has not moved more. To be honest, I think the success of the vaccination programme has had a substantial effect in the change.
-
Yes, but the pattern seems to be that we now tolerate worse and worse.
Is this in general terms or specifically to do with the Scottish question?
I, as always, feel an outsider on the Scottish Independence issue so I like to tread warily.
As I think was discussed upthread or maybe elsewhere, the choice facing Scotland is not an enviable one. There are no easy options for them, this probably explains why the polls remain so tight, and with the latest impenetrable goings on at Holyrood, also volatile.
On a more general note - yes, we are tolerating worse and worse, but people vote very often for what they perceive as being the least worst option and Boris and co. persuaded enough people that they were it.
Have they been hoodwinked? Absolutely.
Would you as an employer take on Boris in any job? Absolutely not.
Yet here we are.
-
Is this in general terms or specifically to do with the Scottish question?
I, as always, feel an outsider on the Scottish Independence issue so I like to tread warily.
As I think was discussed upthread or maybe elsewhere, the choice facing Scotland is not an enviable one. There are no easy options for them, this probably explains why the polls remain so tight, and with the latest impenetrable goings on at Holyrood, also volatile.
On a more general note - yes, we are tolerating worse and worse, but people vote very often for what they perceive as being the least worst option and Boris and co. persuaded enough people that they were it.
Have they been hoodwinked? Absolutely.
Would you as an employer take on Boris in any job? Absolutely not.
Yet here we are.
.
For me, the situation is this. Since 1979 Conservatism has veered away from the wartime and postwar concensus as to what it means to be British whereas I see Scotland retaining these values. They never eventually gave up Conservatism and have been divided about breaking up the union.
Has anyone taken a poll of how many Tories want Scottish independence. The last poll seemed to be in favour and now the majority seem to want to vote Tory.
If Scottish independence does not occur then the chapter entitled ''their finest hour'' has well and truly ended.
-
The animosity between the Tories and the SNP has always been there, and is especially intense currently - as was obvious from Margaret Mitchell's approach to her questioning of Nicola Sturgeon - and with an election due I'm not surprised that the other parties are seeing an opportunity and taking it: after all, to use some local vernacular, the events around the Salmond situation are very much the 'talk of the steamie': for now.
Having conceded that they (the Scottish government) made a hash of the Salmond situation the key issue now is whether or not Nicola Sturgeon is deemed (via the other investigation) to have broken the ministerial code: if so, she may resign but she may decide to tough it out until Holyrood prorogues in around 3 weeks time, and if she is found to have not broken the ministerial code then she'll tough out whatever this committee reports until Holyrood prorogues - and at that point election campaigning starts.
The Tories may well use these events in their campaigning, but of course they are the party of Brexit and of Boris the Liar so while they are currently in attack-mode on a single issue (Salmond etc) they will have to deal with other matters during the campaign and Dross doesn't appear to me to be much of an asset to them, and he'll have to defend the SNP attacks on the Tory Brexit (we in Scotland didn't vote for either Brexit or for a Tory government), the Tories funnelling dosh to Tory-supporting areas, their undermining of Holyrood via their 'Internal Market' bill etc etc.
I'll be voting SNP, and I hope the Tories get trashed here.
-
Feels like a bit of a dead cat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56482881
-
This will undoubtedly change Anchorman's opinion on independence ;)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9389649/Prince-William-Lord-High-Commissioner-General-Assembly-Church-Scotland.html
-
This will undoubtedly change Anchorman's opinion on independence ;)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9389649/Prince-William-Lord-High-Commissioner-General-Assembly-Church-Scotland.html
Oh, aye.....right.
Michty me, jings, crivvens, help ma boab.......
Just as well the Lord High Commissioner has no authority in the Kirk, then.
Even where he sits - a box outside the floor of the Assembly looking down on proceedings - is there to show that he/she has no part in Assembly, nor can they vote.
It's a Kirk thing.
-
Oh, aye.....right.
Michty me, jings, crivvens, help ma boab.......
Just as well the Lord High Commissioner has no authority in the Kirk, then.
Even where he sits - a box outside the floor of the Assembly looking down on proceedings - is there to show that he/she has no part in Assembly, nor can they vote.
It's a Kirk thing.
Nah, this is a Kirk thing
https://www.cnet.com/news/william-shatner-turns-90-ai-version-of-him-will-live-on-indefinitely/
-
Nah, this is a Kirk thing
https://www.cnet.com/news/william-shatner-turns-90-ai-version-of-him-will-live-on-indefinitely/
Kirk hasn't been born yet.
As a future son of Linlithgow will say...."Ye cannae change the laws of physics".
-
Alex Massie on the nonsense from Blackford about pensions
https://archive.vn/XtaP3
-
I don't want a referendum next year but this is fucking disgraceful from the Herald
-
Currently I would vote No in an IndyRef but the biggest Yes argument is the anti democratic refusal to hold one by the Tory Govt in WM.
https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1551661591107624961?t=aNWbZYx-ZZpjd6jC3UazKQ&s=19
-
Currently I would vote No in an IndyRef but the biggest Yes argument is the anti democratic refusal to hold one by the Tory Govt in WM.
https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1551661591107624961?t=aNWbZYx-ZZpjd6jC3UazKQ&s=19
I'd vote Yes - no surprise there - because I'm thinking about the long term. But, yes, the Tory refusal is a red rag to a bull, and is only going to stoke further division.
-
I'd vote Yes - no surprise there - because I'm thinking about the long term. But, yes, the Tory refusal is a red rag to a bull, and is only going to stoke further division.
Amazingly I might be voting No because I'm thinking about the long term too
-
And one take on the 'Shitemare'
https://youtu.be/6olnQ4cG2dU
-
That's a no then:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news
-
That's a no then:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news
Not unexpected.
It simply fuels the fire.
-
Not unexpected.
It simply fuels the fire.
I think we need to wait and see about that. I can't see there being a huge upsurge in support, and it may mean, combined with the pressing demands of the cost of living crisis, that for many the demands to 'get on with the day job' becomes the prime demand.
-
And a rise in support.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/support-for-scottish-independence-rises-to-56-after-supreme-court-ruling-stv-poll
-
And a rise in support.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/support-for-scottish-independence-rises-to-56-after-supreme-court-ruling-stv-poll
When you delve into the details the results are rather more nuanced.
So 56% would vote Yes to independence if there was a referendum tomorrow.
BUT - only 35% want a referendum in the next year or so. So the voting intention polling is a forced choice on a scenario most people don't want to happen - a referendum soon.
Make of that what you will. But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario that people don't want or don't think important. This is similar (but less extreme) to the Brexit referendum, where in the run up to 2015 people were regularly asked to give their view on how they'd vote in a hypothetical EU referendum, but actually most people weren't in favour of a referendum and fewer still thought the EU to be a major issue facing the country.
On the latter, independence is 4th on the list of important issues facing Scotland after Health/NHS, Inflation/Cost of Living and Education.
-
Anything anyone doesn't like in UK politics at the moment is claimed t be what Putin wants. It's getting a bit tiresome.
-
Anything anyone doesn't like in UK politics at the moment is claimed t be what Putin wants. It's getting a bit tiresome.
I don't disagree - the most ridiculous example being the claim that UK strikes were somehow all part of Putin's master plan.
However I only skim read the article - is this claim made there as well - if so I missed it.
-
When you delve into the details the results are rather more nuanced.
So 56% would vote Yes to independence if there was a referendum tomorrow.
BUT - only 35% want a referendum in the next year or so. So the voting intention polling is a forced choice on a scenario most people don't want to happen - a referendum soon.
Make of that what you will. But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario that people don't want or don't think important. This is similar (but less extreme) to the Brexit referendum, where in the run up to 2015 people were regularly asked to give their view on how they'd vote in a hypothetical EU referendum, but actually most people weren't in favour of a referendum and fewer still thought the EU to be a major issue facing the country.
On the latter, independence is 4th on the list of important issues facing Scotland after Health/NHS, Inflation/Cost of Living and Education.
Independence here is a binary scenario. Support has gone up. The headline and my post are correct. Putting it 4th does not mean people don't see it as imporatant. Maybe take your own advice and don't write simplistic statements - particularly when those are not headlines but in a longer post.
My take is still that a referendum won't happen for a variety of reasons. And I would vote no.
-
Anything anyone doesn't like in UK politics at the moment is claimed t be what Putin wants. It's getting a bit tiresome.
Don't see this in the article or Prof D's post???
-
Independence here is a binary scenario. Support has gone up. The headline and my post are correct. Putting it 4th does not mean people don't see it as imporatant. Maybe take your own advice and don't write simplistic statementS - particularly when those are not headlines bit in a longer post.
My take is still that a referendum won't happen for a variety of reasons. And I would vote no.
I'm not making simplistic statements.
The point is that the indyref2 polling is based on what people would vote were there a referendum tomorrow. That is a hypothetical scenario and one that most people don't want to happen, as only about a third of voters want a referendum anytime before the end of 2023, while a markedly greater proportion want the whole thing kicked into the long grass - favouring a referendum later than 2026 or never.
The point being that it isn't very valuable asking people what they would do in a forced choice in a hypothetical scenario that they don't want. Now it might be reasonable if there was a clear prospect of a referendum some time soon, but there isn't.
-
I'm not making simplistic statements.
Why point is that the indyref2 polling is based on what people would vote were there a referendum tomorrow. That is a hypothetical scenario and one that most people don't want to happen, as only about a third of voters want a referendum anytime before the end of 2023, while a markedly greater proportion want the whole thing kicked into the long grass - favouring a referendum later than 2026 or never.
The point being that it isn't very valuable asking people what they would do in a forced choice in a hypothetical scenario that they don't want. Now it might be reasonable if there was a clear prospect of a referendum some time soon, but there isn't.
I see you are marking your own homework which in terms of Spud doing the same as regards his racism you advised against but then thinking consistently as regards yourself vs others is not one of your stronger points. It's perfectly possible to think independence is important but that a referendum may be better in more than a year.
-
I see you are marking your own homework which in terms of Spud doing the same as regards his racism you advised against but then thinking consistently as regards yourself vs others is not one of your stronger points. It's perfectly possible to think independence is important but that a referendum may be better in more than a year.
Not at all, and I really fail to see any connection with Spud's comments on Susan Hussey.
I'm simply providing some insight into the broader polling beyond the headline. Only when you look at a range of questions relating not just to a hypothetic vote tomorrow, but to when (or if) people want a referendum and the importance people think independence has do you get a truer picture.
So let's look at the importance question a little more, as you brought it up in your post. As far as I'm aware this is the standard Ipsos 'issues' monitor question, that they have used for decades. Basically, unprompted (and that is important) they ask people two questions:
What do you see as the most important issue facing Scotland/the UK (delete as applicable) today?
What do you see as other important issues facing Scotland/the UK (delete as applicable) today?
Because it is unprompted respondents can say whatever they like and can provide as many 'other' issues as they want, albeit only one 'most important' issue. The unprompted nature is important as prompting can increase the impression of importance compared to leaving it entirely up to the respondent. And the results are usually a combined value from the two questions, and therefore overall results go way beyond 100% as high proportions of people may see inflation and NHS and education and independence as important.
So the results.
Well interestingly Independence comes top of the 'most important' category, but still just 15% of people say it is the most important issue (hence 85% don't). A further 9% cite it as another important issue, combining to the 23% total (with rounding). So actually 77% don't see it as important - and there is no limit to the number of issues that they could see as important.
Also interestingly (and this is different to some of the other issues) - a greater proportion of people who think it important think it is the most important issue. So to paraphrase, largely either it is your number one issue or you don't care about it at all. Which is a lot like Brexit - a small minority were obsessed with the EU, most simply didn't see it as an issue.
More interesting still - when you force people into a IndyRef2 voting intention 56% say 'Yes', but the cross tabs on the tables tell us whether these people actually think independence is an important issue (or the most important) - and the data show that just 36% of people who say they'd vote 'yes' in a referendum actually think independence is either the most important issue or an important issue. That means that nigh on two thirds of 'yes' indyref voters don't consider independence to be an important issue facing Scotland.
So to summarise - from the data, not from what you might want to be the case.
About 77% of people do not think independence is an important issue facing Scotland, most people don't want a referendum any time soon, but if you ask a forced choice question about a hypothetical referendum tomorrow (that they don't want and don't think is important) 56% say they vote 'Yes'.
-
Not at all, and I really fail to see any connection with Spud's comments on Susan Hussey.
I'm simply providing some insight into the broader polling beyond the headline. Only when you look at a range of questions relating not just to a hypothetic vote tomorrow, but to when (or if) people want a referendum and the importance people think independence has do you get a truer picture.
So let's look at the importance question a little more, as you brought it up in your post. As far as I'm aware this is the standard Ipsos 'issues' monitor question, that they have used for decades. Basically, unprompted (and that is important) they ask people two questions:
What do you see as the most important issue facing Scotland/the UK (delete as applicable) today?
What do you see as other important issues facing Scotland/the UK (delete as applicable) today?
Because it is unprompted respondents can say whatever they like and can provide as many 'other' issues as they want, albeit only one 'most important' issue. The unprompted nature is important as prompting can increase the impression of importance compared to leaving it entirely up to the respondent. And the results are usually a combined value from the two questions, and therefore overall results go way beyond 100% as high proportions of people may see inflation and NHS and education and independence as important.
So the results.
Well interestingly Independence comes top of the 'most important' category, but still just 15% of people say it is the most important issue (hence 85% don't). A further 9% cite it as another important issue, combining to the 23% total (with rounding). So actually 77% don't see it as important - and there is no limit to the number of issues that they could see as important.
Also interestingly (and this is different to some of the other issues) - a greater proportion of people who think it important think it is the most important issue. So to paraphrase, largely either it is your number one issue or you don't care about it at all. Which is a lot like Brexit - a small minority were obsessed with the EU, most simply didn't see it as an issue.
More interesting still - when you force people into a IndyRef2 voting intention 56% say 'Yes', but the cross tabs on the tables tell us whether these people actually think independence is an important issue (or the most important) - and the data show that just 36% of people who say they'd vote 'yes' in a referendum actually think independence is either the most important issue or an important issue. That means that nigh on two thirds of 'yes' indyref voters don't consider independence to be an important issue facing Scotland.
So to summarise - from the data, not from what you might want to be the case.
About 77% of people do not think independence is an important issue facing Scotland, most people don't want a referendum any time soon, but if you ask a forced choice question about a hypothetical referendum tomorrow (that they don't want and don't think is important) 56% say they vote 'Yes'.
And you just illustrate the problem by starting off with a simplistic statement. You and self perception are not just strange bedfellows but exist in completely alternate universes.
-
And you just illustrate the problem by starting off with a simplistic statement.
Which is exactly the opposite of what I have done - my whole argument is that it isn't as simplistic as a headline IndyRef voting figure. In order to understand things you need to get beyond the simplistic statement of the headline and actually understand the complexity of opinion, which involves considering whether people actually want a referendum, and if so when, and also whether people think that the issue of independence is important.
You and self perception are not just strange bedfellows but exist in completely alternate universes.
Again - just about the exact opposite of reality - you accuse me of being simplistic when I was making a point about the need to understand beyond the simplistic. So you accuse me again, and I response with details of what the polling actually shows, way way beyond the simplistic headline. And you accuse me again of being simplistic.
Perhaps rather than 'playing the person' you might like to actually engage with the details of the polling beyond the 56% headline.
-
Which is exactly the opposite of what I have done - my whole argument is that it isn't as simplistic as a headline IndyRef voting figure. In order to understand things you need to get beyond the simplistic statement of the headline and actually understand the complexity of opinion, which involves considering whether people actually want a referendum, and if so when, and also whether people think that the issue of independence is important.
Again - just about the exact opposite of reality - you accuse me of being simplistic when I was making a point about the need to understand beyond the simplistic. So you accuse me again, and I response with details of what the polling actually shows, way way beyond the simplistic headline. And you accuse me again of being simplistic.
Perhaps rather than 'playing the person' you might like to actually engage with the details of the polling beyond the 56% headline.
What have I said that is against any of the article?
-
What have I said that is against any of the article?
The point is that the article is, in itself, highly simplistic - with a headline based on just one aspect of the data and the entire article completely ignoring an important aspect of the polling - the consideration of the importance of independence in the poll.
As you might imagine given my profession, I tend to prefer to head straight to the actual data rather than rely on simplistic filtering to support a media article of even more simplistic - a headline.
So I ask again - would you like to actually discuss the data in the polling - all the data, including the data on importance. I've provided a summary - but you can get all the information here:
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-12/scotland-political-monitor-tables-december-2022.pdf
Or perhaps you'd prefer the simplistic approach of just basing your views on what a news editor would like you to focus on.
-
The point is that the article is, in itself, highly simplistic - with a headline based on just one aspect of the data and the entire article completely ignoring an important aspect of the polling - the consideration of the importance of independence in the poll.
As you might imagine given my profession, I tend to prefer to head straight to the actual data rather than rely on simplistic filtering to support a media article of even more simplistic - a headline.
So I ask again - would you like to actually discuss the data in the polling - all the data, including the data on importance. I've provided a summary - but you can get all the information here:
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-12/scotland-political-monitor-tables-december-2022.pdf
Or perhaps you'd prefer the simplistic approach of just basing your views on what a news editor would like you to focus on.
It's a headline. It's correct. Do you understand what a headline is?
As to the rest of the article, this seems to be the first time you've mentioned an issue with that. What do you think was missed out?
Nice to know you think what are the editor was wanting me to take out of it, or what I did.
I see you haven't mentioned any of the approval ratings of politicians - any reason why you didn't provide a summary of those or would you just like me to concentrate on what you would like me to focus on?
-
As to the rest of the article, this seems to be the first time you've mentioned an issue with that. What do you think was missed out?
Do you actually both to read my posts NS.
You linked to the article - the first line of my first response (reply 644) was:
'When you delve into the details the results are rather more nuanced.'
And in that reply I never mentioned the headline, and nor did you in the post I was replying to.
My issue was with the simplistic and selective reporting of the data in the article - hence my comment and that I raised the issue of importance, which is a key element of the actual polling data, but isn't even mentioned in the article.
Once again - let's discuss the data, all the data, including the questions on importance. I've provided you with the link, so it is all available to you. I'm not really interested in the selected editorial line in the article still less the headline.
And while we are at it - the standard approach to looking at changes in polling it to compare a poll with the last poll conducted by the same polling organisation, regardless of who commissioned it. The article compares the data with the last poll by Ipsos commissioned by STV, back in May, but there is a much more recent poll, from October from Ipsos - the standard approach should be to make comparisons with this poll rather than the one from last May. If that were the case it wouldn't show a 6% increase in support for yes, and I suspect the changes will be within the +/- 4% margin of error of the data.
-
Do you actually both to read my posts NS.
You linked to the article - the first line of my first response (reply 644) was:
'When you delve into the details the results are rather more nuanced.'
And in that reply I never mentioned the headline, and nor did you in the post I was replying to.
My issue was with the simplistic and selective reporting of the data in the article - hence my comment and that I raised the issue of importance, which is a key element of the actual polling data, but isn't even mentioned in the article.
Once again - let's discuss the data, all the data, including the questions on importance. I've provided you with the link, so it is all available to you. I'm not really interested in the selected editorial line in the article still less the headline.
And while we are at it - the standard approach to looking at changes in polling it to compare a poll with the last poll conducted by the same polling organisation, regardless of who commissioned it. The article compares the data with the last poll by Ipsos commissioned by STV, back in May, but there is a much more recent poll, from October from Ipsos - the standard approach should be to make comparisons with this poll rather than the one from last May. If that were the case it wouldn't show a 6% increase in support for yes, and I suspect the changes will be within the +/- 4% margin of error of the data.
To quote from that first reply of your's
'Make of that what you will. But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario' which raises the headline. Maybe you need to read your posts more.
-
'Make of that what you will. But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario'
Nice bit of selective quoting - the whole sentence:
'But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario that people don't want or don't think important.'
Given that neither the headline nor the article discussed importance, I think it is pretty clear that I was talking about the data beyond what was in the article - you know the actual data in the polling report, the full data, not just the bits that lend to a nice bit of editorial slant.
So now we have packed that one away, perhaps you'd like to actually discuss the data, you know all the data.
Perhaps we can discuss why 77% of respondents don't think independence is sufficiently important to mention it in an unprompted manner when they could raise as many issues as they wished that they felt important. We could go further and unpack the thinking of the 64% of forced-question 'yes' responders who also didn't feel independence was an important enough issue to mention.
Point being that polling can often force a response out of someone, but what also matters is whether the individual actually thinks the matter is important, otherwise the response is really 'well I don't actually give a shit, unless you require me to'. And that, sadly, is how we ended up with brexit.
-
Nice bit of selective quoting - the whole sentence:
'But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario that people don't want or don't think important.'
Given that neither the headline nor the article discussed importance, I think it is pretty clear that I was talking about the data beyond what was in the article - you know the actual data in the polling report, the full data, not just the bits that lend to a nice bit of editorial slant.
So now we have packed that one away, perhaps you'd like to actually discuss the data, you know all the data.
Perhaps we can discuss why 77% of respondents don't think independence is sufficiently important to mention it in an unprompted manner when they could raise as many issues as they wished that they felt important. We could go further and unpack the thinking of the 64% of forced-question 'yes' responders who also didn't feel independence was an important enough issue to mention.
Point being that polling can often force a response out of someone, but what also matters is whether the individual actually thinks the matter is important, otherwise the response is really 'well I don't actually give a shit, unless you require me to'. And that, sadly, is how we ended up with brexit.
You said you didn't mention the headline in that post. You did.
-
Don't see this in the article or Prof D's post???
The headline in your attachment - didn't realise it was on the previous page. Also didn't notice that it was posted way back inn March! Sorry for the confusion.
I don't want a referendum next year but this is fucking disgraceful from the Herald
-
The headline in your attachment - didn't realise it was on the previous page. Also didn't notice that it was posted way back inn March! Sorry for the confusion.
Ah - easy mistake. No problem.
-
And a second Indyref will apparently be a reverse Brexit ref as well. I can see why this looks like a cunning plan that the McCunning family of Cunninghame came up with but it's a nonsense. Though I suppose given there is no prospect of a refetendum currently it doesn't matter.
https://archive.vn/2EPZU
-
Falls in support for Sturgeon, SNP, and independence
https://archive.vn/8nr1R
-
30p Lee, the SNP's best new recruiter