That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
There is a notable difference in the volatility of the numbers being produced by the more established pollsters with strong track records (YouGov, Opinium, Ipsos-Mori, Survation) and the newer kids on the block. I guess we'll get a better idea of who is doing best after the local elections.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
Assume we are now going to have 247 posts analysing a MOE increase in the Labour lead of +1? It’s probably due to imagined price rises at some undefined point in the future, woke and something, well you fill in the gaps.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
I seem to recall a fairly recent referendum on Scottish independence that was won overwhelmingly by NO.
Look, I get the arguments. If I was Scottish I might be pro Indy. In many ways as a 'little englander' I would be happy if the Scots chose to go their own way. But its the same dishonesty as Brexit - not confronting the main issues BEFORE a vote - the currency, trade with rUK, share of national debt and so on.
Make the case on heart alone and you set up to do Brexit mark 2, but a lot worse.
This Tory revival is really messing this site up..:
I have been saying that all the Tories needed was for them to improve one point a month, with Labour to fall off one point a month through this year - and we would have a contest.
Seems to be happening. On steroids...
Labour need to start upping their game after the locals.
Simply being “not the Tories” might -just- be enough to scrape them into government, but there is a real risk now that it is not. And it might be hard to deliver a workable majority on that basis.
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
There is a notable difference in the volatility of the numbers being produced by the more established pollsters with strong track records (YouGov, Opinium, Ipsos-Mori, Survation) and the newer kids on the block. I guess we'll get a better idea of who is doing best after the local elections.
What is Labour's par score NEV pts lead from these locals iyo?
The absolute brass neck on this is staggering. But then it is the Mail. Their brand is wibbly senile nonsense. I seem to recall one a bit ago where they staked out some government department or other to count the people going in, and complained that some of them were wearing t-shirts.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
Hm, a bit. But how much longer would that distinction have remained? Had it been 52-48 Remain, and we had Remained, you can be sure the difficult and convoluted route out of the EU would have been closed off. Membership would have been made permanent. In practice, it was our last chance to leave.
I'd also note that Scotland is by your definition slightly more sovereign than you make out, and has been since devolution: the SNP won an election in which it ran on the manifesto of holding a referendum, and held it. The only reason a second referendum was denied was that 7 years is not a generation.
The absolute brass neck on this is staggering. But then it is the Mail. Their brand is wibbly senile nonsense. I seem to recall one a bit ago where they staked out some government department or other to count the people going in, and complained that some of them were wearing t-shirts.
I don’t actually have a problem with people articulating reasons why office working (or a hybrid model where office working plays an important part) is A Good Thing. I have less truck with the concept that we all need to be chained to our desks for 8 hours a day or we Are Not Working.
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
There is a notable difference in the volatility of the numbers being produced by the more established pollsters with strong track records (YouGov, Opinium, Ipsos-Mori, Survation) and the newer kids on the block. I guess we'll get a better idea of who is doing best after the local elections.
What is Labour's par score NEV pts lead from these locals iyo?
I'd say that around 40-30 is the base case. More than that and it is a strong result for Labour, anything much less than that and it is good news for the Tories. But others will know a lot better than me.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Of Scottish heritage?
Do tell me more..
Okay then.
3/4 Scottish by parentage. Father grew up in Rutherglen, just off Blairbeth Rd, and other grandfather was from Paisley.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
The UK gov holding a referendum on EU membership, was within their powers.
The Scottish gov holding a referendum on Scottish independence, was very explicitly, defined in legislation, outside their powers.
@HTScotPol Humza Yousaf has announced a delay to the launch of the deposit return scheme from August 16 to March 1 next year. A humiliation for Green minister Lorna Slater
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
There is a notable difference in the volatility of the numbers being produced by the more established pollsters with strong track records (YouGov, Opinium, Ipsos-Mori, Survation) and the newer kids on the block. I guess we'll get a better idea of who is doing best after the local elections.
The NKOTB have generally been coming back to the pack over the last couple of months, I've noticed. YG was the only old guard pollster that was up in the 20s with them a while ago but they seem to be back in the pack for the time being at least.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Of Scottish heritage?
Do tell me more..
Okay then.
3/4 Scottish by parentage. Father grew up in Rutherglen, just off Blairbeth Rd, and other grandfather was from Paisley.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Smartypants. You knew what I meant as I can see from your like
So for me for instance as someone who was a remainer, my view is that firstly it is up to the Scots what they do and not me and if we hadn't left the EU, independence would have been viable within the EU if that is what they wanted, but now we have left it is far to difficult and damaging so I move from 'maybe' to 'no'. Still upto them, but I suggest they don't do it.
On the other hand if I were a leaver I would find it hypocritical to put up an argument of it being too difficult and damaging having completely ignored that with regard to leaving the EU.
The absolute brass neck on this is staggering. But then it is the Mail. Their brand is wibbly senile nonsense. I seem to recall one a bit ago where they staked out some government department or other to count the people going in, and complained that some of them were wearing t-shirts.
Littlejohn is more of a brass skull (solid), than neck.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Of Scottish heritage?
Do tell me more..
Okay then.
3/4 Scottish by parentage. Father grew up in Rutherglen, just off Blairbeth Rd, and other grandfather was from Paisley.
You must find it hot out there in the sun, or are you like my wife, desperate to get away from the drizzle.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
Hm, a bit. But how much longer would that distinction have remained? Had it been 52-48 Remain, and we had Remained, you can be sure the difficult and convoluted route out of the EU would have been closed off...
No, you can't. That is mere assertion on your part.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Of Scottish heritage?
Do tell me more..
Okay then.
3/4 Scottish by parentage. Father grew up in Rutherglen, just off Blairbeth Rd, and other grandfather was from Paisley.
Corby Scots?
No, my mother grew up in Stoke-on-Trent, and my parents both moved to London in their early 20s, where they met. I grew up mostly in the M3/M4 corridor.
Somewhat ironically, they now live in Rutland, within sight of Corby across the valley.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
Fine English sovereignty on how powerful one's vacuum cleaners are is important, worth having a divisive and shambolically enacted Brexit over. Diddy Scottish sovereignty over one's economy, foreign policy, not having arsehole politicians imposed by the voters of another country and indeed whether or not to be allowed to decide whether to be a member of a union, a mere bagatelle.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Smartypants. You knew what I meant as I can see from your like
So for me for instance as someone who was a remainer, my view is that firstly it is up to the Scots what they do and not me and if we hadn't left the EU, independence would have been viable within the EU if that is what they wanted, but now we have left it is far to difficult and damaging so I move from 'maybe' to 'no'. Still upto them, but I suggest they don't do it.
On the other hand if I were a leaver I would find it hypocritical to put up an argument of it being too difficult and damaging.
I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. You can believe that the economics of Brexit are positive for Britain but that the economics of Sindy are negative for Scotland. Or you can believe that the economics of Brexit are negative for Britain, but worth it for other reasons, but that the economics of Sindy are negative for Scotland are negative and not worth it - either because the negatives are greater (which seems likely) or because the other reasons less relevant (which seems a more niche position). Neither of these positions are hypocritical.
(Or you can take the position which seems most common among English unionists that Sindy is bad because I like going to Edinburgh. This strikes me as not hypocritical but incoherent.)
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Of Scottish heritage?
Do tell me more..
Okay then.
3/4 Scottish by parentage. Father grew up in Rutherglen, just off Blairbeth Rd, and other grandfather was from Paisley.
You must find it hot out there in the sun, or are you like my wife, desperate to get away from the drizzle.
That’s a good question. As almost everyone on here is looking forward to the summer, out here were are bemoaning the end of winter. Wife and I were away for the weekend, it was our wedding anniversary, and it’s now officially too hot and humid to be out during the day. About 34ºC. The next time we have nice weather, will be October.
Our historical leadership approval tracker shows that the gap between net approval for @RishiSunak and @Keir_Starmer has narrowed from fifteen points, 2 weeks ago, to two points this week.
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
There is a notable difference in the volatility of the numbers being produced by the more established pollsters with strong track records (YouGov, Opinium, Ipsos-Mori, Survation) and the newer kids on the block. I guess we'll get a better idea of who is doing best after the local elections.
What is Labour's par score NEV pts lead from these locals iyo?
I'd say that around 40-30 is the base case. More than that and it is a strong result for Labour, anything much less than that and it is good news for the Tories. But others will know a lot better than me.
To my mind, that's the kind of result Labour should be aiming for.
The Conservatives would lose a lot of seats to Labour, on those vote shares, but probably reclaim quite a few from independents and residents/ratepayers, who did very well in 2019.
On a brief historical note, I'm fairly sure Admiral Dönitz got his "hospital pass" in April 1945 rather than 1944.
It's a fairly apt comparison in some senses, though (noting the obvious difference between the preceding regimes) albeit maybe not in the way intended.
Like Dönitz, Yousaf is no innocent patsy - he is where he is by choice and due to being an enthusiastic supporter of his predecessor and staunch defender of the party high command.
Perhaps because of the amusing Mitchell & Webb sketch, and a general sense of the absurdity of the situation, Dönitz is viewed as a rather politically naive military man who was ultimately made to carry the can due to others being "unavailable". But he was actually a very high ranking and unrepentant Nazi true believer through Nuremberg and his spell in Spandau Prison... he did some "well, I was just doing my best to sail some boats around in politically troubled times" stuff towards the end of his life, but way too late to convince anyone.
Humza shouting about "Tory corruption" while the SNP's motorhome sits in a police car park, and his treasurer is being questioned by authorities- that's what I call "Brass Neck".
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Smartypants. You knew what I meant as I can see from your like
So for me for instance as someone who was a remainer, my view is that firstly it is up to the Scots what they do and not me and if we hadn't left the EU, independence would have been viable within the EU if that is what they wanted, but now we have left it is far to difficult and damaging so I move from 'maybe' to 'no'. Still upto them, but I suggest they don't do it.
On the other hand if I were a leaver I would find it hypocritical to put up an argument of it being too difficult and damaging.
I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. You can believe that the economics of Brexit are positive for Britain but that the economics of Sindy are negative for Scotland. Or you can believe that the economics of Brexit are negative for Britain, but worth it for other reasons, but that the economics of Sindy are negative for Scotland are negative and not worth it - either because the negatives are greater (which seems likely) or because the other reasons less relevant (which seems a more niche position). Neither of these positions are hypocritical...
Which would all be very plausible had not unionists campaigned explicitly on "vote no to stay in the EU".
@ScotNational NEW: The SNP has denied holding an emergency meeting following the arrest of its treasurer Colin Beattie amid a probe into the party's funding and finances
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
"It's our turn ffs" has a certain ring to it, though I am not sure many floating voters will rally to it.
This is like Ed Milliband 2015 if you imagine: The Ed Stone Mounted on the back of a Luxury motor home Which cost an unspecified amount of donor money donated for something else With a big and obvious spelling mistake carved into the stone
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
I seem to recall a fairly recent referendum on Scottish independence that was won overwhelmingly by NO.
Look, I get the arguments. If I was Scottish I might be pro Indy. In many ways as a 'little englander' I would be happy if the Scots chose to go their own way. But its the same dishonesty as Brexit - not confronting the main issues BEFORE a vote - the currency, trade with rUK, share of national debt and so on.
Make the case on heart alone and you set up to do Brexit mark 2, but a lot worse.
You don't strike me as a Little Englander tbh. You voted Remain, didn't you?
I agree it will be better if the next Sindy campaign airs the issues properly rather than relies on fuzzy cakeism. This is indeed a lesson of Brexit. Trouble is, the other lesson is the opposite - that fuzzy cakeism is how you win.
But, yes, I agree with this point. MY point was more about who makes the point. Eg I can make it. You can make it. In fact anybody can make it apart from ardent cheerleading Brexiters. They can't - for obvious reasons. Not with a straight non-trolling face anyway.
The tax office is of course fair game, but the Dept. of Culture was rather a splendid building.
Ukrainian forces have been rigging key buildings in Bakhmut with explosives and then detonating them after Russian forces capture them. They apparently did this with city hall, the tax office and others before apparently doing it to the Municipal Department of Culture building. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1648322506409799681
On a brief historical note, I'm fairly sure Admiral Dönitz got his "hospital pass" in April 1945 rather than 1944.
It's a fairly apt comparison in some senses, though (noting the obvious difference between the preceding regimes) albeit maybe not in the way intended.
Like Dönitz, Yousaf is no innocent patsy - he is where he is by choice and due to being an enthusiastic supporter of his predecessor and staunch defender of the party high command.
Perhaps because of the amusing Mitchell & Webb sketch, and a general sense of the absurdity of the situation, Dönitz is viewed as a rather politically naive military man who was ultimately made to carry the can due to others being "unavailable". But he was actually a very high ranking and unrepentant Nazi true believer through Nuremberg and his spell in Spandau Prison... he did some "well, I was just doing my best to sail some boats around in politically troubled times" stuff towards the end of his life, but way too late to convince anyone.
I think ten years for Doenitz was a fair sentence. He was not a war criminal, but he was a leading enabler of a despicable government.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
Scottish Independence was a lot more achievable before we Brexited. Now a lot tougher to achieve sensibly. And with the comparison with Northern Ireland it is going to be fun watching Remainer who are Pro Indy and Leavers who are Anti Indy flip their arguments on their head when they argue their cause because they will both be arguing the exact opposite of what they argued before.
As a Leaver, of Scottish heritage, who’s anti-Indy, it’s easy.
I’m British.
Smartypants. You knew what I meant as I can see from your like
So for me for instance as someone who was a remainer, my view is that firstly it is up to the Scots what they do and not me and if we hadn't left the EU, independence would have been viable within the EU if that is what they wanted, but now we have left it is far to difficult and damaging so I move from 'maybe' to 'no'. Still upto them, but I suggest they don't do it.
On the other hand if I were a leaver I would find it hypocritical to put up an argument of it being too difficult and damaging.
I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. You can believe that the economics of Brexit are positive for Britain but that the economics of Sindy are negative for Scotland. Or you can believe that the economics of Brexit are negative for Britain, but worth it for other reasons, but that the economics of Sindy are negative for Scotland are negative and not worth it - either because the negatives are greater (which seems likely) or because the other reasons less relevant (which seems a more niche position). Neither of these positions are hypocritical.
(Or you can take the position which seems most common among English unionists that Sindy is bad because I like going to Edinburgh. This strikes me as not hypocritical but incoherent.)
I've got to tell you that had my head spinning, but I think I agree with you.
@AndrewSparrow Humza Yousaf rules out suspending SNP treasurer arrested by police, and says he does not think party now acting criminally -
His treasurer has just been arrested. Following police raids on the former CEO and party HQ where files and computers have been taken away. But he won't even suspend the treasurer until he has spoken to him. After all he is innocent until proven guilty.
The whole point of administrative suspension is so that you *can't* speak to the person under suspicion so that they can influence proceedings. You remove them, you investigate, you ask them questions.
If I had a finance role in any business and the police arrested me under suspicion of illegal activity having taken place in that business, I guarantee I would be at least suspended. How can Yousless be this dumb?
Totally o/t, there is a lot of anger between nurses (especially on Whats App groups) about the rejection of the pay offer. There are those who are disgusted that anyone could vote for it and there are those who thought it was perfectly accepatble and who were going to use the lump for their summer holiday etc.
It will be interesting how many will actually vote for further strike action, I would say it will be below the required threshold in many areas..
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
"It's our turn ffs" has a certain ring to it, though I am not sure many floating voters will rally to it.
It is the essence of the situation but as a slogan that's just between me and PB.
For the GE we will be going with something in the more traditional 'aspirational' lexicon of "up up and away in our beautiful balloon".
The tax office is of course fair game, but the Dept. of Culture was rather a splendid building.
Ukrainian forces have been rigging key buildings in Bakhmut with explosives and then detonating them after Russian forces capture them. They apparently did this with city hall, the tax office and others before apparently doing it to the Municipal Department of Culture building. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1648322506409799681
Humza shouting about "Tory corruption" while the SNP's motorhome sits in a police car park, and his treasurer is being questioned by authorities- that's what I call "Brass Neck".
@ScotNational NEW: The SNP has denied holding an emergency meeting following the arrest of its treasurer Colin Beattie amid a probe into the party's funding and finances
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
"It's our turn ffs" has a certain ring to it, though I am not sure many floating voters will rally to it.
It is the essence of the situation but as a slogan that's just between me and PB.
For the GE we will be going with something in the more traditional 'aspirational' lexicon of "up up and away in our beautiful balloon".
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
"It's our turn ffs" has a certain ring to it, though I am not sure many floating voters will rally to it.
It is the essence of the situation but as a slogan that's just between me and PB.
For the GE we will be going with something in the more traditional 'aspirational' lexicon of "up up and away in our beautiful balloon".
@ScotNational NEW: The SNP has denied holding an emergency meeting following the arrest of its treasurer Colin Beattie amid a probe into the party's funding and finances
It wasn't an emergency meeting. It was planned before Nicola resigned.
@HTScotPol Humza Yousaf has announced a delay to the launch of the deposit return scheme from August 16 to March 1 next year. A humiliation for Green minister Lorna Slater
TBF she would eventually have been even more humiliated had they pressed on.
That's better. I'm far happier to see mid to high teens. It's our turn ffs. It's time to pack up if we can't get a Labour government when there's no rational reason for the floating non-ideological voter to not fancy a change after 14 years of the Tories.
"It's our turn ffs" has a certain ring to it, though I am not sure many floating voters will rally to it.
It is the essence of the situation but as a slogan that's just between me and PB.
For the GE we will be going with something in the more traditional 'aspirational' lexicon of "up up and away in our beautiful balloon".
Of course it would have been a more effective slogan in the Johnson era, when it could have been incorporated in a rhyming couplet.
@HTScotPol Humza Yousaf has announced a delay to the launch of the deposit return scheme from August 16 to March 1 next year. A humiliation for Green minister Lorna Slater
TBF she would eventually have been even more humiliated had they pressed on.
@BrianWhittle Lorna Slater: 'No one with any credibility' would delay Scotland's deposit return scheme | STV News. I wonder what the response would be now that the FM has done exactly that (thankfully!)
@ScotNational NEW: The SNP has denied holding an emergency meeting following the arrest of its treasurer Colin Beattie amid a probe into the party's funding and finances
@ScotNational NEW: The SNP has denied holding an emergency meeting following the arrest of its treasurer Colin Beattie amid a probe into the party's funding and finances
One for @AndyJS on chatgpt not always being entirely reliable,:
Interesting, thanks.
I was wondering whether to get into an argument with it about whether 1992 was before or after 1997, but then I realized that I have a job to do 😀
I went down a rabbit hole of copying something I’d seen, and quoting all the Talkie Toaster line to Holly at it from Red Dwarf, for those who used to watch it. Kept me smiling for ten minutes.
“As an AI language model I cannot eat toast blah blah blah”.
On a brief historical note, I'm fairly sure Admiral Dönitz got his "hospital pass" in April 1945 rather than 1944.
It's a fairly apt comparison in some senses, though (noting the obvious difference between the preceding regimes) albeit maybe not in the way intended.
Like Dönitz, Yousaf is no innocent patsy - he is where he is by choice and due to being an enthusiastic supporter of his predecessor and staunch defender of the party high command.
Perhaps because of the amusing Mitchell & Webb sketch, and a general sense of the absurdity of the situation, Dönitz is viewed as a rather politically naive military man who was ultimately made to carry the can due to others being "unavailable". But he was actually a very high ranking and unrepentant Nazi true believer through Nuremberg and his spell in Spandau Prison... he did some "well, I was just doing my best to sail some boats around in politically troubled times" stuff towards the end of his life, but way too late to convince anyone.
By rights, Donuts should have ended up dangling from a rope, like (many) of his fellow war criminals.
NOT that I support capital punishment. But if it was what was being handed out, zero reason for this particular Nazi to escape the noose.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
The UK gov holding a referendum on EU membership, was within their powers.
The Scottish gov holding a referendum on Scottish independence, was very explicitly, defined in legislation, outside their powers.
It's within their powers only if given approval by Westminster. Which is a facet of the key difference I was referring to. The UK has national sovereignty but Scotland doesn't. Sindy seeks to change this. That's the long and short of it.
@ScotNational NEW: The SNP has denied holding an emergency meeting following the arrest of its treasurer Colin Beattie amid a probe into the party's funding and finances
Support for independence among a large minority will still be there, and could become a majority again in some form if the Tories win the next election, so they'll always be a constituency for it, I think.
What happened to Salmond's Alba party ?
I'm unconvinced that SNP support will shrink much or that Labour alone will benefit if it does. We really need some polling done!
If Humza can weather this and the party still does well it's one hell of a comeback from what it looks like could happen.
"So Colin Beattie SNP Treasurer arrested. Something does not ring true about these arrests, timings, media tipped off and all run the story at the identical time."
The conspiracy is that when the big news happens, all the news media tend to report that big news as it happens. See what they did there? Normally the Daily Mail would wait two weeks, the BBC might report it next year, ITV would do it to coincide with nice weather, and so on, but this time - because it was the SNP Treasurer being arrested - the unionist news media, probably guided by MI5 and Mossad, deliberately reported the arrest on the same day he was arrested
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
Hm, a bit. But how much longer would that distinction have remained? Had it been 52-48 Remain, and we had Remained, you can be sure the difficult and convoluted route out of the EU would have been closed off. Membership would have been made permanent. In practice, it was our last chance to leave.
I'd also note that Scotland is by your definition slightly more sovereign than you make out, and has been since devolution: the SNP won an election in which it ran on the manifesto of holding a referendum, and held it. The only reason a second referendum was denied was that 7 years is not a generation.
It's a greyish area. Glas, perhaps.
Hard to say what would have happened with 52/48 the other way. A continuation of the good fight, I'd have thought. Unlikely a narrow loss would have settled the matter for good. Even more unlikely that the UK would have been stripped of its right to leave.
Scotland has devolved powers but is not a sovereign nation. There's not an awful lot of grey on that specific point.
I love using RAID and HDDs as a 'simple' analog for organism resilience and genome. I mean, I get it, but what % of the population even knows what RAID is?
Dreadful for democracy if the SNP is really knocked back and nothing swoops in to replace it. Pretty obviously a large chunk of Scots (a few percent either side of 50%) want independence. If they don’t end up feeling represented then there’s going to be other issues.
I can’t decide which line is my favourite from this huddle: “I’m always surprised when one of my colleagues is arrested.” “I’ll need speak to Colin. My understanding is he’s still in the police station being questioned.” “It’s certainly not helpful.”
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
The UK gov holding a referendum on EU membership, was within their powers.
The Scottish gov holding a referendum on Scottish independence, was very explicitly, defined in legislation, outside their powers.
It's within their powers only if given approval by Westminster. Which is a facet of the key difference I was referring to. The UK has national sovereignty but Scotland doesn't. Sindy seeks to change this. That's the long and short of it.
The UK legislation which founded the Scottish Parliament, explicitly prohibited them from calling a referendum on Scottish independence off their own back. Because of course it did.
The PM permitted a referendum on that subject in 2014, on a “Once-in-lifetime” basis.
On a brief historical note, I'm fairly sure Admiral Dönitz got his "hospital pass" in April 1945 rather than 1944.
It's a fairly apt comparison in some senses, though (noting the obvious difference between the preceding regimes) albeit maybe not in the way intended.
Like Dönitz, Yousaf is no innocent patsy - he is where he is by choice and due to being an enthusiastic supporter of his predecessor and staunch defender of the party high command.
Perhaps because of the amusing Mitchell & Webb sketch, and a general sense of the absurdity of the situation, Dönitz is viewed as a rather politically naive military man who was ultimately made to carry the can due to others being "unavailable". But he was actually a very high ranking and unrepentant Nazi true believer through Nuremberg and his spell in Spandau Prison... he did some "well, I was just doing my best to sail some boats around in politically troubled times" stuff towards the end of his life, but way too late to convince anyone.
The savagery with which he had men courtmartialed and shot - for celebrating the war was over - was typical of the man.
On a brief historical note, I'm fairly sure Admiral Dönitz got his "hospital pass" in April 1945 rather than 1944.
It's a fairly apt comparison in some senses, though (noting the obvious difference between the preceding regimes) albeit maybe not in the way intended.
Like Dönitz, Yousaf is no innocent patsy - he is where he is by choice and due to being an enthusiastic supporter of his predecessor and staunch defender of the party high command.
Perhaps because of the amusing Mitchell & Webb sketch, and a general sense of the absurdity of the situation, Dönitz is viewed as a rather politically naive military man who was ultimately made to carry the can due to others being "unavailable". But he was actually a very high ranking and unrepentant Nazi true believer through Nuremberg and his spell in Spandau Prison... he did some "well, I was just doing my best to sail some boats around in politically troubled times" stuff towards the end of his life, but way too late to convince anyone.
Dönitz was an unrepentant antisemite.
I cannot remember where I read it but he was very proud about the fact no naval officer was involved in the July 1944 plot which then veered into a rant about Jewry.
The thing that always struck me was the difference in post war treatment (mainly trials) between Dönitz and Hirohito.
There's no way she can avoid police questioning, at the very least
Wings over Hahahahland has the list of potential attendees at Police HQ Edinburgh
How does this all end? I reckon the party will have to reboot in some fairly drastic way. Maybe even rename and rebrand entirely
There is a growing risk of the ship sinking. Regardless of whether the polis action goes anywhere or not, unless they get their accounts audited they lose a stack of cash. And the one thing all this has demonstrated is that they are short of cash.
A lack of money. A horrible smell. A kettle of vultures overhead.
If you were Kate Forbes, would you not know some big business pro-independence types willing to start afresh, a clean slate with a clean leader? Launch a new party, a few initial defections, and then when the bodies are cast into the sea as the SNP sinks she can decide who comes aboard and at what price.
I got the strong sense that Forbes is a conviction politician. She has a clear moral map and a clear view about what the country needs. Half the party membership supports her, she is untainted by the smell, so get ahead of the curve on the reboot.
On a brief historical note, I'm fairly sure Admiral Dönitz got his "hospital pass" in April 1945 rather than 1944.
It's a fairly apt comparison in some senses, though (noting the obvious difference between the preceding regimes) albeit maybe not in the way intended.
Like Dönitz, Yousaf is no innocent patsy - he is where he is by choice and due to being an enthusiastic supporter of his predecessor and staunch defender of the party high command.
Perhaps because of the amusing Mitchell & Webb sketch, and a general sense of the absurdity of the situation, Dönitz is viewed as a rather politically naive military man who was ultimately made to carry the can due to others being "unavailable". But he was actually a very high ranking and unrepentant Nazi true believer through Nuremberg and his spell in Spandau Prison... he did some "well, I was just doing my best to sail some boats around in politically troubled times" stuff towards the end of his life, but way too late to convince anyone.
By rights, Donuts should have ended up dangling from a rope, like (many) of his fellow war criminals.
NOT that I support capital punishment. But if it was what was being handed out, zero reason for this particular Nazi to escape the noose.
Given the lack of precedent for such a tribunal, the bolded point is quite important. Twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death (Göring, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, and Bormann).[180][172] On 16 October, ten were hanged, with Göring committing suicide the day before. Seven defendants (Hess, Funk, Raeder, Dönitz, Schirach, Speer, and Neurath) were sent to Spandau Prison to serve their sentences.[181] All three acquittals (Papen, Schacht, and Fritzsche) were based on a deadlock between the judges; these acquittals surprised observers. Despite being accused of the same crimes, Sauckel was sentenced to death, while Speer was given a prison sentence because the judges considered that he could reform.[182] Nikichenko released a dissent approved by Moscow that rejected all the acquittals, called for a death sentence for Hess, and convicted all the organizations.[183][184] The judges proved their independence from the governments that appointed them, the defendants were seen as receiving due process, and the evidence of guilt amassed by the prosecution was overwhelming...
Note that in the Nuremberg Tribunals which followed, focusing on crimes against humanity, rather than the crime of aggressive war, fewer than 200 of the 1416 found guilty received death sentences.
Note also that the Soviets wanted a show trial, and everyone executed. That would have set a baleful precedent.
Dreadful for democracy if the SNP is really knocked back and nothing swoops in to replace it. Pretty obviously a large chunk of Scots (a few percent either side of 50%) want independence. If they don’t end up feeling represented then there’s going to be other issues.
It's not dreadful at all. It's democracy. Parties rise and fall constantly, and sometimes disappear entirely, that IS democracy
The cause of independence is not dependant on the SNP, there are already two other serious parties that espouse it, one of them is actually governing in coalition with the Nats - the Greens
Quebecois indy was and is not entirely dependant on the success of the PQ, see the recent history of Quebec
As @SouthamObserver says we might see a split in the SNP between fundies and civics - and woke and non woke - and that might in the end be good for Scottish Nationalism as a cause
I love using RAID and HDDs as a 'simple' analog for organism resilience and genome. I mean, I get it, but what % of the population even knows what RAID is?
I do!
But I’m an IT manager. It’s a fraction of a percent in the real world.
On the other hand, what percentage of his intended audience understand RAID, and what percentage of the general public understand fitness of genome? There’s going to be a fair bit of overlap between two very small minorities.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
Hm, a bit. But how much longer would that distinction have remained? Had it been 52-48 Remain, and we had Remained, you can be sure the difficult and convoluted route out of the EU would have been closed off. Membership would have been made permanent. In practice, it was our last chance to leave.
I'd also note that Scotland is by your definition slightly more sovereign than you make out, and has been since devolution: the SNP won an election in which it ran on the manifesto of holding a referendum, and held it. The only reason a second referendum was denied was that 7 years is not a generation.
It's a greyish area. Glas, perhaps.
Hard to say what would have happened with 52/48 the other way. A continuation of the good fight, I'd have thought. Unlikely a narrow loss would have settled the matter for good. Even more unlikely that the UK would have been stripped of its right to leave.
Scotland has devolved powers but is not a sovereign nation. There's not an awful lot of grey on that specific point.
Scotland joined the UK because it's leadership was almost / actually bankrupt due to dodgy decisions and needed a bail out.
It's ironic that the SNP are heading in the same direction and potentially taking any chance Scotland has of independence with it.
I got the strong sense that Forbes is a conviction politician. She has a clear moral map and a clear view about what the country needs. Half the party membership supports her, she is untainted by the smell, so get ahead of the curve on the reboot.
Half the party isn't enough. And she loses the Greens and all their fans.
I can’t decide which line is my favourite from this huddle: “I’m always surprised when one of my colleagues is arrested.” “I’ll need speak to Colin. My understanding is he’s still in the police station being questioned.” “It’s certainly not helpful.”
Support for independence among a large minority will still be there, and could become a majority again in some form if the Tories win the next election, so they'll always be a constituency for it, I think.
What happened to Salmond's Alba party ?
I'm unconvinced that SNP support will shrink much or that Labour alone will benefit if it does. We really need some polling done!
If Humza can weather this and the party still does well it's one hell of a comeback from what it looks like could happen.
The central belt won't go blues and it's unclear they're excited by Keir. Can anyone blame them?
Support for independence among a large minority will still be there, and could become a majority again in some form if the Tories win the next election, so they'll always be a constituency for it, I think.
What happened to Salmond's Alba party ?
I'm unconvinced that SNP support will shrink much or that Labour alone will benefit if it does. We really need some polling done!
If Humza can weather this and the party still does well it's one hell of a comeback from what it looks like could happen.
The central belt won't go blues and it's unclear they're excited by Keir. Can anyone blame them?
They don't need to be excited - the decision will be to vote for Labour or whatever appears out of the remains of the SNP.
It's very likely that the remains of the SNP won't be a single party but a number of parties all fighting to dominate the Independence vote which will likely to result in a few additional Labour wins beyond what we were expecting even a few weeks ago.
I'd like to request that PB Brexiters refrain from saying that Scottish Independence (or indeed anything) needs a 'rigorous intellectual case'.
It's making me barf.
Thing is this - if you've watched Brexit, seen how its gone and the impacts its having, I find it hard to believe anyone can look at Scottish Independence and think, yes, this will work a lot better than Brexit did.
You can make lots of cases for why Scotland should be independent, but do so only with the sure and certain example of Brexit to guide likely outcomes.
I also think anyone who advocated Brexit ought to understand the motivation of those who seek Scottish Independence. Its why I found the SNP's complaints about Brexit so frustrating.
They are both about National Sovereignty but the Sindy case (on that score) is stronger because it seeks to create it where it doesn't at present exist - as opposed to Brexit which took an already sovereign nation out of the EU where some of that sovereignty had erstwhile been voluntarily pooled.
Voluntarily by the politicians, very much not voluntarily by the people. Maastricht and Lisbon should have been put to the electorate by way of a referendum, as was the case in many other countries.
Ok but that's a tangent. The essential difference remains. The UK was sovereign in the EU. Scotland is not sovereign in the UK.
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
The UK gov holding a referendum on EU membership, was within their powers.
The Scottish gov holding a referendum on Scottish independence, was very explicitly, defined in legislation, outside their powers.
It's within their powers only if given approval by Westminster. Which is a facet of the key difference I was referring to. The UK has national sovereignty but Scotland doesn't. Sindy seeks to change this. That's the long and short of it.
The UK legislation which founded the Scottish Parliament, explicitly prohibited them from calling a referendum on Scottish independence off their own back. Because of course it did.
The PM permitted a referendum on that subject in 2014, on a “Once-in-lifetime” basis.
If you ever feel like trying to rebut my point, feel free.
Comments
Do tell me more..
To illustrate -
The Cons won a UK GE on a platform of holding a vote on leaving the EU. We had the vote. We voted to leave. We left. Sovereignty. Democracy.
The SNP won a Scottish GE on a platform to hold a vote on leaving the UK. They were forbidden to do so by the UK. No sovereignty. No democracy.
There are definite similarities between Sindy and Brexit but this difference dwarfs them all. They are at heart very different things.
@euanmccolm
Yousaf attacks the UK government for “economic mismanagement”.
Look, I get the arguments. If I was Scottish I might be pro Indy. In many ways as a 'little englander' I would be happy if the Scots chose to go their own way. But its the same dishonesty as Brexit - not confronting the main issues BEFORE a vote - the currency, trade with rUK, share of national debt and so on.
Make the case on heart alone and you set up to do Brexit mark 2, but a lot worse.
Simply being “not the Tories” might -just- be enough to scrape them into government, but there is a real risk now that it is not. And it might be hard to deliver a workable majority on that basis.
But how much longer would that distinction have remained? Had it been 52-48 Remain, and we had Remained, you can be sure the difficult and convoluted route out of the EU would have been closed off. Membership would have been made permanent. In practice, it was our last chance to leave.
I'd also note that Scotland is by your definition slightly more sovereign than you make out, and has been since devolution: the SNP won an election in which it ran on the manifesto of holding a referendum, and held it. The only reason a second referendum was denied was that 7 years is not a generation.
It's a greyish area. Glas, perhaps.
3/4 Scottish by parentage. Father grew up in Rutherglen, just off Blairbeth Rd, and other grandfather was from Paisley.
The Scottish gov holding a referendum on Scottish independence, was very explicitly, defined in legislation, outside their powers.
Humza Yousaf has announced a delay to the launch of the deposit return scheme from August 16 to March 1 next year. A humiliation for Green minister Lorna Slater
So now the DRS scheme is delayed the Greens leave govt.
Is that not what they said?
On the other hand if I were a leaver I would find it hypocritical to put up an argument of it being too difficult and damaging having completely ignored that with regard to leaving the EU.
That is mere assertion on your part.
Somewhat ironically, they now live in Rutland, within sight of Corby across the valley.
I hate to be pedantic* but I think you will find Flensburg was formed on the 30th April 1945.
*Yes, yes, I know this lie is as unconvincing as Amanda Spielman's claim she cares about the education of children.
Humza Yousaf says his government will be focused on 'delivery' as he announces delays to delivery of DRS and National Care Service.
https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1648320403071442946
(Or you can take the position which seems most common among English unionists that Sindy is bad because I like going to Edinburgh. This strikes me as not hypocritical but incoherent.)
The Conservatives would lose a lot of seats to Labour, on those vote shares, but probably reclaim quite a few from independents and residents/ratepayers, who did very well in 2019.
It's a fairly apt comparison in some senses, though (noting the obvious difference between the preceding regimes) albeit maybe not in the way intended.
Like Dönitz, Yousaf is no innocent patsy - he is where he is by choice and due to being an enthusiastic supporter of his predecessor and staunch defender of the party high command.
Perhaps because of the amusing Mitchell & Webb sketch, and a general sense of the absurdity of the situation, Dönitz is viewed as a rather politically naive military man who was ultimately made to carry the can due to others being "unavailable". But he was actually a very high ranking and unrepentant Nazi true believer through Nuremberg and his spell in Spandau Prison... he did some "well, I was just doing my best to sail some boats around in politically troubled times" stuff towards the end of his life, but way too late to convince anyone.
Humza shouting about "Tory corruption" while the SNP's motorhome sits in a police car park, and his treasurer is being questioned by authorities- that's what I call "Brass Neck".
Humza Yousaf just called the leader of the UK Labour Party ‘Keir Sarwar’. That’s how well it’s going.
NEW: The SNP has denied holding an emergency meeting following the arrest of its treasurer Colin Beattie amid a probe into the party's funding and finances
The Ed Stone
Mounted on the back of a Luxury motor home
Which cost an unspecified amount of donor money donated for something else
With a big and obvious spelling mistake carved into the stone
I agree it will be better if the next Sindy campaign airs the issues properly rather than relies on fuzzy cakeism. This is indeed a lesson of Brexit. Trouble is, the other lesson is the opposite - that fuzzy cakeism is how you win.
But, yes, I agree with this point. MY point was more about who makes the point. Eg I can make it. You can make it. In fact anybody can make it apart from ardent cheerleading Brexiters. They can't - for obvious reasons. Not with a straight non-trolling face anyway.
Ukrainian forces have been rigging key buildings in Bakhmut with explosives and then detonating them after Russian forces capture them. They apparently did this with city hall, the tax office and others before apparently doing it to the Municipal Department of Culture building.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1648322506409799681
Impressive explosion.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1648249672874459142
The whole point of administrative suspension is so that you *can't* speak to the person under suspicion so that they can influence proceedings. You remove them, you investigate, you ask them questions.
If I had a finance role in any business and the police arrested me under suspicion of illegal activity having taken place in that business, I guarantee I would be at least suspended. How can Yousless be this dumb?
It will be interesting how many will actually vote for further strike action, I would say it will be below the required threshold in many areas..
For the GE we will be going with something in the more traditional 'aspirational' lexicon of "up up and away in our beautiful balloon".
Fitness of genome does not equate precisely (or necessarily at all) with fitness of organism.
https://twitter.com/IntuitMachine/status/1648303735783710722
Might be worth running that past a focus group or two first
Lorna Slater: 'No one with any credibility' would delay Scotland's deposit return scheme | STV News.
I wonder what the response would be now that the FM has done exactly that (thankfully!)
"The named officers on
@thesnp
accounts filed with the Electoral Commission - Peter Murrell, Colin Beattie and Nicola Sturgeon."
https://twitter.com/johncferguson/status/1648264210051215361?s=20
“As an AI language model I cannot eat toast blah blah blah”.
“Ah, so you’re a waffle man”.
Pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander has apologized after being accused of asking teenagers for dick pics.
In one message, Alexander allegedly complained that a 15-year-old wasn’t sending him “Jack off material.”
https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1648026562422272006
NOT that I support capital punishment. But if it was what was being handed out, zero reason for this particular Nazi to escape the noose.
Wings over Hahahahland has the list of potential attendees at Police HQ Edinburgh
How does this all end? I reckon the party will have to reboot in some fairly drastic way. Maybe even rename and rebrand entirely
"So
Colin Beattie SNP Treasurer arrested.
Something does not ring true about these arrests, timings, media tipped off and all run the story at the identical time."
https://twitter.com/ArchbishopStua1/status/1648248106687909889?s=20
The conspiracy is that when the big news happens, all the news media tend to report that big news as it happens. See what they did there? Normally the Daily Mail would wait two weeks, the BBC might report it next year, ITV would do it to coincide with nice weather, and so on, but this time - because it was the SNP Treasurer being arrested - the unionist news media, probably guided by MI5 and Mossad, deliberately reported the arrest on the same day he was arrested
Scotland has devolved powers but is not a sovereign nation. There's not an awful lot of grey on that specific point.
“I’m always surprised when one of my colleagues is arrested.”
“I’ll need speak to Colin. My understanding is he’s still in the police station being questioned.”
“It’s certainly not helpful.”
https://twitter.com/Cat_Headley/status/1648302805013131264?s=20
The official explanation is fat fingers for the typo.
The PM permitted a referendum on that subject in 2014, on a “Once-in-lifetime” basis.
I cannot remember where I read it but he was very proud about the fact no naval officer was involved in the July 1944 plot which then veered into a rant about Jewry.
The thing that always struck me was the difference in post war treatment (mainly trials) between Dönitz and Hirohito.
A lack of money. A horrible smell. A kettle of vultures overhead.
If you were Kate Forbes, would you not know some big business pro-independence types willing to start afresh, a clean slate with a clean leader? Launch a new party, a few initial defections, and then when the bodies are cast into the sea as the SNP sinks she can decide who comes aboard and at what price.
I got the strong sense that Forbes is a conviction politician. She has a clear moral map and a clear view about what the country needs. Half the party membership supports her, she is untainted by the smell, so get ahead of the curve on the reboot.
The Wikipedia entry is quite illuminating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
Given the lack of precedent for such a tribunal, the bolded point is quite important.
Twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death (Göring, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, and Bormann).[180][172] On 16 October, ten were hanged, with Göring committing suicide the day before. Seven defendants (Hess, Funk, Raeder, Dönitz, Schirach, Speer, and Neurath) were sent to Spandau Prison to serve their sentences.[181] All three acquittals (Papen, Schacht, and Fritzsche) were based on a deadlock between the judges; these acquittals surprised observers. Despite being accused of the same crimes, Sauckel was sentenced to death, while Speer was given a prison sentence because the judges considered that he could reform.[182] Nikichenko released a dissent approved by Moscow that rejected all the acquittals, called for a death sentence for Hess, and convicted all the organizations.[183][184] The judges proved their independence from the governments that appointed them, the defendants were seen as receiving due process, and the evidence of guilt amassed by the prosecution was overwhelming...
Note that in the Nuremberg Tribunals which followed, focusing on crimes against humanity, rather than the crime of aggressive war,
fewer than 200 of the 1416 found guilty received death sentences.
Note also that the Soviets wanted a show trial, and everyone executed.
That would have set a baleful precedent.
The cause of independence is not dependant on the SNP, there are already two other serious parties that espouse it, one of them is actually governing in coalition with the Nats - the Greens
Quebecois indy was and is not entirely dependant on the success of the PQ, see the recent history of Quebec
As @SouthamObserver says we might see a split in the SNP between fundies and civics - and woke and non woke - and that might in the end be good for Scottish Nationalism as a cause
But I’m an IT manager. It’s a fraction of a percent in the real world.
On the other hand, what percentage of his intended audience understand RAID, and what percentage of the general public understand fitness of genome? There’s going to be a fair bit of overlap between two very small minorities.
It's ironic that the SNP are heading in the same direction and potentially taking any chance Scotland has of independence with it.
It's very likely that the remains of the SNP won't be a single party but a number of parties all fighting to dominate the Independence vote which will likely to result in a few additional Labour wins beyond what we were expecting even a few weeks ago.