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, the last person who's real (not very secret mantra was "it's my turn ffs" was that nice Gordon Brown
"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
Straight out of the Trump playbook. Typical lying c*nt populist nats. They don't care about the damage they do to democracy because, like Trump, they don't believe in it when it doesn't deliver the message they want
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.
Not quite 'rain on your wedding day' but for me that's a pretty stretchy use of 'ironic'. Still, yes, although the SNP and Sindy aren't the same thing all this can't be helping the cause.
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
Yes, no need to feel an obligation to back an unpalatable but Indy backing option, there could be another.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
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.
Not quite 'rain on your wedding day' but for me that's a pretty stretchy use of 'ironic'. Still, yes, although the SNP and Sindy aren't the same thing all this can't be helping the cause.
More like a 'free ride when... (someone else has) already paid' in this case. Or quite possible 'good advice... (from your auditors) that you just didn't take'.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
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.
Cookie is right that it's not necessarily hypocritical.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
Yorkshire & East Anglia have their own legal systems, education systems, health services, tax rasing powers and control over agfish? Well I never, every day's a school day.
You'll be telling me next that HMG is stepping in to quash their equality legislation.
I can't help having a little sympathy with the SNP and their tawdry little campervans, when there are clearly greater losses to the taxpayer over missold PPE.
Sunak himself has a blind trust that is heavily invested in Moderna, which he'd have been well aware of when making political decisions that have been of significant benefit to Moderna, and therefore his own investments.
I will go back to chuckling over their misfortunes very shortly.
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.
Cookie is right that it's not necessarily hypocritical.
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.
Cookie is right that it's not necessarily hypocritical.
Yes, it's also perfectly possible to be hypocritical!
It's also perfectly possible to say 'I support Brexit because I want it. And I oppose Sindy because I don't want it.' I'd suggest that's not hypocritical, though also not particularly sophisticated. (Though I'd suggest anyone on any side suggesting that this sort of analysis doesn't feature in their thinking is lying to themselves :-) )
I can't help having a little sympathy with the SNP and their tawdry little campervans, when there are clearly greater losses to the taxpayer over missold PPE.
Sunak himself has a blind trust that is heavily invested in Moderna, which he'd have been well aware of when making political decisions that have been of significant benefit to Moderna, and therefore his own investments.
I will go back to chuckling over their misfortunes very shortly.
I saw The Tawdry Little Campervans on the John Peel Stage a couple of years ago, I think.
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.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
Yorkshire & East Anglia have their own legal systems, education systems, health services, tax rasing powers and control over agfish? Well I never, every day's a school day.
You'll be telling me next that HMG is stepping in to quash their equality legislation.
It is great that your big district council has all these devolved powers. Congrats. Scotland does not have sovereignty. Get over it. Now that the Scotch Nasty Party has imploded it looks very unlikely it ever will.
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.
I am Scottish ( never British ) and don't give a shit about leavers or Remainers and want independence
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.
Not quite 'rain on your wedding day' but for me that's a pretty stretchy use of 'ironic'. Still, yes, although the SNP and Sindy aren't the same thing all this can't be helping the cause.
More like a 'free ride when... (someone else has) already paid' in this case. Or quite possible 'good advice... (from your auditors) that you just didn't take'.
Surprising, although it might have helped if they asked do you have any clue at all on the difference between pandemic and endemic before asking the question about if it is ongoing.
Looking at the breakdowns must be one of the few issues where leave and remain are identical but still get a big split by age.
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.
Bullshit , we are a sovereign nation , being treated as a colony.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
No. I'm not denying the possibility of dodgy careerist SNP MPs but what would be the advantage of changing horses for 16 months, having your reputation trashed and a very chancy gamble on keeping your seat under a SLab flag? A Damascene conversion to the pro Brexit, pro Trident, anti benefit scroungers, anti immigration party would be a hard sell as an act of principle.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again. Compu... Westminster said No and some say the veto was justified because 2014 isn't that long ago.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
No. I'm not denying the possibility of dodgy careerist SNP MPs but what would be the advantage of changing horses for 16 months, having your reputation trashed and a very chancy gamble on keeping your seat under a SLab flag? A Damascene conversion to the pro Brexit, pro Trident, anti benefit scroungers, anti immigration party would be a hard sell as an act of principle.
Also, at Holyrood, depending on the slate, it could mean displacing a Labour list MSP for (sometimes) a Tory or SNP MSP list candidate. The SNP have quite a high percentage of constituency MSPs so if Labour get one or two more then the mechanism works to compensate for that (as per fiddle (c) D. Dewar and SLD). What I am not sure about is if the change occurs at once or has an effect at the next election.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Good afternoon
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood 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.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
Yorkshire & East Anglia have their own legal systems, education systems, health services, tax rasing powers and control over agfish? Well I never, every day's a school day.
You'll be telling me next that HMG is stepping in to quash their equality legislation.
It is great that your big district council has all these devolved powers. Congrats. Scotland does not have sovereignty. Get over it. Now that the Scotch Nasty Party has imploded it looks very unlikely it ever will.
Yeah, I guessed sovereignty would be a black and white issue to a limited intellect.
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..
Great Great Great Great Grandfather went to Berwick once
Though note it could still be settled during the trial.
Shouldn't be allowed - if the parties have taken it that far, with all the cost and expense of a trial, it should be determined there. They all had chances to settle.
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'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.
You have obviously never read the Edinburgh Agreement then.
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, the last person who's real (not very secret mantra was "it's my turn ffs" was that nice Gordon Brown
That turned out well....
It did! Not for him (he hated the job) but for us - we lucked into having the best person possible at the helm when the financial system went pear.
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.
Bullshit , we are a sovereign nation , being treated as a colony.
Good afternoon Malc
Lovely sunny day here and hope it is so in Ayrshire
Until the Scots show an appetite for independence then they must be content with the union
The SNP need to gain majority support for independence, and recent events looks like it is a very long way from achieving that objective
I would guess that respondents are interpreting this as 'this is something I think about at least semi-regularly.'
In which case I'm surprised and disappointed that it's so high. It barely features in my thoughts any more (and it has been in my house in the past month.) For which I feel profoundly grateful. For a year or more it felt like I thought of little else. Which made me far iller than my two or three bouts of covid did.
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.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Good afternoon
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood elections
Anyone else agree?
Wouldn't think so. The past SNP and Labour to independent and Green didn't trigger any by elections, even when they were list MSPs.
"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
Loonies, plod have taken 2 years to get to this stage.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again.
No it didn't, because the vote in 2021 couldn't possibly lead to a legal referendum.
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.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Good afternoon
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood elections
Anyone else agree?
Wouldn't think so. The past SNP and Labour to independent and Green didn't trigger any by elections, even when they were list MSPs.
Isn't there an SNP mp under recall and as yet we do not know how many SNP msp could face recall
Though I do accept the recall mp is in Westminster
Though note it could still be settled during the trial.
Shouldn't be allowed - if the parties have taken it that far, with all the cost and expense of a trial, it should be determined there. They all had chances to settle.
Eh ? It's a civil suit; the parties pay the costs. It's entirely between them whether they settle or not.
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.
You have obviously never read the Edinburgh Agreement then.
I have. It committed both sides to respecting the result - a commitment that only one side has honoured.
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?
0% Scottish in reality
Eh? Most Corby Scots moved there in the 1930s. I knew Sandpit had lived in (or close to) East Northamptonshire so I put 2 and 2 together. And made 5, it turns out. But it seems odd to dismiss Corby Scots as 0% Scottish because they moved out of Scotland.
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..
Great Great Great Great Grandfather went to Berwick once
Not much has changed since then, but they live without water* and his great great great great granddaughterson is pretty fine?**
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.
Bullshit , we are a sovereign nation , being treated as a colony.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Good afternoon
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood elections
Anyone else agree?
Wouldn't think so. The past SNP and Labour to independent and Green didn't trigger any by elections, even when they were list MSPs.
Isn't there an SNP mp under recall and as yet we do not know how many SNP mps could face recall
Er, Ms Ferrier is (a) not a MSP (apart from appealing, and not even yet recalled). But more to the point you were asking about Holyrood elections.
"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
Loonies, plod have taken 2 years to get to this stage.
But it's going to provide loads of entertainment....
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Good afternoon
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood elections
Anyone else agree?
Wouldn't think so. The past SNP and Labour to independent and Green didn't trigger any by elections, even when they were list MSPs.
Isn't there an SNP mp under recall and as yet we do not know how many SNP mps could face recall
Er, Ms Ferrier is (a) not a MSP (apart from appealing, and not even yet recalled). But more to the point you were asking about Holyrood elections.
Though note it could still be settled during the trial.
Shouldn't be allowed - if the parties have taken it that far, with all the cost and expense of a trial, it should be determined there. They all had chances to settle.
AIUI, settlement of a a civil case at any point has always been allowed, indeed encouraged, even after trial has begun.
Not sure what you're basing your theory on,especially as the parties (at least one of them) are on hook for the costs, NOT the state (in this case, Delaware). And settling who pays is part of any settlement.
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.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again. Compu... Westminster said No and some say the veto was justified because 2014 isn't that long ago.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
You will have crashed Dumbo's brain cell with that answer
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..
Great Great Great Great Grandfather went to Berwick once
The Sindy version of but where are you really from?
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again. Compu... Westminster said No and some say the veto was justified because 2014 isn't that long ago.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
The two votes you refer to are not the same at all. As you know.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Good afternoon
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood elections
Anyone else agree?
Wouldn't think so. The past SNP and Labour to independent and Green didn't trigger any by elections, even when they were list MSPs.
Isn't there an SNP mp under recall and as yet we do not know how many SNP mps could face recall
Er, Ms Ferrier is (a) not a MSP (apart from appealing, and not even yet recalled). But more to the point you were asking about Holyrood elections.
Agreed and I corrected my post
It's an interesting question though what happens if there are defections, given the Holyrood system. As per my other recent post.
PS I did add an amendment to mine - I had myself clean forgotten for the moment that Ms Ferrier hasn't been a SNP Mp for rather a long time (though I see Slab are carefully wording their public statements around that fact ...).
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.
Cookie is right that it's not necessarily hypocritical.
Yes, it's also perfectly possible to be hypocritical!
It's also perfectly possible to say 'I support Brexit because I want it. And I oppose Sindy because I don't want it.' I'd suggest that's not hypocritical, though also not particularly sophisticated. (Though I'd suggest anyone on any side suggesting that this sort of analysis doesn't feature in their thinking is lying to themselves :-) )
You're at it again. I'm going to have to start converting this stuff into logic equations. My logic lecturer would have loved you and I'm not sure if that is a complement or not, as he was as nutty as a fruit cake.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Good afternoon
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood elections
Anyone else agree?
Wouldn't think so. The past SNP and Labour to independent and Green didn't trigger any by elections, even when they were list MSPs.
Isn't there an SNP mp under recall and as yet we do not know how many SNP mps could face recall
Er, Ms Ferrier is (a) not a MSP (apart from appealing, and not even yet recalled). But more to the point you were asking about Holyrood elections.
Agreed and I corrected my post
Although, hypothetically if an MSP is jailed for more than a year they will lose their seat..
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again. Compu... Westminster said No and some say the veto was justified because 2014 isn't that long ago.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
The two votes you refer to are not the same at all. As you know.
Of course not, dear. The dates are different, dear. Have a gold star to stick on the wall chart.
Forbes's rise has been meteoric and she has done well. The first time she has obviously failed at something is just coming second in the leadership election. This just happened to be a fantastically good time to just come second by a few points, while very obviously being the best candidate and losing to an establishment figure.
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.
Any dodgy careerist SNP MPs who might consider 'doing a Christian Wakeford' if things get even worse for them? Proclaiming they've had a Damascene conversion and ask to take the Labour whip? Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Good afternoon
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood elections
Anyone else agree?
Wouldn't think so. The past SNP and Labour to independent and Green didn't trigger any by elections, even when they were list MSPs.
Isn't there an SNP mp under recall and as yet we do not know how many SNP msp could face recall
Though I do accept the recall mp is in Westminster
G, Margaret Ferrier is appealing her 10 day suspension so I doubt they can have any recall till that is finalised. You can be sure the SNP will not be so keen now to have a By Election, Useless has stopped calling for her to resign big time.
Labour 47% (-2) Conservative 31% (+1) Reform UK 7% (-2) Liberal Democrat 7% (+1) Green 5% (+1) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 3 April
One of the critical questions for the next General Election in the United Kingdom will be whether the Conservative Party can hold onto the mostly northern, traditionally Labour voting constituencies that they won in 2019—often described, if somewhat inaccurately, as the Red Wall.1 Accordingly, we at Redfield and Wilton Strategies have taken up the challenge of regularly polling this cluster of politically salient constituencies.
In the forty ‘Red Wall’ seats that we poll, the Conservatives won all in 2019 but Hartlepool (which was won in a subsequent parliamentary by-election) with 46.7% of the vote to Labour’s 37.9%. Reform UK, previously known as the Brexit Party, came third in these seats with 6.5% of the vote.
Our latest Red Wall poll finds Labour leading the Conservatives by 16%, three points less than in our previous poll conducted on 3 April and the joint-narrowest lead for Labour in these seats in 2023. Altogether, the results of our poll (with changes from 3 April) are as follows:
Labour 47% (-2) Conservative 31% (+1) Reform UK 7% (-2) Liberal Democrat 7% (+1) Green 5% (+1) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 2% (+1)
When those who say they do not know how they would vote in a General Election are included, the Labour Party leads by 14%. After weighting by likelihood to vote, 11% of the sample says they do not know how they would vote, including 10% of those who voted Conservative in December 2019 and 4% of those who voted Labour.
Altogether, 84% of those who voted Labour in 2019 say they would vote Labour again, while 60% of those who voted Conservative say they would vote Conservative again.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s approval rating in the Red Wall registers at -7% (+5), his highest rating in these seats since late November. 31% (+1) of those in the Red Wall, including 48% (-1) of 2019 Conservative voters, say they approve of Sunak’s performance. 38% (-4) of respondents disapprove.
34% (-3) approve and 31% (-2) disapprove of Keir Starmer’s job performance since he became Leader of the Labour Party, giving him a net approval rating of +3%, one point lower than in our previous poll and his lowest approval rating in these seats since September last year.
When asked who would be a better Prime Minister between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, Starmer (37%, -4) leads Sunak (36%, +1) by one point. 27% (+3) say they don’t know.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again. Compu... Westminster said No and some say the veto was justified because 2014 isn't that long ago.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
The two votes you refer to are not the same at all. As you know.
Of course not, dear. The dates are different, dear. Have a gold star to stick on the wall chart.
My word the nits are tetchy today. Wonder why?🤣😭😂🤣😂😭❤️❤️❤️
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?
0% Scottish in reality
Doesn't have your racial purity eh Adolf?
Inbreeding does explain your stupidity though, and your extra finger that I guess comes in quite handy when your one finger typing gets difficult.
You don't even try and hide your fascist tendencies do you? At least @StuartDickson used to try and cover his Anglophobic racism as he knew how thick it made him look. You are too thick to realise how thick it makes you look.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again. Compu... Westminster said No and some say the veto was justified because 2014 isn't that long ago.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
The two votes you refer to are not the same at all. As you know.
That's correct they aren't the same. The 1st was a Sindy referendum. The 2nd was (inter alia) about having another Sindy referendum. Which didn't happen because Westminster said No.
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..
Great Great Great Great Grandfather went to Berwick once
The Sindy version of but where are you really from?
I am Ayrshire born to Scottish parents , one side of grandparents were Irish other Scottish.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again. Compu... Westminster said No and some say the veto was justified because 2014 isn't that long ago.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
The two votes you refer to are not the same at all. As you know.
That's correct they aren't the same. The 1st was a Sindy referendum. The 2nd was (inter alia) about having another Sindy referendum. Which didn't happen because Westminster said No.
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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again. Compu... Westminster said No and some say the veto was justified because 2014 isn't that long ago.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
The two votes you refer to are not the same at all. As you know.
That's correct they aren't the same. The 1st was a Sindy referendum. The 2nd was (inter alia) about having another Sindy referendum. Which didn't happen because Westminster said No.
The second was about electing representatives to the Scottish Parliament, which has no power to call a legal secession referendum, and therefore by definition the election can't have been about that, much as Sturgeon might have pretended.
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.
You have obviously never read the Edinburgh Agreement then.
I have. It committed both sides to respecting the result - a commitment that only one side has honoured.
It did not say forever, it was accepted at the time but that was 9 years 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.
Scotland does not have national sovereignty because it voted not to have it in a "once in a generation" referendum. It chose to have it's sovereignty to be part of the UK. It therefore has no more sovereignty than Yorkshire or East Anglia.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK. It then voted in 2021 to ask the question again.
No it didn't, because the vote in 2021 couldn't possibly lead to a legal referendum.
Of course it could have led to a legal referendum. If Westminster had said Yes it would have happened. But they said No, so it didn't.
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.
Bullshit , we are a sovereign nation , being treated as a colony.
Good afternoon Malc
Lovely sunny day here and hope it is so in Ayrshire
Until the Scots show an appetite for independence then they must be content with the union
The SNP need to gain majority support for independence, and recent events looks like it is a very long way from achieving that objective
Hello G, lovely here this week , hope you are well. I think now it is well proven that a political party cannot be trusted re Independence ( certainly not current SNP). It needs the SCottish people to demand it, we will see how it goes, given the way we are currently treated by our Lords and Masters down south it may be sooner than Little Englanders think. It si most certainly NOT going away.
Comments
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1648307448095158272?s=20
That turned out well....
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/apply-vote-post
Fox News v Dominion: defamation lawsuit over election lies goes to trial
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/apr/18/fox-news-dominion-defamation-trial-live-updates-us-politics
Though note it could still be settled during the trial.
I think most parties wait for a charge?
Would Starmer even accept any defection offers at this point (bearing in mind SLAB are currently selecting their candidates for the next GE)?
Humza Yousaf U-turn on Scotland rejoining international schools league tables https://thenational.scot/news/23462852.scotland-re-join-education-league-tables-humza-yousaf-confirm-u-turn/
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1648323533771079680?s=20
You'll be telling me next that HMG is stepping in to quash their equality legislation.
Would you consider the coronavirus pandemic in Britain to be over or still ongoing?
All Britons
Over: 34%
Still ongoing: 56%
18-24 year olds
Over: 51%
Still ongoing: 35%
65+ year olds
Over: 17%
Still ongoing: 78%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2023/04/18/25178/2
Sunak himself has a blind trust that is heavily invested in Moderna, which he'd have been well aware of when making political decisions that have been of significant benefit to Moderna, and therefore his own investments.
I will go back to chuckling over their misfortunes very shortly.
It's also perfectly possible to say 'I support Brexit because I want it. And I oppose Sindy because I don't want it.' I'd suggest that's not hypocritical, though also not particularly sophisticated. (Though I'd suggest anyone on any side suggesting that this sort of analysis doesn't feature in their thinking is lying to themselves :-) )
As a crisis, it's over.
Looking at the breakdowns must be one of the few issues where leave and remain are identical but still get a big split by age.
I'm not denying the possibility of dodgy careerist SNP MPs but what would be the advantage of changing horses for 16 months, having your reputation trashed and a very chancy gamble on keeping your seat under a SLab flag? A Damascene conversion to the pro Brexit, pro Trident, anti benefit scroungers, anti immigration party would be a hard sell as an act of principle.
Others say it wasn't justified because (i) Scotland has since been yanked out of the EU against its will (the 'material change of circumstances' angle) and (ii) a Scottish election had been won on the platform of holding another vote (the 'democracy' angle).
But whatever, the heart of the matter is the same. Scotland is sans national sovereignty and this is why Sindy as a cause and a project differs fundamentally from Brexit.
I think there is a real possibility of a few SNP by elections which they could lose, raising the prospect of a vonc and new Holyrood elections
Anyone else agree?
Lovely sunny day here and hope it is so in Ayrshire
Until the Scots show an appetite for independence then they must be content with the union
The SNP need to gain majority support for independence, and recent events looks like it is a very long way from achieving that objective
In which case I'm surprised and disappointed that it's so high. It barely features in my thoughts any more (and it has been in my house in the past month.)
For which I feel profoundly grateful. For a year or more it felt like I thought of little else. Which made me far iller than my two or three bouts of covid did.
Isn't there an SNP mp under recall and as yet we do not know how many SNP msp could face recall
Though I do accept the recall mp is in Westminster
It's a civil suit; the parties pay the costs. It's entirely between them whether they settle or not.
*well, not much of it, anyway
**YMMV
Er, Ms Ferrier is (a) not a MSP (apart from appealing, and not even yet recalled). But more to the point you were asking about Holyrood elections.
Edit: and of course Ms F is not even a SNP MP.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-65309762
No doubt some wit can make something of this ?
Not sure what you're basing your theory on,especially as the parties (at least one of them) are on hook for the costs, NOT the state (in this case, Delaware). And settling who pays is part of any settlement.
Does HYUFD have one ?
PS I did add an amendment to mine - I had myself clean forgotten for the moment that Ms Ferrier hasn't been a SNP Mp for rather a long time (though I see Slab are carefully wording their public statements around that fact ...).
Though perhaps in this instance, ChatGPT was referring to general election of 1992 BC(E), not AD?
Which would indeed be BEFORE 1997 win by New Labour!
She is a Premier League Lucky General.
You can be sure the SNP will not be so keen now to have a By Election, Useless has stopped calling for her to resign big time.
Red Wall VI (16 April):
Labour 47% (-2)
Conservative 31% (+1)
Reform UK 7% (-2)
Liberal Democrat 7% (+1)
Green 5% (+1)
Plaid Cymru 1% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 3 April
One of the critical questions for the next General Election in the United Kingdom will be whether the Conservative Party can hold onto the mostly northern, traditionally Labour voting constituencies that they won in 2019—often described, if somewhat inaccurately, as the Red Wall.1 Accordingly, we at Redfield and Wilton Strategies have taken up the challenge of regularly polling this cluster of politically salient constituencies.
In the forty ‘Red Wall’ seats that we poll, the Conservatives won all in 2019 but Hartlepool (which was won in a subsequent parliamentary by-election) with 46.7% of the vote to Labour’s 37.9%. Reform UK, previously known as the Brexit Party, came third in these seats with 6.5% of the vote.
Our latest Red Wall poll finds Labour leading the Conservatives by 16%, three points less than in our previous poll conducted on 3 April and the joint-narrowest lead for Labour in these seats in 2023. Altogether, the results of our poll (with changes from 3 April) are as follows:
Labour 47% (-2)
Conservative 31% (+1)
Reform UK 7% (-2)
Liberal Democrat 7% (+1)
Green 5% (+1)
Plaid Cymru 1% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
When those who say they do not know how they would vote in a General Election are included, the Labour Party leads by 14%. After weighting by likelihood to vote, 11% of the sample says they do not know how they would vote, including 10% of those who voted Conservative in December 2019 and 4% of those who voted Labour.
Altogether, 84% of those who voted Labour in 2019 say they would vote Labour again, while 60% of those who voted Conservative say they would vote Conservative again.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s approval rating in the Red Wall registers at -7% (+5), his highest rating in these seats since late November. 31% (+1) of those in the Red Wall, including 48% (-1) of 2019 Conservative voters, say they approve of Sunak’s performance. 38% (-4) of respondents disapprove.
34% (-3) approve and 31% (-2) disapprove of Keir Starmer’s job performance since he became Leader of the Labour Party, giving him a net approval rating of +3%, one point lower than in our previous poll and his lowest approval rating in these seats since September last year.
When asked who would be a better Prime Minister between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, Starmer (37%, -4) leads Sunak (36%, +1) by one point. 27% (+3) say they don’t know.
Inbreeding does explain your stupidity though, and your extra finger that I guess comes in quite handy when your one finger typing gets difficult.
You don't even try and hide your fascist tendencies do you? At least @StuartDickson used to try and cover his Anglophobic racism as he knew how thick it made him look. You are too thick to realise how thick it makes you look.
NEW THREAD, Kinda.
Either that or my spelling has gone to (chimney) pot.