Prediction... if there's another indyref, Boris will not (nor anyone as unpopular as him in Scotland) be PM. I still think Labour PM or wet Tory PM during indyref2 = Scotland rejecting indy again.
Mmm. If Boris falls behind in the polls, what better than sloughing off Scotland for 5 more Tory years?
If Boris lost Scotland he would go down as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies, not happening.
Scotland makes little difference anyway eg Blair won majorities in England alone in 1997, 2001 and 2005
Johnson is well down that path already with or without Scotland.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
Nah, Tories won't care. If the Union is lost it is lost, fuck it. Giving in to the SNP again means they must give in forever, whenever Holyrood cracks its tiny whip, a neverendum must be held
It was a vote for a generation. Agreed by both sides. Tories will say No until they lose power in Westminster.
If Labour wins in 2024 and wants to allow a referendum so be it. Scotland will quite likely vote YES (by your reckoning) and then suddenly Labour are screwed in Westminster
There is no logic guiding the Tories to allow a new indyref
I can see the logic there and agree with the essence of the argument that a second Referendum is not justified for many years down the line - ie sometime in the 2030s.To take your point a bit further, it might eventually persuade those determined to obtain such a vote to prioritise removing the Tories from Westminster - by voting Labour again.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
If Labour is in power after (2), I wouldn't be so sure of that. Best for the thing survival of the union might if be if Boris blocks Indyref 2, but Labour condemns him for it. Boris gets thrown out in 2024, and Labour allow Indyref 2 at that point. If Starmer is seen to be doing a good job as PM, centre-left Scots who voted no last time will not reject him.
The Right began it as a joke, the Left has seized on it as a cause
Like the OK hand symbol
The White Power one?
Yes. My understanding is that some people on the 4chan website made a joke about making the OK hand symbol racist, and it's now actually considered by a lot of people to be just that.
Including actual racists.
They have also made the Hawiian shirt a right wing symbol too.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
Horrible, horrible news from Reading. If it’s the usual pattern, the murderer will be known to authorities, will have spent time in prison, will have been radicalised and will have suffered from mental health problems.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Its a stupid question. It is the equivalent of asking whether you would like your daughter to be hooked on crack or heroin. The only sane answer is to reject both.
No it's a very good question. It forces you to weigh up 2 things.
Please try to answer.
I am not sure it is good question, are both characters deserving of equal contempt.
Boyfriend:
(i) is Wolfie Smith
and:
(ii) is Anders Breivik
☺ - Wolfie would not tolerate slaver statues in Tooting that's for sure.
Prediction... if there's another indyref, Boris will not (nor anyone as unpopular as him in Scotland) be PM. I still think Labour PM or wet Tory PM during indyref2 = Scotland rejecting indy again.
Mmm. If Boris falls behind in the polls, what better than sloughing off Scotland for 5 more Tory years?
If Boris lost Scotland he would go down as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies, not happening.
Scotland makes little difference anyway eg Blair won majorities in England alone in 1997, 2001 and 2005
Your position is bizarre. Scotland is in a voluntary union of equals with England.
It cannot and must not be kept in the union against its will.
The Right began it as a joke, the Left has seized on it as a cause
Like the OK hand symbol
The White Power one?
Yes. My understanding is that some people on the 4chan website made a joke about making the OK hand symbol racist, and it's now actually considered by a lot of people to be just that.
Including actual racists.
They have also made the Hawiian shirt a right wing symbol too.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Correct. The Scottish need to check it with London. London funds Scotland so that is only right.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
But which one? Put yourself in the position and tell me which of the 2 would make you more uneasy than the other about the impending marriage.
C'mon - gun to head.
I think I already answered that. Mr. Swastika is probably more physically dangerous to me, but apart from that and the fact that I could possibly mock Mr. H&S about JCR politics, there's nothing in it.
Either way: no date, no wedding, no dice.
Ok. I must accept your equivalence of antifa to nazism then. If that's what you feel that's what you feel. Surprised.
Prediction... if there's another indyref, Boris will not (nor anyone as unpopular as him in Scotland) be PM. I still think Labour PM or wet Tory PM during indyref2 = Scotland rejecting indy again.
Mmm. If Boris falls behind in the polls, what better than sloughing off Scotland for 5 more Tory years?
If Boris lost Scotland he would go down as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies, not happening.
Scotland makes little difference anyway eg Blair won majorities in England alone in 1997, 2001 and 2005
Your position is bizarre. Scotland is in a voluntary union of equals with England.
It cannot and must not be kept in the union against its will.
@HYUFD doesn’t care about silly things like “principles”. He only cares about the Conservative Party.
The US gave up on caring about covid weeks ago. They are going to be top of the league by a bigger margin than Liverpool when this is all over.
Well, I suppose its one way of testing whether Professor Lockdown's 13 year old computer code did actually turn out the right ballpark figure for what happens if there is no social distancing and no lockdown.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
I am not persuaded that there is a burning desire for a further Referendum in the near future even by many Yes voters responding to pollsters.The recent rise in the polls probably reflects much greater satisfaction with Sturgeon's performance v Johnson in relation to the Covid19 crisis , but by the end of the year and into 2021 the likely painful reality of a deep recession might well lead to a more sobre view prevailing. I would also suggest that the turnout level at the 2021 Holyrood election will be important. If people really are steamed up on the Independence issue, we should expect to see a good 70% - 75% actually turning up at the polls. On the other hand, an SNP win on a 45% - 50% - or even 55% turnout might reasonably be seen as lacking the legitimacy to override the clear 2014 Referendum result achieved on a near 85% turnout.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Incidentally, I don't see a hypothetical future PM Starmer (with a wafer thin majority) allowing a Scottish indy ref, either. And nor would he want to agree to a coalition or C&S deal with SNP on the same terms.
Why? Because there a few ways back to a future hypothetical decent Labour majority govt without some Scottish Labour seats...
And, such is the toxic nature of the 'Labour supported by the SNP' idea in English marginals, any entertainment of the idea pre-election all but guarantees him losing.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
No, you are comparing the most extreme right wing - Nazi Germany - with a generic form of Marxism. This is a false comparison.
If my daughter came in with a man wearing a Pol Pot tee shirt, who calmly told me he indeed wants to murder all the bourgeoisie and smash their babies against trees, I might be even more alarmed by him than I am by the pathetic guy wearing the swastika
But that's dragging Pol Pot back in again. We'd just got rid of him from the discussion.
Anyway you have implicitly answered. You'd far rather pass the salt to a misguided far lefty than a brutal neanderthal white supremacist.
The Right began it as a joke, the Left has seized on it as a cause
Like the OK hand symbol
The White Power one?
Yes. My understanding is that some people on the 4chan website made a joke about making the OK hand symbol racist, and it's now actually considered by a lot of people to be just that.
Including actual racists.
They have also made the Hawiian shirt a right wing symbol too.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
But which one? Put yourself in the position and tell me which of the 2 would make you more uneasy than the other about the impending marriage.
C'mon - gun to head.
I think I already answered that. Mr. Swastika is probably more physically dangerous to me, but apart from that and the fact that I could possibly mock Mr. H&S about JCR politics, there's nothing in it.
Either way: no date, no wedding, no dice.
Ok. I must accept your equivalence of antifa to nazism then. If that's what you feel that's what you feel. Surprised.
Don't be. I don't trouble myself to make fine intellectual distinctions between thick twats who want to destroy everything they don't like - the ultimate consequences of both their creeds are plain to read in the history books. 'Anti-Fa' is little more than clever marketing for 'Pro-Marx'. Sod them all.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
No, you are comparing the most extreme right wing - Nazi Germany - with a generic form of Marxism. This is a false comparison.
If my daughter came in with a man wearing a Pol Pot tee shirt, who calmly told me he indeed wants to murder all the bourgeoisie and smash their babies against trees, I might be even more alarmed by him than I am by the pathetic guy wearing the swastika
But that's dragging Pol Pot back in again. We'd just got rid of him from the discussion.
Anyway you have implicitly answered. You'd far rather pass the salt to a misguided far lefty than a brutal neanderthal white supremacist.
It's good to hear.
The Communist has better prospects. In 20 years time he'll be writing articles, chairing inquiries and advising the Tory government.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
The SNP winning a large share of the vote doesn't seem to be enough to indicate independence yet the Tories winning 40% of the vote seems to be an indication that the whole country now supports Brexit. Odd.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
Rubbish, weakly giving in to the SNP at every opportunity is what will guarantee independence, you do not stop a crocodile's appetite by endlessly feeding its every desire, it will always want more.
The SNP winning a large share of the vote doesn't seem to be enough to indicate independence yet the Tories winning 40% of the vote seems to be an indication that the whole country now supports Brexit. Odd.
No, those conclusions are indicated by the fact that a majority of the UK population voted for Brexit, and a majority of Scots voted against independence. Because that's how those things were actually decided.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
The SNP winning a large share of the vote doesn't seem to be enough to indicate independence yet the Tories winning 40% of the vote seems to be an indication that the whole country now supports Brexit. Odd.
Tee Hee CHB
We won the election through democratic principles established since 1215. We had a clear Brexit policy. Your lot who had no clear Brexit policy lost. again. 😀
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
All it takes is one footballer to force this government to change its mind.
You do not get to choose your daughter's husband. Her husband is her choice.
This is a particularly silly thought experiment about choosing between a Nazi and a communist for a son-in-law (not one I created), and that's the angle you have the most difficulty with?
If her choice is a totalitarian and she expects to inherit, I would gently persuade her to reconsider...
It wasn't silly. I was genuinely trying to get at something. And I almost did.
The US gave up on caring about covid weeks ago. They are going to be top of the league by a bigger margin than Liverpool when this is all over.
You only have to look at the new cases chart, it is heading back up at a fair old rate and now not far sure of the peak of mid April.
It varies on a state by state basis. California has been tightening mask wearing rules, even as it slowly opens things like beaches and outdoor seating at restaurants.
Arizona opened completely, but has started shutting down again.
What's scary is that there is a far from zero chance that someone, or some people, who go to the Tulsa really will die of CV-19.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
Rubbish, weakly giving in to the SNP at every opportunity is what will guarantee independence, you do not stop a crocodile's appetite by endlessly feeding its every desire, it will always want more.
2014 was a once in a generation referendum
Why would you want to keep Scotland in the UK if a clear majority of Scots want to leave?
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
Rubbish, weakly giving in to the SNP at every opportunity is what will guarantee independence, you do not stop a crocodile's appetite by endlessly feeding its every desire, it will always want more.
2014 was a once in a generation referendum
Why would you want to keep Scotland in the UK if a clear majority of Scots want to leave?
Given the only vote that matters, an actual referendum, showed a clear majority wanted to stay, why do you want to break up the Union?
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
Rubbish, weakly giving in to the SNP at every opportunity is what will guarantee independence, you do not stop a crocodile's appetite by endlessly feeding its every desire, it will always want more.
2014 was a once in a generation referendum
Why would you want to keep Scotland in the UK if a clear majority of Scots want to leave?
They don't, 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in 2014 in a 'once in a generation referendum' which meant precisely that!
The US gave up on caring about covid weeks ago. They are going to be top of the league by a bigger margin than Liverpool when this is all over.
You only have to look at the new cases chart, it is heading back up at a fair old rate and now not far sure of the peak of mid April.
It varies on a state by state basis. California has been tightening mask wearing rules, even as it slowly opens things like beaches and outdoor seating at restaurants.
Arizona opened completely, but has started shutting down again.
What's scary is that there is a far from zero chance that someone, or some people, who go to the Tulsa really will die of CV-19.
Same with the BLM rallies. Outside or inside, mask or not, standing together with 10,000s of people shouting and screaming for hours on end, its insanity.
I bet the Chinese are showing all this and laughing at the moronic Wests handling. Massive propaganda boost for the party.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
Rubbish, weakly giving in to the SNP at every opportunity is what will guarantee independence, you do not stop a crocodile's appetite by endlessly feeding its every desire, it will always want more.
2014 was a once in a generation referendum
Why would you want to keep Scotland in the UK if a clear majority of Scots want to leave?
Given the only vote that matters, an actual referendum, showed a clear majority wanted to stay, why do you want to break up the Union?
Didn't you promise that no was a vote for EU membership?
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
Rubbish, weakly giving in to the SNP at every opportunity is what will guarantee independence, you do not stop a crocodile's appetite by endlessly feeding its every desire, it will always want more.
2014 was a once in a generation referendum
Why would you want to keep Scotland in the UK if a clear majority of Scots want to leave?
Given the only vote that matters, an actual referendum, showed a clear majority wanted to stay, why do you want to break up the Union?
Didn't you promise that no was a vote for EU membership?
Was that on the ballot paper?
Didn't yes promise oil wealth? But that wasn't on the ballot paper either.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
The US gave up on caring about covid weeks ago. They are going to be top of the league by a bigger margin than Liverpool when this is all over.
You only have to look at the new cases chart, it is heading back up at a fair old rate and now not far sure of the peak of mid April.
It varies on a state by state basis. California has been tightening mask wearing rules, even as it slowly opens things like beaches and outdoor seating at restaurants.
Arizona opened completely, but has started shutting down again.
What's scary is that there is a far from zero chance that someone, or some people, who go to the Tulsa really will die of CV-19.
Same with the BLM rallies. Outside or inside, mask or not, standing together with 10,000s of people shouting and screaming for hours on end, its insanity...
I wouldn’t choose to participate in either, but there is little doubt which is the more likely to provide an environment for virus spread.
The US gave up on caring about covid weeks ago. They are going to be top of the league by a bigger margin than Liverpool when this is all over.
You only have to look at the new cases chart, it is heading back up at a fair old rate and now not far sure of the peak of mid April.
It varies on a state by state basis. California has been tightening mask wearing rules, even as it slowly opens things like beaches and outdoor seating at restaurants.
Arizona opened completely, but has started shutting down again.
What's scary is that there is a far from zero chance that someone, or some people, who go to the Tulsa really will die of CV-19.
Same with the BLM rallies. Outside or inside, mask or not, standing together with 10,000s of people shouting and screaming for hours on end, its insanity.
I bet the Chinese are showing all this and laughing at the moronic Wests handling. Massive propaganda boost for the party.
It was the Chinese who created it in the first place and having infuriated India this week having already annoyed the West they are increasingly isolating themselves
The other relevant factor that I think helps to explain why Washington DC hasn't been considered worthy of having voting representation in Congress is that the majority of its population is Black. I believe that DC does have a member of Congress but they can't vote - when we lived there it was Eleanor Holmes Norton IIRC who was excellent. It's a fantastic city with some beautiful neighbourhoods. It's an absolute disgrace that its population is disenfranchised.
Isn't it more to do with the fact it would add two Democratic senators to the senate rather than race?
Unfortunately, with blacks overwhelmingly voting Democrat, you can't split the two.
Virtually everything in America has a racial component, to an extent baffling to us, though we're starting to see glimpses of it here.
Following the Civil War it was the Democrats who were the party of the South and strongly anti equality. The KKK was largely a Democrat organisation. At that time it was the Republicans who were the party of civil rights and equality as well as general liberalisation.
It is an interesting question about when it all changed. Not one I know the answer to. Does anyone on here know when the transformation happened?
The Civil Rights Act in the 1960.
LBJ said he had cost the Democrats the South for a generation.
A lot of hard right of the GOP are former Dems who switched sides around that time.
Wow I hadn't realised it was that recent (relatively as I know I am showing my age here thinking the 60s is recent)
There's an argument that it may have happened in the 1940s when President Truman desegregated the armed forces.
Dem Strom Thurmond stood on a States' Right platform in the 1948 election and Truman really pissed off the South by espousing end of Jim Crow.
By 1964 Thurmond switched parties and joined the GOP.
Truman remains my all time favourite US President
Toss up between LBJ and Bill for me.
I base mine on both his actions and his own personal ideals. It is not just about the huge steps he took regarding civil rights, nor his foresight in backing the the Marshall plan and setting up both NATO and the UN.
It is about the fact that he viewed his position as President as an honour and a duty and not something for personal gain. So when he finished as President he went back to his Mother in Laws house and refused every position offered to him, every endorsement and every board room seat on the grounds that they only wanted him because he had been President. He felt that accepting any of the positions would be cashing in on his duty.
The US gave up on caring about covid weeks ago. They are going to be top of the league by a bigger margin than Liverpool when this is all over.
You only have to look at the new cases chart, it is heading back up at a fair old rate and now not far sure of the peak of mid April.
It varies on a state by state basis. California has been tightening mask wearing rules, even as it slowly opens things like beaches and outdoor seating at restaurants.
Arizona opened completely, but has started shutting down again.
What's scary is that there is a far from zero chance that someone, or some people, who go to the Tulsa really will die of CV-19.
I would say it’s pretty well certain given current infection rates.
"If Trump loses the election in November, he faces terrible legal exposure and financial trouble. Trump must win to survive, and in the face of low approval and high unemployment, he is unlikely to win if the vote is fair.
The impending chaos in Kentucky, following the chaos in Georgia earlier in June, shows the way to skew the vote. In Georgia, the lines were longest in heavily black areas near Atlanta. In an election suddenly dependent on mail-in voting, the once-obscure question of postage on absentee ballots suddenly matters a great deal."
They may be able to save some GOP senators that way but they can't save Trump, states with Dem governors add up to a majority in the electoral college.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
The US gave up on caring about covid weeks ago. They are going to be top of the league by a bigger margin than Liverpool when this is all over.
You only have to look at the new cases chart, it is heading back up at a fair old rate and now not far sure of the peak of mid April.
It varies on a state by state basis. California has been tightening mask wearing rules, even as it slowly opens things like beaches and outdoor seating at restaurants.
Arizona opened completely, but has started shutting down again.
What's scary is that there is a far from zero chance that someone, or some people, who go to the Tulsa really will die of CV-19.
Same with the BLM rallies. Outside or inside, mask or not, standing together with 10,000s of people shouting and screaming for hours on end, its insanity...
I wouldn’t choose to participate in either, but there is little doubt which is the more likely to provide an environment for virus spread.
I am not convinced there is much difference. Normal Outside != stood for hours rammed together in a massive crowd shouting and coughing your lungs up because of all the tear gas / smoke bombs e.g. we know there was definitely super spreading at the Italian football match.
The US gave up on caring about covid weeks ago. They are going to be top of the league by a bigger margin than Liverpool when this is all over.
You only have to look at the new cases chart, it is heading back up at a fair old rate and now not far sure of the peak of mid April.
It varies on a state by state basis. California has been tightening mask wearing rules, even as it slowly opens things like beaches and outdoor seating at restaurants.
Arizona opened completely, but has started shutting down again.
What's scary is that there is a far from zero chance that someone, or some people, who go to the Tulsa really will die of CV-19.
Same with the BLM rallies. Outside or inside, mask or not, standing together with 10,000s of people shouting and screaming for hours on end, its insanity.
I bet the Chinese are showing all this and laughing at the moronic Wests handling. Massive propaganda boost for the party.
It was the Chinese who created it in the first place and having infuriated India this week having already annoyed the West they are increasingly isolating themselves
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
They can speak as soon as the people demanding another referendum learn to use a dictionary and explain how a generation now means 4 years.
Did the SNP think we meant hamster generations?
I'm not Scottish, but I think they probably thought that voting to stay in the EU meant that they would stay in the EU
Please show me where the single market, or EU membership, or anything else whatsoever was mentioned on the Indyref ballot paper other than the question of remaining in or leaving the Union.
I'm quite serious. The referendum was legally binding, and its terms were agreed by mutual consent. If the vote had gone the other way and independence had turned out to be a crock of shit, would the SNP now be conceding a Rejoin referendum in 2020? No. effing. way.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
Refusing Sindyref3 guarantees independence, the only question being the timescale.
Rubbish, weakly giving in to the SNP at every opportunity is what will guarantee independence, you do not stop a crocodile's appetite by endlessly feeding its every desire, it will always want more.
2014 was a once in a generation referendum
Why would you want to keep Scotland in the UK if a clear majority of Scots want to leave?
Given the only vote that matters, an actual referendum, showed a clear majority wanted to stay, why do you want to break up the Union?
Didn't you promise that no was a vote for EU membership?
Was that on the ballot paper?
Didn't yes promise oil wealth? But that wasn't on the ballot paper either.
Events, dear boy.
If events are good for the goose, they're good for the gander.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
How is there a moral or democratic case?
People vote for constitutional issues in a referendum. The result was given.
They vote for the party to govern on devolved issues at Holyrood in Holyrood elections.
The two are mutually exclusive, however the nationalists want to play it.
The other relevant factor that I think helps to explain why Washington DC hasn't been considered worthy of having voting representation in Congress is that the majority of its population is Black. I believe that DC does have a member of Congress but they can't vote - when we lived there it was Eleanor Holmes Norton IIRC who was excellent. It's a fantastic city with some beautiful neighbourhoods. It's an absolute disgrace that its population is disenfranchised.
Isn't it more to do with the fact it would add two Democratic senators to the senate rather than race?
Unfortunately, with blacks overwhelmingly voting Democrat, you can't split the two.
Virtually everything in America has a racial component, to an extent baffling to us, though we're starting to see glimpses of it here.
Following the Civil War it was the Democrats who were the party of the South and strongly anti equality. The KKK was largely a Democrat organisation. At that time it was the Republicans who were the party of civil rights and equality as well as general liberalisation.
It is an interesting question about when it all changed. Not one I know the answer to. Does anyone on here know when the transformation happened?
The Civil Rights Act in the 1960.
LBJ said he had cost the Democrats the South for a generation.
A lot of hard right of the GOP are former Dems who switched sides around that time.
Wow I hadn't realised it was that recent (relatively as I know I am showing my age here thinking the 60s is recent)
There's an argument that it may have happened in the 1940s when President Truman desegregated the armed forces.
Dem Strom Thurmond stood on a States' Right platform in the 1948 election and Truman really pissed off the South by espousing end of Jim Crow.
By 1964 Thurmond switched parties and joined the GOP.
Truman remains my all time favourite US President
Toss up between LBJ and Bill for me.
I base mine on both his actions and his own personal ideals. It is not just about the huge steps he took regarding civil rights, nor his foresight in backing the the Marshall plan and setting up both NATO and the UN.
It is about the fact that he viewed his position as President as an honour and a duty and not something for personal gain. So when he finished as President he went back to his Mother in Laws house and refused every position offered to him, every endorsement and every board room seat on the grounds that they only wanted him because he had been President. He felt that accepting any of the positions would be cashing in on his duty.
The Right began it as a joke, the Left has seized on it as a cause
Like the OK hand symbol
The White Power one?
Yes. My understanding is that some people on the 4chan website made a joke about making the OK hand symbol racist, and it's now actually considered by a lot of people to be just that.
Including actual racists.
They have also made the Hawiian shirt a right wing symbol too.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
Nobody knows how the future is going to pan out. Everything is merely a guess based on probabilities.
The Brexit vote reset the clock on the Scotland referendum. There is a new constitutional settlement, the Scots deserve their say.
Exactly. A large part (not the only part, but a large part) of the Unionist win was because of the fear (that the Unionist campaign promoted) that a vote for Scottish independence would mean that Scotland wouldn't be in the EU. Scotland actually being forced to leave the EU 2 years later against their will makes any commitments the pro independence force made based on that belief invalid.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
Nobody knows how the future is going to pan out. Everything is merely a guess based on probabilities.
I mean, that statement is of course accurate.
It doesn't relate to the constitutionality of an independence vote, however....
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
No, you are comparing the most extreme right wing - Nazi Germany - with a generic form of Marxism. This is a false comparison.
If my daughter came in with a man wearing a Pol Pot tee shirt, who calmly told me he indeed wants to murder all the bourgeoisie and smash their babies against trees, I might be even more alarmed by him than I am by the pathetic guy wearing the swastika
But that's dragging Pol Pot back in again. We'd just got rid of him from the discussion.
Anyway you have implicitly answered. You'd far rather pass the salt to a misguided far lefty than a brutal neanderthal white supremacist.
It's good to hear.
The Communist has better prospects. In 20 years time he'll be writing articles, chairing inquiries and advising the Tory government.
But it wont stop him being a twat, and who wants one of those for a son in law
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
You're making me repeat myself...
By this time after the 2010 GE, Labour had crossed over to a lead in the rolling average of all opinion polls. They held that lead for over 4 years, and on several occasions during the 2010-2015 Parliament, Ed Miliband's Labour outpolled David Cameron's Tories by as much as 15%.
Ed Miliband is now a professional reviewer of Labour post-defeat analyses.
Comments
Scotland should go for it.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
It cannot and must not be kept in the union against its will.
You only have to look at the new cases chart, it is heading back up at a fair old rate and now not far sure of the peak of mid April.
I would also suggest that the turnout level at the 2021 Holyrood election will be important. If people really are steamed up on the Independence issue, we should expect to see a good 70% - 75% actually turning up at the polls. On the other hand, an SNP win on a 45% - 50% - or even 55% turnout might reasonably be seen as lacking the legitimacy to override the clear 2014 Referendum result achieved on a near 85% turnout.
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland
2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost
3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
Why? Because there a few ways back to a future hypothetical decent Labour majority govt without some Scottish Labour seats...
And, such is the toxic nature of the 'Labour supported by the SNP' idea in English marginals, any entertainment of the idea pre-election all but guarantees him losing.
Anyway you have implicitly answered. You'd far rather pass the salt to a misguided far lefty than a brutal neanderthal white supremacist.
It's good to hear.
Hopefully see you tomorrow too goodnight.
Not nice. But true.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
2014 was a once in a generation referendum
This is not a game.
We won the election through democratic principles established since 1215. We had a clear Brexit policy. Your lot who had no clear Brexit policy lost. again. 😀
https://twitter.com/KrutikaKuppalli/status/1274464272299356160
Arizona opened completely, but has started shutting down again.
What's scary is that there is a far from zero chance that someone, or some people, who go to the Tulsa really will die of CV-19.
Did the SNP think we meant hamster generations?
I bet the Chinese are showing all this and laughing at the moronic Wests handling. Massive propaganda boost for the party.
Didn't yes promise oil wealth? But that wasn't on the ballot paper either.
Events, dear boy.
Democratic consent is not parsed like that.
I'm quite serious. The referendum was legally binding, and its terms were agreed by mutual consent. If the vote had gone the other way and independence had turned out to be a crock of shit, would the SNP now be conceding a Rejoin referendum in 2020? No. effing. way.
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
People vote for constitutional issues in a referendum. The result was given.
They vote for the party to govern on devolved issues at Holyrood in Holyrood elections.
The two are mutually exclusive, however the nationalists want to play it.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
😀😀😀
It doesn't relate to the constitutionality of an independence vote, however....
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
By this time after the 2010 GE, Labour had crossed over to a lead in the rolling average of all opinion polls. They held that lead for over 4 years, and on several occasions during the 2010-2015 Parliament, Ed Miliband's Labour outpolled David Cameron's Tories by as much as 15%.
Ed Miliband is now a professional reviewer of Labour post-defeat analyses.