Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
And a few months back she criticised Sunak for having an expensive mug (retweeting Mirror story that at £180 it cost a week's wages for someone on his new jobs scheme) even though it was a Xmas present from his wife. Spending a week and a half's wages from - public money - on earphones makes her look a right hypocrite.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
They have been staggeringly incompetent in the way that they have governed Scotland.
Our education system, once a source of legitimate pride, is falling into disarray.
Our Universities are in a very bad place, dependent upon non EU students who might not come and English students who are no longer to be funded up here.
Police Scotland has been a disaster, remote, unaccountable and incompetent. The number of people are not large but this police force covers 1/3rd of the British land mass. It just doesn't work.
The centralisation of regulation has gutted local authorities of their responsibilities. Indeed local authorities have been starved of funds to generate the cash for SNP showpieces.
£20-30m has been wasted on Bifab, another £20m on Ferguson Shipyard, £20m on wrongful prosecution of the Rangers administrators with more to come, £20-30m on the nationalisation of Prestwick airport, its staggering.
None of that has mattered to a political generation who never think beyond constitutional issues. We really need a change.
I thought the bill for the vexatiious prosecution of Rangers' people was headed for £100m.
Don't think so. £10m each plus about £5m of legal costs plus whatever was spent defending this debacle. There are other claimants as well but they are still being contested.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
If the options were looking bad either way, it won't make much of a difference, so you go for the least bad option.
It suggests to me that the legal advice (if it shows up unredacted, still an IF) is bad for Sturgeon but not necessarily fatal. So they've decided to risk it, and hope she survives rather than throwing Swinney out to thwart the inquiry (which would look VERY bad)
Still, it's all pretty shit for the SNP. lol
Or he’s knifing her and wants to be first minister....
Swinney, the whispering ghost shadow? Fuck me. That would be the most noticeable thing he'd done in a while.
But let's see this legal advice. Out of interest did many folk here sit through the full Salmond session to the committee? Even having seen it all coming on the indy blogs, it was still remarkable.
I did and it was remarkable if you are interested in Scotland and it's politics
I read lengthy accounts. It was an impressive performance by Salmond. Five hours. Complete command of the details. Repetitious but effective. Very clever NOT to call for Sturgeon to go.
He is a fearsome enemy to have, and he clearly burns with anger. And who can blame him. If he is right (and I think he is, at least in part), the Sturgeon wing of the SNP conspired to ruin his life and put him in jail for many years.
I see that the Scottish Greens are standing in only two of the nine constituencies in the Lothian Region.
Situation would be a lot harder for the SNP if the Greens saw this as an opportunity to win support as a party of independence not embroiled in scandal.
Don't be a silly billy , they have no chance of winning constituency seats whatsoever.
I have to say Malc, you have been on the ball throughout this sad saga and to be honest earlier on I just thought you were being a Salmond loyalist, but as events are showing you had every right to stand up for him especially following his evidence last week
I am no supporter of Salmond but everyone deserves fairness
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
I suspect you are over-thinking it there. Scottish Tories just need to win as many seats as possible, and the SNP are key opponents in the seats they want to gain/hold. The Labour/SNP battle will go as it goes.
If the options were looking bad either way, it won't make much of a difference, so you go for the least bad option.
It suggests to me that the legal advice (if it shows up unredacted, still an IF) is bad for Sturgeon but not necessarily fatal. So they've decided to risk it, and hope she survives rather than throwing Swinney out to thwart the inquiry (which would look VERY bad)
Still, it's all pretty shit for the SNP. lol
Or he’s knifing her and wants to be first minister....
Swinney, the whispering ghost shadow? Fuck me. That would be the most noticeable thing he'd done in a while.
But let's see this legal advice. Out of interest did many folk here sit through the full Salmond session to the committee? Even having seen it all coming on the indy blogs, it was still remarkable.
It was pretty impressive and did not hesitate or have to think on anything , every answer perfect. Compared to the previous bunch of shifty lying toerags. Think it will be knives out and every man for themselves shortly otherwise they will be going down with the ship.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
Plus, Hancock may be a nob (and not just over those claims) but if my maths is correct he’s still claimed less than she has.
Edit - I should add, again, if he claimed extra having lost the equipment he bought, that’s also bang out of order. If I smash my school laptop, I get charged to replace it and that is fair enough.
I have to say I thought the "Budget" had been moved to the Autumn and this was now more of a Spring Statement or are we now on two Budgets a year - the political one in March to get the electorate in a positive mood for the local elections and the real one in the autumn when the hard realities are published in terms of reduced grants to Councils and the like.
Probably just me being cynical.
I've been convinced tax rises now would be a bad idea but just to be consistent tax cuts now would also be a bad idea. The accumulation of cash which will be released with the ending of lockdown is going to be phenomenal in terms of providing economic growth and activity and the last thing we will need is any further stimulus.
If there was any suspicion the post-Covid economic recovery was going to be robust, activity in a stamp duty-free housing market and anecdata from travel agents should dispel those. People are desperate to spend, to enjoy themselves, to go on holiday and there will be a formidable economic bounce.
Tax cuts are therefore completely unnecessary at this time. The boost of spending should help VAT and other Government income as well but beyond the immediate, what then? Clearly, the initial burst of spending won't last and the question for later in the year will be the hard one about which mechanism(s) will Sunak use to start restoring the public finances?
The bigger question is whether the post-Covid splurge will be followed by inflation and a return to a more "normal" monetary policy with rising interest rates (remember them?). No one ever saw QE as more than a temporary measure and the time is company to get the economy off the financial methodone and back to normal monetary conditions.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
We’ve had this debate with him many times. Ultimately @HYUFD doesn’t really care if Scotland leaves the union, he just doesn’t want it to happen under his party’s watch ‘cos Lord North or something.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
And as long as the Unionists parties only offer no to independence, thus will it stay. Given the utter dearth of policy or ideas offered by them it could be argued that they're actually more dependent on the constitutional debate than the SNP; in fact if the debate was suddenly magically resolved, the Tories in particular would revert to the dried out husk of the 90's and 2000s.
Remember, of course you will, the SCUP under BAroness Davidson. Ms Davidson as was made it the 'Ruth Davidson No to Independence Party'* and complained every week that independence was never off the agenda.
* With the C-word in very, very small print in the electoral leaflets.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
We’ve had this debate with him many times. Ultimately @HYUFD doesn’t really care if Scotland leaves the union, he just doesn’t want it to happen under his party’s watch ‘cos Lord North or something.
'Debate'?
I'd get a better debate with my tortoise, and he's deceased. He's more likely to admit he's made a mistake or that other interpretations are possible.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
It smacks of the 2009 Labour expenses scandal, all over again. One would have thought after that episode, another failure of personal proberty by senior party personnel should lead to a resignation.
One would at least have hoped they had learned the fecking lesson - don’t take the piss.
I need to see proof of "personalised" airpods. And what does "personalisation" mean?
This site implies that if you buy the top range of Airpods you can personalise them for free. So she did that, and it cost us nothing
I guess you could get angry at her buying the best possible airpods, but life is probably too short for that (especially now)
This is a mild embarrassment, and no more
As you say, personalisation is free. It is probably a good idea as well if she will one day be using them in a shared environment.
What is noticeable is Rayner is only charging £70 for an office chair. If I were her, or anyone on expenses or a high salary, I'd stick a zero on the end and buy a Herman Miller something-or-other. We had them at work, and they really are better for the back than the average £70 chair (even if Rayner has found a good'un).
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
And a few months back she criticised Sunak for having an expensive mug (retweeting Mirror story that at £180 it cost a week's wages for someone on his new jobs scheme) even though it was a Xmas present from his wife. Spending a week and a half's wages from - public money - on earphones makes her look a right hypocrite.
My own Airpods cost £8. Got them from B&M and they do the job just fine. 🤷🏻♂️
But I don't begrudge anyone who spends more on theirs. I've spent plenty of money on stuff I'm sure others would roll their eyes at. It's called personal choice.
There's no reason to judge others. She's a silly little hypocrite in doing so.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
If the options were looking bad either way, it won't make much of a difference, so you go for the least bad option.
It suggests to me that the legal advice (if it shows up unredacted, still an IF) is bad for Sturgeon but not necessarily fatal. So they've decided to risk it, and hope she survives rather than throwing Swinney out to thwart the inquiry (which would look VERY bad)
Still, it's all pretty shit for the SNP. lol
Or he’s knifing her and wants to be first minister....
Swinney, the whispering ghost shadow? Fuck me. That would be the most noticeable thing he'd done in a while.
But let's see this legal advice. Out of interest did many folk here sit through the full Salmond session to the committee? Even having seen it all coming on the indy blogs, it was still remarkable.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
No, it depends how you do it. It should not be a flat refusal. It should be Yes, at some point, but now now, first we must have a Royal Commission that looks into all the alternatives: from status quo to Possible Federalism to What would indy look like, in reality?
This is, by the by, the best course for Scotland.
We have all learned from Brexit. The public needs to be informed first, as to the likely consequences of its vote. I voted Leave, but I confess I didn't even THINK about the Northern Irish border problem. If I'd known all the ramifications of my Leave vote, would I still vote the same way today? Probably - but I am not sure. Many others would now vote Remain, who back then voted Leave - let's be honest. And likely the referendum would have been won by Cameron, if we'd all been better-informed beforehand
That cannot be allowed to happen again. Scottish voters need to be given a proper idea of what indy Scotland will look like: currency, bank, trade, defence, Trident, NHS, fiscal balance, EU membership, borders with England, everything. Airy promises don't cut it any more.
The only way to do that is to set up a Royal Commission and drill down for a few years. Then give the Scots the facts. Then, if they continue to elect SNP governments: fair enough. Indyref2 it is, with all eyes open, and may the best man or woman win
If the options were looking bad either way, it won't make much of a difference, so you go for the least bad option.
It suggests to me that the legal advice (if it shows up unredacted, still an IF) is bad for Sturgeon but not necessarily fatal. So they've decided to risk it, and hope she survives rather than throwing Swinney out to thwart the inquiry (which would look VERY bad)
Still, it's all pretty shit for the SNP. lol
Or he’s knifing her and wants to be first minister....
Swinney, the whispering ghost shadow? Fuck me. That would be the most noticeable thing he'd done in a while.
But let's see this legal advice. Out of interest did many folk here sit through the full Salmond session to the committee? Even having seen it all coming on the indy blogs, it was still remarkable.
It was pretty impressive and did not hesitate or have to think on anything , every answer perfect. Compared to the previous bunch of shifty lying toerags. Think it will be knives out and every man for themselves shortly otherwise they will be going down with the ship.
I watched pretty much all of it. I didn't intend to but it was gripping. I was particularly impressed by the self discipline, the reluctance to be dragged into speculation or anything that he could not vouch, the careful and measured use of language. It reminded you why he dominated Scottish politics for so long.
I still think Sturgeon will survive. Losing her would be a disaster for the SNP, especially so close to an election and after her mother of the nation meme over Covid. But she looks vulnerable in a way I really didn't expect.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
And a few months back she criticised Sunak for having an expensive mug (retweeting Mirror story that at £180 it cost a week's wages for someone on his new jobs scheme) even though it was a Xmas present from his wife. Spending a week and a half's wages from - public money - on earphones makes her look a right hypocrite.
I think Leon is right on this one in that there's something to it, but not that much - it's a mild embarrassment as far as stories go.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
I take it that 'airpods' is some sort of apparatus and not modern slang for testicles?
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
I take it that 'airpods' is some sort of apparatus and not modern slang for testicles?
It’s best not to enquire when it comes to Apple technology.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
Plus, Hancock may be a nob (and not just over those claims) but if my maths is correct he’s still claimed less than she has.
Edit - I should add, again, if he claimed extra having lost the equipment he bought, that’s also bang out of order. If I smash my school laptop, I get charged to replace it and that is fair enough.
Some thieving MPs might have pinched Matt's first charger, so that is OK to replace them at tax payer's expense. Perhaps that is why Rayner had to have her name etched on hers.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
I have to say I thought the "Budget" had been moved to the Autumn and this was now more of a Spring Statement or are we now on two Budgets a year - the political one in March to get the electorate in a positive mood for the local elections and the real one in the autumn when the hard realities are published in terms of reduced grants to Councils and the like.
Probably just me being cynical.
I've been convinced tax rises now would be a bad idea but just to be consistent tax cuts now would also be a bad idea. The accumulation of cash which will be released with the ending of lockdown is going to be phenomenal in terms of providing economic growth and activity and the last thing we will need is any further stimulus.
If there was any suspicion the post-Covid economic recovery was going to be robust, activity in a stamp duty-free housing market and anecdata from travel agents should dispel those. People are desperate to spend, to enjoy themselves, to go on holiday and there will be a formidable economic bounce.
Tax cuts are therefore completely unnecessary at this time. The boost of spending should help VAT and other Government income as well but beyond the immediate, what then? Clearly, the initial burst of spending won't last and the question for later in the year will be the hard one about which mechanism(s) will Sunak use to start restoring the public finances?
The bigger question is whether the post-Covid splurge will be followed by inflation and a return to a more "normal" monetary policy with rising interest rates (remember them?). No one ever saw QE as more than a temporary measure and the time is company to get the economy off the financial methodone and back to normal monetary conditions.
If the options were looking bad either way, it won't make much of a difference, so you go for the least bad option.
It suggests to me that the legal advice (if it shows up unredacted, still an IF) is bad for Sturgeon but not necessarily fatal. So they've decided to risk it, and hope she survives rather than throwing Swinney out to thwart the inquiry (which would look VERY bad)
Still, it's all pretty shit for the SNP. lol
Or he’s knifing her and wants to be first minister....
Swinney, the whispering ghost shadow? Fuck me. That would be the most noticeable thing he'd done in a while.
But let's see this legal advice. Out of interest did many folk here sit through the full Salmond session to the committee? Even having seen it all coming on the indy blogs, it was still remarkable.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm simply pointing out that, on a pure FPTP system, the SNP would not just have a majority... they'd barely have any opposition (other than internal opposition) at all.
Even if you want to avoid hung Parliaments, that level of dominance just can't be healthy.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
The system is crap , it was designed by Labour to ensure they were in power forever, as ever they made a real hash of it.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
The SNP have only had a majority for 5 out of the 14 years. I think you need to look in a different direction from pure numbers when it comes to holding them to account.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
As expected - the Mail had to know so many MPs have likely claimed for such things, and is the alleged engraving enough to get an outrage stiffy about? Come on.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
I take it that 'airpods' is some sort of apparatus and not modern slang for testicles?
It’s best not to enquire when it comes to Apple technology.
Given what their customers do not question when it comes to price, it's an attitude that has served them well
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
I take it that 'airpods' is some sort of apparatus and not modern slang for testicles?
They are some of the finest headphones in the world.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm simply pointing out that, on a pure FPTP system, the SNP would not just have a majority... they'd barely have any opposition (other than internal opposition) at all.
Even if you want to avoid hung Parliaments, that level of dominance just can't be healthy.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
Carnyx, Norfolk is a resident Scotch expert, could you not tell that by his razor sharp knowledge on Scotland there. Naughty of you to explain reality to him.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
If the options were looking bad either way, it won't make much of a difference, so you go for the least bad option.
It suggests to me that the legal advice (if it shows up unredacted, still an IF) is bad for Sturgeon but not necessarily fatal. So they've decided to risk it, and hope she survives rather than throwing Swinney out to thwart the inquiry (which would look VERY bad)
Still, it's all pretty shit for the SNP. lol
Or he’s knifing her and wants to be first minister....
Swinney, the whispering ghost shadow? Fuck me. That would be the most noticeable thing he'd done in a while.
But let's see this legal advice. Out of interest did many folk here sit through the full Salmond session to the committee? Even having seen it all coming on the indy blogs, it was still remarkable.
It was pretty impressive and did not hesitate or have to think on anything , every answer perfect. Compared to the previous bunch of shifty lying toerags. Think it will be knives out and every man for themselves shortly otherwise they will be going down with the ship.
I watched pretty much all of it. I didn't intend to but it was gripping. I was particularly impressed by the self discipline, the reluctance to be dragged into speculation or anything that he could not vouch, the careful and measured use of language. It reminded you why he dominated Scottish politics for so long.
I still think Sturgeon will survive. Losing her would be a disaster for the SNP, especially so close to an election and after her mother of the nation meme over Covid. But she looks vulnerable in a way I really didn't expect.
Up to her neck in it David and should have been long gone if she had any morals or principles. Her days are numbered now but she may yet take the ship down with her.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
No, it depends how you do it. It should not be a flat refusal. It should be Yes, at some point, but now now, first we must have a Royal Commission that looks into all the alternatives: from status quo to Possible Federalism to What would indy look like, in reality?
This is, by the by, the best course for Scotland.
We have all learned from Brexit. The public needs to be informed first, as to the likely consequences of its vote. I voted Leave, but I confess I didn't even THINK about the Northern Irish border problem. If I'd known all the ramifications of my Leave vote, would I still vote the same way today? Probably - but I am not sure. Many others would now vote Remain, who back then voted Leave - let's be honest. And likely the referendum would have been won by Cameron, if we'd all been better-informed beforehand
That cannot be allowed to happen again. Scottish voters need to be given a proper idea of what indy Scotland will look like: currency, bank, trade, defence, Trident, NHS, fiscal balance, EU membership, borders with England, everything. Airy promises don't cut it any more.
The only way to do that is to set up a Royal Commission and drill down for a few years. Then give the Scots the facts. Then, if they continue to elect SNP governments: fair enough. Indyref2 it is, with all eyes open, and may the best man or woman win
How would a bent Royal Commission know what a Scottish government would do after independence. Free of the unionist yoke they could have policies similar to other small countries who have far less resources yet are far richer. Without teh dead hand of Westminster dragging us under we could prosper.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm simply pointing out that, on a pure FPTP system, the SNP would not just have a majority... they'd barely have any opposition (other than internal opposition) at all.
Even if you want to avoid hung Parliaments, that level of dominance just can't be healthy.
Or the opposition would have to coalesce.
Is that at all realistic between parties when all they really have in common is unionism? Most of the political decisions in Scotland aren't actually about unionism v independence but the usual stuff on schools, hospitals, housing etc. And, although there clearly is some tactical voting between unionist parties in Scotland, it's quite a big ask to tell a lifelong Tory to vote for a left wing Labour MSP, or convinced red flag waver to vote Conservative. Either would probably rather go SNP.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
And a few months back she criticised Sunak for having an expensive mug (retweeting Mirror story that at £180 it cost a week's wages for someone on his new jobs scheme) even though it was a Xmas present from his wife. Spending a week and a half's wages from - public money - on earphones makes her look a right hypocrite.
My own Airpods cost £8. Got them from B&M and they do the job just fine. 🤷🏻♂️
But I don't begrudge anyone who spends more on theirs. I've spent plenty of money on stuff I'm sure others would roll their eyes at. It's called personal choice.
There's no reason to judge others. She's a silly little hypocrite in doing so.
Would not be so bad if it was their own money they are spending , it is our money. Hamburgers if using their cash and fillet steak when it is the public purse.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
The anomaly in the system is that the voters have two votes, rather than one vote which is used for both the constituency and the list counts.
I don't know whether Labour were intending to benefit from that by lending list votes to a preferred coalition partner in the way that some SNP voters do with the Greens, but that seems suboptimal.
STV, as introduced for local elections by a farsighted Holyrood government, is generally far superior.
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
And costs £50 more than buying the identical model, unengraved, from Amazon.
We should encourage our MPs to use Apple, they are the best, not like the security risk that is Android.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
Carnyx, Norfolk is a resident Scotch expert, could you not tell that by his razor sharp knowledge on Scotland there. Naughty of you to explain reality to him.
Time for dinner, Malc, you seem a bit hangry.
All I was doing was noting that the SNP would have about 80% of seats in a pure FPTP system, and expressing a view that it would be an unhealthy position. You're welcome to disagree, but I'd prefer it if you weren't unpleasant about it.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm simply pointing out that, on a pure FPTP system, the SNP would not just have a majority... they'd barely have any opposition (other than internal opposition) at all.
Even if you want to avoid hung Parliaments, that level of dominance just can't be healthy.
Or the opposition would have to coalesce.
Is that at all realistic between parties when all they really have in common is unionism? Most of the political decisions in Scotland aren't actually about unionism v independence but the usual stuff on schools, hospitals, housing etc. And, although there clearly is some tactical voting between unionist parties in Scotland, it's quite a big ask to tell a lifelong Tory to vote for a left wing Labour MSP, or convinced red flag waver to vote Conservative. Either would probably rather go SNP.
You got that one right , almost makes up for your last howler
Is that at all realistic between parties when all they really have in common is unionism? Most of the political decisions in Scotland aren't actually about unionism v independence but the usual stuff on schools, hospitals, housing etc. And, although there clearly is some tactical voting between unionist parties in Scotland, it's quite a big ask to tell a lifelong Tory to vote for a left wing Labour MSP, or convinced red flag waver to vote Conservative. Either would probably rather go SNP.
@HYUFD takes a different view - he has stated (and I don't think I'm wrong) that were he in a seat where the main challenger to the SNP was Labour or the LDs he would support that party rather than the Conservative as it is more important to get Unionists of whatever stripe elected.
Further, and again I think I've recalled this correctly, were Labour to win more seats than the Conservatives as part of a pro-Unionist majority, he would advocate the Conservatives supporting a Labour First Minister.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Rubbish, it is SNP appeasers like you who will give in to the SNP at every opportunity and allow them constant referendums until they win who make independence far more likely. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, that means no legal indyref2 until at least 15 to 20 years after the first, much as Canada only allowed Quebec a second independence referendum in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. A gap that was long enough for the second referendum to settle the matter as a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No only narrowly won.
Is that at all realistic between parties when all they really have in common is unionism? Most of the political decisions in Scotland aren't actually about unionism v independence but the usual stuff on schools, hospitals, housing etc. And, although there clearly is some tactical voting between unionist parties in Scotland, it's quite a big ask to tell a lifelong Tory to vote for a left wing Labour MSP, or convinced red flag waver to vote Conservative. Either would probably rather go SNP.
@HYUFD takes a different view - he has stated (and I don't think I'm wrong) that were he in a seat where the main challenger to the SNP was Labour or the LDs he would support that party rather than the Conservative as it is more important to get Unionists of whatever stripe elected.
Further, and again I think I've recalled this correctly, were Labour to win more seats than the Conservatives as part of a pro-Unionist majority, he would advocate the Conservatives supporting a Labour First Minister.
I would yes and I expect Tories to tactically vote Labour in seats where Labour are in second place in May behind the SNP while still voting Tory on the list
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
Carnyx, Norfolk is a resident Scotch expert, could you not tell that by his razor sharp knowledge on Scotland there. Naughty of you to explain reality to him.
Time for dinner, Malc, you seem a bit hangry.
All I was doing was noting that the SNP would have about 80% of seats in a pure FPTP system, and expressing a view that it would be an unhealthy position. You're welcome to disagree, but I'd prefer it if you weren't unpleasant about it.
Come now Norfolk, I was having a bit of fun , I even praised your next post. Don't be too serious it is only politics. It was not meant to be unpleasant, where is your stiff upper lip.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
Carnyx, Norfolk is a resident Scotch expert, could you not tell that by his razor sharp knowledge on Scotland there. Naughty of you to explain reality to him.
Time for dinner, Malc, you seem a bit hangry.
All I was doing was noting that the SNP would have about 80% of seats in a pure FPTP system, and expressing a view that it would be an unhealthy position. You're welcome to disagree, but I'd prefer it if you weren't unpleasant about it.
It would be no worse than the current rigged Westminster system either.
I would yes and I expect Tories to tactically vote Labour in seats where Labour are in second place in May behind the SNP while still voting Tory on the list
In the event of a Unionist majority, would you be happy for all Unionist parties to be represented in a coalition Government even if it were led by a Conservative First Minister? Would you be happy for Cabinet positions to be offered to Labour or LD MSPs in order for such a Government to be formed?
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Rubbish, it is SNP appeasers like you who will give in to the SNP at every opportunity and allow them constant referendums until they win who make independence far more likely. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, that means no legal indyref2 until at least 15 to 20 years after the first, much as Canada only allowed Quebec a second independence referendum in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. A gap that was long enough for the second referendum to settle the matter as a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No only narrowly won.
For the umpteenth time Canada didn't "allow" a second referendum after fifteen years. The Quebec voters took fifteen years to elect another government that wanted another referendum. 🙄
Had the Canadians tried to tell the Québécois they weren't allowed another referendum then the second referendum when held won have been won handsomely by Yes. Instead Yes lost it despite calling the referendum on their own timescale which closed the issue.
A Conservative minister who was in favour of allowing fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) at motorway service stations and amusement arcades has been put in charge of a landmark review of gambling laws, the Guardian has learned.
Campaigners for gambling reform voiced concern after it emerged that John Whittingdale, the minister for media and data, is taking over responsibility for the review from the sports minister, Nigel Huddleston, nearly three months after it was launched.
They pointed to Whittingdale’s record of voting against stronger regulation of the industry and comments playing down the dangers of FOBTs.
Whittingdale was chair of the culture select committee when it produced a report suggesting that FOBTs should be permitted at venues such as bingo halls and amusement arcades. The 2012 report could also have led to the highly addictive £100-per-spin machines being installed at motorway service stations across the country. The proposals were not adopted by David Cameron’s government.
Whittingdale later took aim at the common description of FOBTs as the “crack cocaine” of gambling, telling an industry conference: “I’m not so sure they’ve even the cannabis of gambling.” NHS surveys have consistently shown that FOBTs are associated with higher rates of addiction than other gambling products.
In 2014, during a debate in the House of Commons, Whittingdale said it was “virtually impossible” to lose large sums on the machines. However, a later study by the Gambling Commission found that FOBT players lost more than £1,000 on more than 233,000 occasions over a 10-month period.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm simply pointing out that, on a pure FPTP system, the SNP would not just have a majority... they'd barely have any opposition (other than internal opposition) at all.
Even if you want to avoid hung Parliaments, that level of dominance just can't be healthy.
Or the opposition would have to coalesce.
Is that at all realistic between parties when all they really have in common is unionism? Most of the political decisions in Scotland aren't actually about unionism v independence but the usual stuff on schools, hospitals, housing etc. And, although there clearly is some tactical voting between unionist parties in Scotland, it's quite a big ask to tell a lifelong Tory to vote for a left wing Labour MSP, or convinced red flag waver to vote Conservative. Either would probably rather go SNP.
In the longterm? Yes, absolutely, that's what typically happens under FPTP.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
Part of why this Conservative wants to see Scottish independence. 👍
A Conservative minister who was in favour of allowing fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) at motorway service stations and amusement arcades has been put in charge of a landmark review of gambling laws, the Guardian has learned.
Campaigners for gambling reform voiced concern after it emerged that John Whittingdale, the minister for media and data, is taking over responsibility for the review from the sports minister, Nigel Huddleston, nearly three months after it was launched.
They pointed to Whittingdale’s record of voting against stronger regulation of the industry and comments playing down the dangers of FOBTs.
Whittingdale was chair of the culture select committee when it produced a report suggesting that FOBTs should be permitted at venues such as bingo halls and amusement arcades. The 2012 report could also have led to the highly addictive £100-per-spin machines being installed at motorway service stations across the country. The proposals were not adopted by David Cameron’s government.
Whittingdale later took aim at the common description of FOBTs as the “crack cocaine” of gambling, telling an industry conference: “I’m not so sure they’ve even the cannabis of gambling.” NHS surveys have consistently shown that FOBTs are associated with higher rates of addiction than other gambling products.
In 2014, during a debate in the House of Commons, Whittingdale said it was “virtually impossible” to lose large sums on the machines. However, a later study by the Gambling Commission found that FOBT players lost more than £1,000 on more than 233,000 occasions over a 10-month period.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
Part of why this Conservative wants to see Scottish independence. 👍
You are not a Conservative, you are a libertarian Brexiteer, much like Tyndall
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
Part of why this Conservative wants to see Scottish independence. 👍
You are not a Conservative, you are a libertarian Brexiteer, much like Tyndall
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Rubbish, it is SNP appeasers like you who will give in to the SNP at every opportunity and allow them constant referendums until they win who make independence far more likely. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, that means no legal indyref2 until at least 15 to 20 years after the first, much as Canada only allowed Quebec a second independence referendum in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. A gap that was long enough for the second referendum to settle the matter as a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No only narrowly won.
For the umpteenth time Canada didn't "allow" a second referendum after fifteen years. The Quebec voters took fifteen years to elect another government that wanted another referendum. 🙄
Had the Canadians tried to tell the Québécois they weren't allowed another referendum then the second referendum when held won have been won handsomely by Yes. Instead Yes lost it despite calling the referendum on their own timescale which closed the issue.
No evidence for that at all, Catalonia of course remains part of Spain having had no referendums at all.
Any indyref2 would require devomax etc to ensure a No victory and if the government is not ready to do that then pointless allowing it
I would yes and I expect Tories to tactically vote Labour in seats where Labour are in second place in May behind the SNP while still voting Tory on the list
In the event of a Unionist majority, would you be happy for all Unionist parties to be represented in a coalition Government even if it were led by a Conservative First Minister? Would you be happy for Cabinet positions to be offered to Labour or LD MSPs in order for such a Government to be formed?
Yes but the main priority is to block indyref2, even if Sturgeon remains FM of a minority SNP government
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
Part of why this Conservative wants to see Scottish independence. 👍
You are not a Conservative, you are a libertarian Brexiteer, much like Tyndall
Wrong I am a Conservative.
What I am not is a conservative.
Conservatives come in all sorts of shapes and forms.
WRT the SNP, I think they will be hit, but their floor is still c.40% or so.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Rubbish, it is SNP appeasers like you who will give in to the SNP at every opportunity and allow them constant referendums until they win who make independence far more likely. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, that means no legal indyref2 until at least 15 to 20 years after the first, much as Canada only allowed Quebec a second independence referendum in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. A gap that was long enough for the second referendum to settle the matter as a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No only narrowly won.
For the umpteenth time Canada didn't "allow" a second referendum after fifteen years. The Quebec voters took fifteen years to elect another government that wanted another referendum. 🙄
Had the Canadians tried to tell the Québécois they weren't allowed another referendum then the second referendum when held won have been won handsomely by Yes. Instead Yes lost it despite calling the referendum on their own timescale which closed the issue.
No evidence for that at all, Catalonia of course remains part of Spain having had no referendums at all.
Any indyref2 would require devomax etc to ensure a No victory and if the government is not ready to do that then pointless allowing it
Again the Canadian federal government did not "allow" the Quebec referendum. The Quebec government had it on their own timeline that they chose themselves. Do you understand that point, yes or no?
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Rubbish, it is SNP appeasers like you who will give in to the SNP at every opportunity and allow them constant referendums until they win who make independence far more likely. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, that means no legal indyref2 until at least 15 to 20 years after the first, much as Canada only allowed Quebec a second independence referendum in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. A gap that was long enough for the second referendum to settle the matter as a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No only narrowly won.
For the umpteenth time Canada didn't "allow" a second referendum after fifteen years. The Quebec voters took fifteen years to elect another government that wanted another referendum. 🙄
Had the Canadians tried to tell the Québécois they weren't allowed another referendum then the second referendum when held won have been won handsomely by Yes. Instead Yes lost it despite calling the referendum on their own timescale which closed the issue.
No evidence for that at all, Catalonia of course remains part of Spain having had no referendums at all.
Any indyref2 would require devomax etc to ensure a No victory and if the government is not ready to do that then pointless allowing it
Again the Canadian federal government did not "allow" the Quebec referendum. The Quebec government had it on their own timeline that they chose themselves. Do you understand that point, yes or no?
The UK is not Spain.
The Supreme Court of Canada too affirmed that unilateral secession was illegal, would require a constitutional amendment, and that only a clear majority on a clear question could bring about any sort of obligation on the federal and provincial governments to negotiate secession.
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I wonder if Boris Johnson will put Greenslade in the House of Lords like he did with Claire Fox?
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, from the point of view of a great many in England, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce our hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I wonder if Boris Johnson will put Greenslade in the House of Lords like he did with Claire Fox?
I had never heard of this Greenslade bloke, but who cares? The Troubles ended 20 years ago, SF are in government in NI.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm simply pointing out that, on a pure FPTP system, the SNP would not just have a majority... they'd barely have any opposition (other than internal opposition) at all.
Even if you want to avoid hung Parliaments, that level of dominance just can't be healthy.
But we don't have FPTP in Scotland - except for Westminster. But I've had my dinner and half a bottle of red and can't be bothered to discuss the Conservative and Unionist Party of the UK (sic).
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Rubbish, it is SNP appeasers like you who will give in to the SNP at every opportunity and allow them constant referendums until they win who make independence far more likely. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, that means no legal indyref2 until at least 15 to 20 years after the first, much as Canada only allowed Quebec a second independence referendum in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. A gap that was long enough for the second referendum to settle the matter as a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No only narrowly won.
For the umpteenth time Canada didn't "allow" a second referendum after fifteen years. The Quebec voters took fifteen years to elect another government that wanted another referendum. 🙄
Had the Canadians tried to tell the Québécois they weren't allowed another referendum then the second referendum when held won have been won handsomely by Yes. Instead Yes lost it despite calling the referendum on their own timescale which closed the issue.
No evidence for that at all, Catalonia of course remains part of Spain having had no referendums at all.
Any indyref2 would require devomax etc to ensure a No victory and if the government is not ready to do that then pointless allowing it
Again the Canadian federal government did not "allow" the Quebec referendum. The Quebec government had it on their own timeline that they chose themselves. Do you understand that point, yes or no?
The UK is not Spain.
The Supreme Court of Canada too affirmed that unilateral secession was illegal, would require a constitutional amendment, and that only a clear majority on a clear question could bring about any sort of obligation on the federal and provincial governments to negotiate secession.
The Supreme Court made that ruling after the second referendum.
So who chose the 15 year timescale for the second referendum?
The Federal Government as that's when they "allowed" it? The Supreme Court of Canada? With their ruling after the referendum occured? Or the democratically elected Quebec government that held the referendum because they voted to have it?
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I wonder if Boris Johnson will put Greenslade in the House of Lords like he did with Claire Fox?
I had never heard of this Greenslade bloke, but who cares? The Troubles ended 20 years ago, SF are in government in NI.
The IRA was murdering Brits and Irish people indiscriminately up and down the land.
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I wonder if Boris Johnson will put Greenslade in the House of Lords like he did with Claire Fox?
Did Boris pick Fox?
She's not there as a Tory peer, she's there as a non-affiliated peer.
She shouldn't be there at all, but she's not a Tory.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I don't see what he has to gain in declaring this now.
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I wonder if Boris Johnson will put Greenslade in the House of Lords like he did with Claire Fox?
I had never heard of this Greenslade bloke, but who cares? The Troubles ended 20 years ago, SF are in government in NI.
I thought the accusation was he supported the IRA? As they are keen to point out, there's a difference between the two, particularly if he supported specific violent actions.
There's also a difference between then and now, so I've always found the 'SF are in government in NI' a rather lame distraction. Supporting the current arrangements does not mean equivalance with someone who supported the IRA, at the time of violent campaigns. Let's go full Godwin on this - Germany are our allies now, so what would it matter if someone supported them in 1943? Turns out temporal context matters.
Now, I've never heard of the man either, so the who cares part may well be right, but not on the basis you say.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
Part of why this Conservative wants to see Scottish independence. 👍
You are not a Conservative, you are a libertarian Brexiteer, much like Tyndall
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, from the point of view of a great many in England, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce our hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
Voters are not bothered by many things, doesn't mean they are meaningless.
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I wonder if Boris Johnson will put Greenslade in the House of Lords like he did with Claire Fox?
Did Boris pick Fox?
She's not there as a Tory peer, she's there as a non-affiliated peer.
She shouldn't be there at all, but she's not a Tory.
He did, when it was gazetted it was clear she was nominated by the Prime Minister.
Anyone else nominated by the likes of Starmer and Farage were clearly marked as such, Fox wasn't.
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I wonder if Boris Johnson will put Greenslade in the House of Lords like he did with Claire Fox?
Did Boris pick Fox?
She's not there as a Tory peer, she's there as a non-affiliated peer.
She shouldn't be there at all, but she's not a Tory.
Comments
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Plus, she's no Matt Hancock.
https://order-order.com/2021/03/01/hancocks-airpod-headphone-claims/
He is a fearsome enemy to have, and he clearly burns with anger. And who can blame him. If he is right (and I think he is, at least in part), the Sturgeon wing of the SNP conspired to ruin his life and put him in jail for many years.
I am no supporter of Salmond but everyone deserves fairness
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Think it will be knives out and every man for themselves shortly otherwise they will be going down with the ship.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apple-MWP22ZM-A-AirPods-Pro/dp/B07ZPML7NP/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=2CFRGF3VWOFM1&dchild=1&keywords=airpod+pro&qid=1614624200&sprefix=AirPod+pro,aps,168&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExVFNSUjFYTzBWMUpRJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMDQ1NDQ2MjlTSDVMVFJEVE83VSZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwODUzMTYxMlg3OE5UNExQUTdOUyZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2F0ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=
Plus, Hancock may be a nob (and not just over those claims) but if my maths is correct he’s still claimed less than she has.
Edit - I should add, again, if he claimed extra having lost the equipment he bought, that’s also bang out of order. If I smash my school laptop, I get charged to replace it and that is fair enough.
I have to say I thought the "Budget" had been moved to the Autumn and this was now more of a Spring Statement or are we now on two Budgets a year - the political one in March to get the electorate in a positive mood for the local elections and the real one in the autumn when the hard realities are published in terms of reduced grants to Councils and the like.
Probably just me being cynical.
I've been convinced tax rises now would be a bad idea but just to be consistent tax cuts now would also be a bad idea. The accumulation of cash which will be released with the ending of lockdown is going to be phenomenal in terms of providing economic growth and activity and the last thing we will need is any further stimulus.
If there was any suspicion the post-Covid economic recovery was going to be robust, activity in a stamp duty-free housing market and anecdata from travel agents should dispel those. People are desperate to spend, to enjoy themselves, to go on holiday and there will be a formidable economic bounce.
Tax cuts are therefore completely unnecessary at this time. The boost of spending should help VAT and other Government income as well but beyond the immediate, what then? Clearly, the initial burst of spending won't last and the question for later in the year will be the hard one about which mechanism(s) will Sunak use to start restoring the public finances?
The bigger question is whether the post-Covid splurge will be followed by inflation and a return to a more "normal" monetary policy with rising interest rates (remember them?). No one ever saw QE as more than a temporary measure and the time is company to get the economy off the financial methodone and back to normal monetary conditions.
* With the C-word in very, very small print in the electoral leaflets.
I'd get a better debate with my tortoise, and he's deceased. He's more likely to admit he's made a mistake or that other interpretations are possible.
What is noticeable is Rayner is only charging £70 for an office chair. If I were her, or anyone on expenses or a high salary, I'd stick a zero on the end and buy a Herman Miller something-or-other. We had them at work, and they really are better for the back than the average £70 chair (even if Rayner has found a good'un).
But I don't begrudge anyone who spends more on theirs. I've spent plenty of money on stuff I'm sure others would roll their eyes at. It's called personal choice.
There's no reason to judge others. She's a silly little hypocrite in doing so.
There's probably loads claiming.
I wonder what game us being played
This is, by the by, the best course for Scotland.
We have all learned from Brexit. The public needs to be informed first, as to the likely consequences of its vote. I voted Leave, but I confess I didn't even THINK about the Northern Irish border problem. If I'd known all the ramifications of my Leave vote, would I still vote the same way today? Probably - but I am not sure. Many others would now vote Remain, who back then voted Leave - let's be honest. And likely the referendum would have been won by Cameron, if we'd all been better-informed beforehand
That cannot be allowed to happen again. Scottish voters need to be given a proper idea of what indy Scotland will look like: currency, bank, trade, defence, Trident, NHS, fiscal balance, EU membership, borders with England, everything. Airy promises don't cut it any more.
The only way to do that is to set up a Royal Commission and drill down for a few years. Then give the Scots the facts. Then, if they continue to elect SNP governments: fair enough. Indyref2 it is, with all eyes open, and may the best man or woman win
I still think Sturgeon will survive. Losing her would be a disaster for the SNP, especially so close to an election and after her mother of the nation meme over Covid. But she looks vulnerable in a way I really didn't expect.
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-staffing-business-costs/your-mp/matt-hancock/4070
Spending? almost nothing.
Do you think there should be public spending cuts - if so, where?
Even if you want to avoid hung Parliaments, that level of dominance just can't be healthy.
Unlikely, I know. But it's nice thought.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/01/confusion-over-school-face-mask-rules-in-england-risks-anarchy-says-top-tory
I don't know whether Labour were intending to benefit from that by lending list votes to a preferred coalition partner in the way that some SNP voters do with the Greens, but that seems suboptimal.
STV, as introduced for local elections by a farsighted Holyrood government, is generally far superior.
‘No,’ he replied. ‘If you were British or American, it was very risky. If you were German, it was a stone certainty.’
That’s roughly how I feel about that headline.
All I was doing was noting that the SNP would have about 80% of seats in a pure FPTP system, and expressing a view that it would be an unhealthy position. You're welcome to disagree, but I'd prefer it if you weren't unpleasant about it.
The expense isn't the issue. The "down with the working class" hypocrisy is.....
Further, and again I think I've recalled this correctly, were Labour to win more seats than the Conservatives as part of a pro-Unionist majority, he would advocate the Conservatives supporting a Labour First Minister.
https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1366466286100824069
Had the Canadians tried to tell the Québécois they weren't allowed another referendum then the second referendum when held won have been won handsomely by Yes. Instead Yes lost it despite calling the referendum on their own timescale which closed the issue.
A Conservative minister who was in favour of allowing fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) at motorway service stations and amusement arcades has been put in charge of a landmark review of gambling laws, the Guardian has learned.
Campaigners for gambling reform voiced concern after it emerged that John Whittingdale, the minister for media and data, is taking over responsibility for the review from the sports minister, Nigel Huddleston, nearly three months after it was launched.
They pointed to Whittingdale’s record of voting against stronger regulation of the industry and comments playing down the dangers of FOBTs.
Whittingdale was chair of the culture select committee when it produced a report suggesting that FOBTs should be permitted at venues such as bingo halls and amusement arcades. The 2012 report could also have led to the highly addictive £100-per-spin machines being installed at motorway service stations across the country. The proposals were not adopted by David Cameron’s government.
Whittingdale later took aim at the common description of FOBTs as the “crack cocaine” of gambling, telling an industry conference: “I’m not so sure they’ve even the cannabis of gambling.” NHS surveys have consistently shown that FOBTs are associated with higher rates of addiction than other gambling products.
In 2014, during a debate in the House of Commons, Whittingdale said it was “virtually impossible” to lose large sums on the machines. However, a later study by the Gambling Commission found that FOBT players lost more than £1,000 on more than 233,000 occasions over a 10-month period.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/01/tory-minister-who-backed-fobts-takes-over-review-of-gambling-laws
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
We both came away convinced he was utterly useless.
What I am not is a conservative.
Any indyref2 would require devomax etc to ensure a No victory and if the government is not ready to do that then pointless allowing it
WRT the SNP, I think they will be hit, but their floor is still c.40% or so.
The UK is not Spain.
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, from the point of view of a great many in England, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce our hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
So who chose the 15 year timescale for the second referendum?
The Federal Government as that's when they "allowed" it?
The Supreme Court of Canada? With their ruling after the referendum occured?
Or the democratically elected Quebec government that held the referendum because they voted to have it?
Who decided the timeline?
He supported that.
She's not there as a Tory peer, she's there as a non-affiliated peer.
She shouldn't be there at all, but she's not a Tory.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
https://twitter.com/andrewiconnell/status/1366471690276995073
There's also a difference between then and now, so I've always found the 'SF are in government in NI' a rather lame distraction. Supporting the current arrangements does not mean equivalance with someone who supported the IRA, at the time of violent campaigns. Let's go full Godwin on this - Germany are our allies now, so what would it matter if someone supported them in 1943? Turns out temporal context matters.
Now, I've never heard of the man either, so the who cares part may well be right, but not on the basis you say.
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
Anyone else nominated by the likes of Starmer and Farage were clearly marked as such, Fox wasn't.