Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[OTT]

2 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes surely AlBa can muster some seats on the list . It’s a real conundrum how they aren’t making inroads ? I do wonder of they might get some of the greens votes ? 

 

I think its getting closer. Rome wasn't built in a day, and its certainly helped having Hanvey, MacAskill and Regan as elected reps able to showcase that they are sane, and able to push common sense policies which everyone can get behind. Salmond also is ever the statesman and I think presents extremely well. 

 

Because of how the Scottish Parliament is set up, its fine margins to deliver a majority - its specifically designed not to, which makes list/regional votes so pivotal. 

 

On the greens, no idea. On one hand I do think some folk have woken up to SNP1&2 being a bad strategy when so dominant in the Constituencies, but I assume those votes have came from those on the left of the party, which I don't believe could be flipped to Alba. I think the SNP voter type most likely to lend their 2nd votes to Alba would be the type to vote Kate Forbes for leader. Maybe a bit older, more central politically and sick of inaction on Independence! 

[XB52]

6 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Does that not demonstrate that the current direction of travel with the SNP is badly wrong? 

 

Swinney has 2 years to stem the tide. I think it can be done. Around 50% of our country want Indpendence and want something to rally behind, that gives that block vote that the SNP have enjoyed up to now. Its just about breaking through voter apathy and refocusing on Independence and the route to get there. Its why the SNP are voted for in droves. People want Independence. 

 

On Alba, your views are known. But the current circumstances that allowed a Nationalist First Minister to be brought down were brought about by failing to secure a Nationalist supermajority in the Parliament. Had it been SNP1 ALBA2 in 2021, we'd have seen 20 odd Alba MSPs elected and a renewed focus on delivering Independence and strong opposition from Salmond to push the SNP back to delivering on core issues instead of divisive fringe issues like the GRA or the various green vanity projects. 

 

The greens actions in bringing down Humza were purely petulant and actually lend reason to why he was correct to bin them from Government, it was emotion, they were angry and that guided their position which is bad. The simple fact is that the Tories think they're lunatics, and Labour would sooner work with the Lib dems/ Tories. A continuation of Humza and his strong position on Gaza whilst being able to push their own green in a less formal arrangement might have worked, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the SNP called "Tartan Tories" under Swinney? He's absolutely further to the right than Humza and with Forbes agreeing to step back, it might be in exchange for a pivot to more central of the road policies which aren't really in keeping with the heavy lurch to the left under Sturgeon/ BHA.

Any party led by Alex Salmond is doomed to failure. I would like to see a new Independence party whose sole reason for existence was Independence (yes I know SNP have that as their core too). A new party that didn't spend every day attacking the SNP but campaigned for 2nd votes. 

Wow, just seen your latest post. 3 turncoats too scared to stand under the Alba banner are your examples?? That is why Alba are a joke

Edited May 4 by XB52

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, OTT said:

 

I think its getting closer. Rome wasn't built in a day, and its certainly helped having Hanvey, MacAskill and Regan as elected reps able to showcase that they are sane, and able to push common sense policies which everyone can get behind. Salmond also is ever the statesman and I think presents extremely well. 

 

Because of how the Scottish Parliament is set up, its fine margins to deliver a majority - its specifically designed not to, which makes list/regional votes so pivotal. 

 

On the greens, no idea. On one hand I do think some folk have woken up to SNP1&2 being a bad strategy when so dominant in the Constituencies, but I assume those votes have came from those on the left of the party, which I don't believe could be flipped to Alba. I think the SNP voter type most likely to lend their 2nd votes to Alba would be the type to vote Kate Forbes for leader. Maybe a bit older, more central politically and sick of inaction on Independence! 

On reflection  I think the greens will always have some groundswell of support due to their environmental issues and some of their core voters who may not been keen on the gender nonsense stuff may just accept it . Salmond , Hanvey Reagan and Mac ask a formidable group . They need to get their message across 

[OTT]

4 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Any party led by Alex Salmond is doomed to failure. I would like to see a new Independence party whose sole reason for existence was Independence (yes I know SNP have that as their core too). A new party that didn't spend every day attacking the SNP but campaigned for 2nd votes. 

Wow, just seen your latest post. 3 turncoats too scared to stand under the Alba banner are your examples?? That is why Alba are a joke

 

The issue you have is that you need "star power" to do that. ISP have exisisted for years and are a complete waste of energy. If not Salmond then who?

 

On the last part, voters will get the chance to vote them out at the next general election. I think all 3 have shown great principles, rather than stick with a party and leadership they don't believe in. The SNP is litered with nodding dogs which is why the last few years have been so bruising for them. Sturgeon wanted the GRA - bullied everyone who disagreed, likewise with the HMPA and deposit return scheme. Any dissent was ridiculed instead of debated. The SNP are not in a healthy state, and thats because the leadership has been terrible. Alba also aren't the SNP, there are going to be areas of disagreement. That isn't attacking, thats just simply the reality of being in a different party. 

 

Personally, I'd rather our Nationalist Government focused on delivering in core issues like housing, health & the economy, whilst also continuing to build the case for Independence. Salmond, love him or hate him, developed the blueprint for that - govern competently and the votes will follow. Niche issues like the GRA are electoral suicide. 

[OTT]

6 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

On reflection  I think the greens will always have some groundswell of support due to their environmental issues and some of their core voters who may not been keen on the gender nonsense stuff may just accept it . Salmond , Hanvey Reagan and Mac ask a formidable group . They need to get their message across 

 

Yeah, I mean quite how focused the greens have been on environmental issues is a fair question to pose. They've seemed far more interested catering to their TQ+ rainbow brigade, than actually tackling environmental issues. Brilliantly put by Iain Cameron.

 

 

 

I'm just hoping that Alba can successfully deliver the volume of votes needed to register seats in 2026. Really need to make that electoral breakthrough. 

[Dirty Deeds]

56 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Why don't you like Macaskill ? 

 

 

I had dealings with him when he was lawyer. He's lazy, uninterested in the best interests of his clients, self-serving and egotistical.

 

I've seen nothing of his behaviour in politics to make me think any better of him. 

[Dirty Deeds]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

Edited May 4 by Dirty Deeds
Double post

[JudyJudyJudy]

28 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, I mean quite how focused the greens have been on environmental issues is a fair question to pose. They've seemed far more interested catering to their TQ+ rainbow brigade, than actually tackling environmental issues. Brilliantly put by Iain Cameron.

 

 

 

I'm just hoping that Alba can successfully deliver the volume of votes needed to register seats in 2026. Really need to make that electoral breakthrough. 

Excellent thread . He makes pertinent points . They are now like an immature , privileged student agitators .   To think I even voted Greens a few years back . ( 2nd vote ) obviously  before they got captured. Sad times . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

32 minutes ago, OTT said:

I'm just hoping that Alba can successfully deliver the volume of votes needed to register seats in 2026. Really need to make that electoral breakthrough. 

Me too . 

[Spellczech]

2 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Does that not demonstrate that the current direction of travel with the SNP is badly wrong? 

 

Swinney has 2 years to stem the tide. I think it can be done. Around 50% of our country want Indpendence and want something to rally behind, that gives that block vote that the SNP have enjoyed up to now. Its just about breaking through voter apathy and refocusing on Independence and the route to get there. Its why the SNP are voted for in droves. People want Independence. 

 

On Alba, your views are known. But the current circumstances that allowed a Nationalist First Minister to be brought down were brought about by failing to secure a Nationalist supermajority in the Parliament. Had it been SNP1 ALBA2 in 2021, we'd have seen 20 odd Alba MSPs elected and a renewed focus on delivering Independence and strong opposition from Salmond to push the SNP back to delivering on core issues instead of divisive fringe issues like the GRA or the various green vanity projects. 

 

The greens actions in bringing down Humza were purely petulant and actually lend reason to why he was correct to bin them from Government, it was emotion, they were angry and that guided their position which is bad. The simple fact is that the Tories think they're lunatics, and Labour would sooner work with the Lib dems/ Tories. A continuation of Humza and his strong position on Gaza whilst being able to push their own green in a less formal arrangement might have worked, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the SNP called "Tartan Tories" under Swinney? He's absolutely further to the right than Humza and with Forbes agreeing to step back, it might be in exchange for a pivot to more central of the road policies which aren't really in keeping with the heavy lurch to the left under Sturgeon/ BHA.

I reckon the SNP will get absolutely mullered at the next election. So too will the Greens. Simple truth is that Alba talk more sense than the SNP these days...but the votes will go back to the traditional 3 parties, and they haven't even had to do anything to earn them!

 

All the SNP needed to do was to prove that they could run the country. They failed. The last few years have seen them focus on nonsense stuff like gender politics, mess up infrastructure projects (ferries), and make blaming Westminster their rote answer to every single question they are asked, difficult or not...Their conferences and electioneering always revert to one thing: that they can deliver independence. They can't...

 

Everyone could see that Humza was a poor choice of leader. Sturgeon chose him because Swinney didn't want the job and she knew he'd put a retrospective sheen on her time in charge, whilst all the dodgy stuff came out...

 

The only talent in the SNP team is Forbes, and she is too smart to take the role this time because she knows the next election is lost. Swinney does too. He still doesn't want the job but took it because he knows there is nobody else. They are all rank rotten, and Forbes needs most of them to lose their seats before she can re-forge the party under her, as she is clearly not popular with the trumped-up town councillors who are SNP MSPs whose only political thought is that they want independence...

 

I'm not an SNP supporter but what SNP supporters need to realise is that they NEED to lose the next election and lose it heavily...

 

 

[Cranston]

19 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

I reckon the SNP will get absolutely mullered at the next election. So too will the Greens. Simple truth is that Alba talk more sense than the SNP these days...but the votes will go back to the traditional 3 parties, and they haven't even had to do anything to earn them!

 

All the SNP needed to do was to prove that they could run the country. They failed. The last few years have seen them focus on nonsense stuff like gender politics, mess up infrastructure projects (ferries), and make blaming Westminster their rote answer to every single question they are asked, difficult or not...Their conferences and electioneering always revert to one thing: that they can deliver independence. They can't...

 

Everyone could see that Humza was a poor choice of leader. Sturgeon chose him because Swinney didn't want the job and she knew he'd put a retrospective sheen on her time in charge, whilst all the dodgy stuff came out...

 

The only talent in the SNP team is Forbes, and she is too smart to take the role this time because she knows the next election is lost. Swinney does too. He still doesn't want the job but took it because he knows there is nobody else. They are all rank rotten, and Forbes needs most of them to lose their seats before she can re-forge the party under her, as she is clearly not popular with the trumped-up town councillors who are SNP MSPs whose only political thought is that they want independence...

 

I'm not an SNP supporter but what SNP supporters need to realise is that they NEED to lose the next election and lose it heavily...

 

 

Fair post.

 

I've lost all respect for Kate Forbes. Shat it, to take on the party hierarchy, and reform the party. Swinney's only in there, cause he wouldn't contemplate any such thing either, and he'll keep the Holyrood gravy train chugging along, everyone back on board.

 

Choo Choo.

Edited May 4 by Cranston

[JudyJudyJudy]

Report. On the news about the Indy March today !! ( yes another ) 

 

older woman on it , 

 

 

” I’m sick of being a colony “ ! 

[JudyJudyJudy]

22 minutes ago, Cranston said:

Fair post.

 

I've lost all respect for Kate Forbes. Shat it, to take on the party hierarchy, and reform the party. Swinney's only in there, cause he wouldn't contemplate any such thing either, and he'll keep the Holyrood gravy train chugging along, everyone back on board.

 

Choo Choo.

This ! Went off her too 

[OTT]

15 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

I reckon the SNP will get absolutely mullered at the next election. So too will the Greens. Simple truth is that Alba talk more sense than the SNP these days...but the votes will go back to the traditional 3 parties, and they haven't even had to do anything to earn them!

 

All the SNP needed to do was to prove that they could run the country. They failed. The last few years have seen them focus on nonsense stuff like gender politics, mess up infrastructure projects (ferries), and make blaming Westminster their rote answer to every single question they are asked, difficult or not...Their conferences and electioneering always revert to one thing: that they can deliver independence. They can't...

 

Everyone could see that Humza was a poor choice of leader. Sturgeon chose him because Swinney didn't want the job and she knew he'd put a retrospective sheen on her time in charge, whilst all the dodgy stuff came out...

 

The only talent in the SNP team is Forbes, and she is too smart to take the role this time because she knows the next election is lost. Swinney does too. He still doesn't want the job but took it because he knows there is nobody else. They are all rank rotten, and Forbes needs most of them to lose their seats before she can re-forge the party under her, as she is clearly not popular with the trumped-up town councillors who are SNP MSPs whose only political thought is that they want independence...

 

I'm not an SNP supporter but what SNP supporters need to realise is that they NEED to lose the next election and lose it heavily...

 

 

 

I think what we're about to see is how dogmatic the SNP vote is. Like, is Independence such a driving factor for the vote that it will remain solid regardless of performance? See, as an Independence supporter myself, I'd rather stay home than vote Unionist (or Devolutionist as the SNP seem to be morphing into). 

 

Agree - by allowing themselves to get dragged into all the divisive side project stuff and ignoring core issues like: Ferries, Dualling the A9, Education, Health and the Economy, they've pissed the public off and broken trust. Yes, they've delivered in other areas and had some success, but you cannot tell me a ****ing Baby box - which lets face it, is basically a corporate giftbox with baby food in it, is a viable trade off for failing to deliver of a governmental pledge to dual a crucial part of the Highlands infrastructure or failing to deliver working ferries for Islanders. 

 

I might be sounding like JKB resident Alex Salmond fan boy, but when you compare and contrast his time in office with... whatever you want to call this and then have people trashing him, its ****ing offensive. 

 

On your bit in bold - Thats exactly what Robin McAlpine said, essentially that whoever leads the SNP into the general election is going to be on a hiding to nothing and take a massive hit to their career because who wants it on their record that 17 years of SNP electoral dominance fell apart on their watch? In difference circumstances I would be annoyed at Kate Forbes for shirking responsibility here, but the reality is that she'd be dealing with non-compliant colleagues that would fight her, brief against her and just generally be harder work than the opposition AND THEN have to deal with the inevitable collapse in the next general election. Its too much work to put on one persons shoulders. Better to be the saviour offering change at the next opportunity just after 2026 when the SNP need to reset in opposition. Although should that happen, the careerists need to be wiped out. 

 

Nicola Sturgeons role in all this cannot be ignored. She took the SNP from a position of massive, unprecedented strength to leaving them utterly rudderless. Make no mistake, the landslide victory in 2015 wasn't down to Nicola Sturgeon, it was down to the Referendum and the awakening of a political conciousness regarding Independence. She then cynically used that in the following years - carrot and little else. The losses in 2017 were a flavour of what happens when the SNP stop talking about Independence and I think next year, or whenever Sunak calls for the General Election, we'll see a repeat of that. 

[OTT]

27 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Report. On the news about the Indy March today !! ( yes another ) 

 

older woman on it , 

 

 

” I’m sick of being a colony “ ! 

 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, the literal definition of a colony is "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country", Lisa Nandy has previously talked about the UK (England) taking after the tactics of the Spanish in response to the Catalonian Independence movement - to be clear that means state sponsored violence. Whilst I do agree that the suggestion we're a colony is a bit tactless, I do think there is merit to the argument in a technical and legal sense. Its one of those, well, if we're not then show us how we can leave the UK? - Answer, through a Section 30 referendum. Response, Give us one. Answer, No. 

 

If we are being provided with no mechanism to leave the UK despite  the cross-party Smith Commission agreeing that:

 

"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."

 

We cannot "choose" as the right to choose is being withheld. 

 

We've voted for a party that clearly states it wants a referendum in a free and fair election and then been denied that. 

 

At a certain point, it becomes necessary to start asking difficult questions around why exactly our democracy is being ignored - and I think that includes asking provocative questions like that. 

 

I would love a journalist to put the question to Kier Starmer or Rishi Sunak and watch them squirm because its an uncomfortable topic as the reality is that the British government are ignoring a democratic mandate because they are scared of the outcome. 

[Spellczech]

2 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, the literal definition of a colony is "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country", Lisa Nandy has previously talked about the UK (England) taking after the tactics of the Spanish in response to the Catalonian Independence movement - to be clear that means state sponsored violence. Whilst I do agree that the suggestion we're a colony is a bit tactless, I do think there is merit to the argument in a technical and legal sense. Its one of those, well, if we're not then show us how we can leave the UK? - Answer, through a Section 30 referendum. Response, Give us one. Answer, No. 

 

If we are being provided with no mechanism to leave the UK despite  the cross-party Smith Commission agreeing that:

 

"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."

 

We cannot "choose" as the right to choose is being withheld. 

 

We've voted for a party that clearly states it wants a referendum in a free and fair election and then been denied that. 

 

At a certain point, it becomes necessary to start asking difficult questions around why exactly our democracy is being ignored - and I think that includes asking provocative questions like that. 

 

I would love a journalist to put the question to Kier Starmer or Rishi Sunak and watch them squirm because its an uncomfortable topic as the reality is that the British government are ignoring a democratic mandate because they are scared of the outcome. 

Only problem with the "Colony" nonsense is that pretty much whenever the PM has not been an Old Etonian, he's been Scottish...

[OTT]

7 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Only problem with the "Colony" nonsense is that pretty much whenever the PM has not been an Old Etonian, he's been Scottish...

 

It doesn't get away from the actual definition though - "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country". 

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope we're a long way away from having to make those kinds of arguments. I think they're deeply unhelpful. 

 

I think the SNP needs to start testing how the Scottish government can find a workaround to deliver a meaningful vote. Be that, a referendum on the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 or otherwise. Pick fights that can be won. 

 

Yes these matters are reserved, but democracy is also not static. Our needs are changing and it will be 30 years in a few years since it was introduced. Is it still fit for purpose? Even Gordon Brown in his panic pitch of Federalism seems to take account that the status quo isn't meeting the needs of our country - otherwise why pitch it?

Edited May 4 by OTT

[Malinga the Swinga]

49 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Report. On the news about the Indy March today !! ( yes another ) 

 

older woman on it , 

 

 

” I’m sick of being a colony “ ! 

It's any excuse to avoid looking at themselves. A couple on here have it sussed but that's on a football site, out in the real world none of the main players or members have the guts to fess up and take the blame for their own failings.

A more cowardly bunch you couldn't meet

[Cranston]

52 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

This ! Went off her too 

👍

 

Won't be the only ones, after she bottled it. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

I think what we're about to see is how dogmatic the SNP vote is. Like, is Independence such a driving factor for the vote that it will remain solid regardless of performance? See, as an Independence supporter myself, I'd rather stay home than vote Unionist (or Devolutionist as the SNP seem to be morphing into). 

 

Agree - by allowing themselves to get dragged into all the divisive side project stuff and ignoring core issues like: Ferries, Dualling the A9, Education, Health and the Economy, they've pissed the public off and broken trust. Yes, they've delivered in other areas and had some success, but you cannot tell me a ****ing Baby box - which lets face it, is basically a corporate giftbox with baby food in it, is a viable trade off for failing to deliver of a governmental pledge to dual a crucial part of the Highlands infrastructure or failing to deliver working ferries for Islanders. 

 

I might be sounding like JKB resident Alex Salmond fan boy, but when you compare and contrast his time in office with... whatever you want to call this and then have people trashing him, its ****ing offensive. 

 

On your bit in bold - Thats exactly what Robin McAlpine said, essentially that whoever leads the SNP into the general election is going to be on a hiding to nothing and take a massive hit to their career because who wants it on their record that 17 years of SNP electoral dominance fell apart on their watch? In difference circumstances I would be annoyed at Kate Forbes for shirking responsibility here, but the reality is that she'd be dealing with non-compliant colleagues that would fight her, brief against her and just generally be harder work than the opposition AND THEN have to deal with the inevitable collapse in the next general election. Its too much work to put on one persons shoulders. Better to be the saviour offering change at the next opportunity just after 2026 when the SNP need to reset in opposition. Although should that happen, the careerists need to be wiped out. 

 

Nicola Sturgeons role in all this cannot be ignored. She took the SNP from a position of massive, unprecedented strength to leaving them utterly rudderless. Make no mistake, the landslide victory in 2015 wasn't down to Nicola Sturgeon, it was down to the Referendum and the awakening of a political conciousness regarding Independence. She then cynically used that in the following years - carrot and little else. The losses in 2017 were a flavour of what happens when the SNP stop talking about Independence and I think next year, or whenever Sunak calls for the General Election, we'll see a repeat of that. 

Good posting . Aye you’re probably right about Forbes . Maybe I’m being tio harsh on her. Shes bidding her time 

54 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, the literal definition of a colony is "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country", Lisa Nandy has previously talked about the UK (England) taking after the tactics of the Spanish in response to the Catalonian Independence movement - to be clear that means state sponsored violence. Whilst I do agree that the suggestion we're a colony is a bit tactless, I do think there is merit to the argument in a technical and legal sense. Its one of those, well, if we're not then show us how we can leave the UK? - Answer, through a Section 30 referendum. Response, Give us one. Answer, No. 

 

If we are being provided with no mechanism to leave the UK despite  the cross-party Smith Commission agreeing that:

 

"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."

 

We cannot "choose" as the right to choose is being withheld. 

 

We've voted for a party that clearly states it wants a referendum in a free and fair election and then been denied that. 

 

At a certain point, it becomes necessary to start asking difficult questions around why exactly our democracy is being ignored - and I think that includes asking provocative questions like that. 

 

I would love a journalist to put the question to Kier Starmer or Rishi Sunak and watch them squirm because its an uncomfortable topic as the reality is that the British government are ignoring a democratic mandate because they are scared of the outcome. 

 

43 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

It doesn't get away from the actual definition though - "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country". 

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope we're a long way away from having to make those kinds of arguments. I think they're deeply unhelpful. 

 

I think the SNP needs to start testing how the Scottish government can find a workaround to deliver a meaningful vote. Be that, a referendum on the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 or otherwise. Pick fights that can be won. 

 

Yes these matters are reserved, but democracy is also not static. Our needs are changing and it will be 30 years in a few years since it was introduced. Is it still fit for purpose? Even Gordon Brown in his panic pitch of Federalism seems to take account that the status quo isn't meeting the needs of our country - otherwise why pitch it?

But we are in a union . We are not being dominated by another country . We have representation in the UK parliament etc . 

40 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

It's any excuse to avoid looking at themselves. A couple on here have it sussed but that's on a football site, out in the real world none of the main players or members have the guts to fess up and take the blame for their own failings.

A more cowardly bunch you couldn't meet

I just find the word “ colony “ a victim type of statement. Like we are not able to have any influence in our future ? We do . We have . In 2014 . We can have another one again if necessary  . 
 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

40 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

FTFY

😄

Edited May 4 by JudyJudyJudy

[OTT]

27 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Good posting . Aye you’re probably right about Forbes . Maybe I’m being tio harsh on her. Shes bidding her time 

 

But we are in a union . We are not being dominated by another country . We have representation in the UK parliament etc . 

I just find the word “ colony “ a victim type of statement. Like we are not able to have any influence in our future ? We do . We have . In 2014 . We can have another one again if necessary  . 
 

 

 

I think so, but one of the things Robin McAlpine warned is that she's risking losing her moment too. The media are already being briefed that Flynn is being lined up as a sucessor to Swinney. I don't really think Flynn is a Sturgeonite, but regardless it could hurt Forbes long term. Although, I think both in the Scottish government would be to the publics benefit. Both seem very able Politicians. When Neale Hanvey was talking about Alex Salmond, he said something I think is quite quotable, there are two types of people that are in Politics, those that are here to do important things, and those that are there to feel important. I genuinely believe with Flynn he's the former, whereas Blackford was undeniably the latter. Should Flynn end up as FM, as an Alba voter, I'm genuinely not irked by that. 

 

I mean, I would argue that we're exactly dominated by another country. Scots politicians at Westminster are wholly outvoted on all issues if essentially England doesn't agree. Its not a partnership in any meaningful sense. 59 out of 650 are Scottish, not even 10%. So if 100% of Scottish MPs voted for an amendment to the Scotland Act to devolve the permission to hold a Section 30, it would easily be outvoted. Just because the handcuffs are velvet doesn't make them not still handcuffs. There isn't a mutually agreeable way out of the Union because no PM in their right mind will give a vote with the result uncertain. I think Sturgeons tacit acceptance of the Section 30 being blocked has only emboldened the British government, and I could see them even challenging a manifesto commitment from the SNP that a vote for them is a vote for Independence (Using a general election as a makeshift referendum) should it pass.

 

In the same way that Northern Ireland are entitled to a vote on leaving the UK, so should Scotland, Wales & England. It might be argued as destablising, but people only vote for change when they feel its needed. If the Union was working, there wouldn't be such demand for Independence, remember in 2011 it was at just 29%. The reality is that the Union has lost the youth. 80% of young people do NOT support the Union anymore and long term that direction of travel is a death sentence, its just about how long and drawn out it needs to be. 

 

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

I think so, but one of the things Robin McAlpine warned is that she's risking losing her moment too. The media are already being briefed that Flynn is being lined up as a sucessor to Swinney. I don't really think Flynn is a Sturgeonite, but regardless it could hurt Forbes long term. Although, I think both in the Scottish government would be to the publics benefit. Both seem very able Politicians. When Neale Hanvey was talking about Alex Salmond, he said something I think is quite quotable, there are two types of people that are in Politics, those that are here to do important things, and those that are there to feel important. I genuinely believe with Flynn he's the former, whereas Blackford was undeniably the latter. Should Flynn end up as FM, as an Alba voter, I'm genuinely not irked by that. 

 

I mean, I would argue that we're exactly dominated by another country. Scots politicians at Westminster are wholly outvoted on all issues if essentially England doesn't agree. Its not a partnership in any meaningful sense. 59 out of 650 are Scottish, not even 10%. So if 100% of Scottish MPs voted for an amendment to the Scotland Act to devolve the permission to hold a Section 30, it would easily be outvoted. Just because the handcuffs are velvet doesn't make them not still handcuffs. There isn't a mutually agreeable way out of the Union because no PM in their right mind will give a vote with the result uncertain. I think Sturgeons tacit acceptance of the Section 30 being blocked has only emboldened the British government, and I could see them even challenging a manifesto commitment from the SNP that a vote for them is a vote for Independence (Using a general election as a makeshift referendum) should it pass.

 

In the same way that Northern Ireland are entitled to a vote on leaving the UK, so should Scotland, Wales & England. It might be argued as destablising, but people only vote for change when they feel its needed. If the Union was working, there wouldn't be such demand for Independence, remember in 2011 it was at just 29%. The reality is that the Union has lost the youth. 80% of young people do NOT support the Union anymore and long term that direction of travel is a death sentence, its just about how long and drawn out it needs to be. 

 

We had a referendum a mere 10 years ago. That is exactly 2 election cycles ago...We cannot keep having them until Nationalists get the results they want!

 

If we had Indyref2 tomorrow then about 80-90% of those being asked to vote would be the same people as voted in 2014...

[i wish jj was my dad]

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

We had a referendum a mere 10 years ago. That is exactly 2 election cycles ago...We cannot keep having them until Nationalists get the results they want!

 

If we had Indyref2 tomorrow then about 80-90% of those being asked to vote would be the same people as voted in 2014...

I don't want a referendum ATM and would much rather see how devolution can work with a proper govt in charge at WM  but Brexit was the material change that gave legitimacy to the argument for another referendum. 

I'm not driven by ideology and just want the country to create the best possible life for its citizens so I'm more than willing to give Starmer a chance to prove he can work with a devolved government but if he behaves anything like Johnson and Truss towards Holyrood then that's it for me. 

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

4 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

We had a referendum a mere 10 years ago. That is exactly 2 election cycles ago...We cannot keep having them until Nationalists get the results they want!

 

If we had Indyref2 tomorrow then about 80-90% of those being asked to vote would be the same people as voted in 2014...

It would take many years to transition,many court cases, dealings with Westminster and then even more so for European membership, NATO , currency etc it would be Brexit on steroids, another referendum now would be for today's children and not for those voting for it 

Then there would be an even more devided country than there is now 

It was stated in 2014 that it was once in a generation vote!

They have had their chance 😂 

[Spellczech]

7 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I don't want a referendum ATM and would much rather see how devolution can work with a proper govt in charge at WM  but Brexit was the material change that gave legitimacy to the argument for another referendum. 

I'm not driven by ideology and just want the country to create the best possible life for its citizens so I'm more than willing to give Starmer a chance to prove he can work with a devolved government but if he behaves anything like Johnson and Truss towards Holyrood then that's it for me. 

Legitimacy? So says the SNP... We are a democracy, and whilst I think Brexit was an incredibly stupid thing for the people of the UK to do - going it alone in a Globalised economy - as proven that we cannot even get a trade deal signed with India, even though the PM is of Indian heritage!...- we now just have to accept and make the best of it. The EU is unlikely to want an Independent Scotland as this could cause problems in many areas of the EU (not just Catalunya) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe

 

The SNP has had 14 years to prove that they could run Scotland. They've failed. They now just point the finger at Westminster for literally everything... They even partnered with the Greens who support independence for Shetland too, according the Wiki link above...The outgoing FM spent most of the last 6 months talking about Gaza more than Scotland, and Foreign Policy is not even in his remit!

 

I am pretty sure the SNP never had any willingness to work with Truss or Johnson either BTW. They were relieved and delighted to be seen to be snubbed...

[Spellczech]

17 minutes ago, Howdy Doody Jambo said:

It would take many years to transition,many court cases, dealings with Westminster and then even more so for European membership, NATO , currency etc it would be Brexit on steroids, another referendum now would be for today's children and not for those voting for it 

Then there would be an even more devided country than there is now 

It was stated in 2014 that it was once in a generation vote!

They have had their chance 😂 

I said at the time that I reckoned it would be at least 2-3 generations of real hard economic pain for Scotland to go independent. People don't realise how peripheral to Europe Scotland is. Switzerland or Slovakia we ain't!

[JudyJudyJudy]

11 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

am pretty sure the SNP never had any willingness to work with Truss or Johnson either BTW. They were relieved and delighted to be seen to be snubbed...

Good point 

[i wish jj was my dad]

10 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Legitimacy? So says the SNP... We are a democracy, and whilst I think Brexit was an incredibly stupid thing for the people of the UK to do - going it alone in a Globalised economy - as proven that we cannot even get a trade deal signed with India, even though the PM is of Indian heritage!...- we now just have to accept and make the best of it. The EU is unlikely to want an Independent Scotland as this could cause problems in many areas of the EU (not just Catalunya) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe

 

The SNP has had 14 years to prove that they could run Scotland. They've failed. They now just point the finger at Westminster for literally everything... They even partnered with the Greens who support independence for Shetland too, according the Wiki link above...The outgoing FM spent most of the last 6 months talking about Gaza more than Scotland, and Foreign Policy is not even in his remit!

 

I am pretty sure the SNP never had any willingness to work with Truss or Johnson either BTW. They were relieved and delighted to be seen to be snubbed...

I'm not sure why you are getting so bent out of shape with the post and jumping on some anti SNP rant about it. I've voted for SNP in the past but unlikely to ATM. 

I'm not attached to any party or ideology, I'd be happy to see Labour or anybody else run the country - UK and Scotland - as long as they actually do it in the national interest. 

I think the SNP fell into a trap after Brexit of fighting the Tories instead of focusing on minding the shop.

A problem we've got in the country and your post sums it up is that if you disagree you assume that it is based on ideology or party and ATM that is ou are kabelled a Yoon, Nat or creepy green and get angry when somebody doesn't agree. I can't be arsed with that

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I think so, but one of the things Robin McAlpine warned is that she's risking losing her moment too. The media are already being briefed that Flynn is being lined up as a sucessor to Swinney. I don't really think Flynn is a Sturgeonite, but regardless it could hurt Forbes long term. Although, I think both in the Scottish government would be to the publics benefit. Both seem very able Politicians. When Neale Hanvey was talking about Alex Salmond, he said something I think is quite quotable, there are two types of people that are in Politics, those that are here to do important things, and those that are there to feel important. I genuinely believe with Flynn he's the former, whereas Blackford was undeniably the latter. Should Flynn end up as FM, as an Alba voter, I'm genuinely not irked by that. 

 

I mean, I would argue that we're exactly dominated by another country. Scots politicians at Westminster are wholly outvoted on all issues if essentially England doesn't agree. Its not a partnership in any meaningful sense. 59 out of 650 are Scottish, not even 10%. So if 100% of Scottish MPs voted for an amendment to the Scotland Act to devolve the permission to hold a Section 30, it would easily be outvoted. Just because the handcuffs are velvet doesn't make them not still handcuffs. There isn't a mutually agreeable way out of the Union because no PM in their right mind will give a vote with the result uncertain. I think Sturgeons tacit acceptance of the Section 30 being blocked has only emboldened the British government, and I could see them even challenging a manifesto commitment from the SNP that a vote for them is a vote for Independence (Using a general election as a makeshift referendum) should it pass.

 

In the same way that Northern Ireland are entitled to a vote on leaving the UK, so should Scotland, Wales & England. It might be argued as destablising, but people only vote for change when they feel its needed. If the Union was working, there wouldn't be such demand for Independence, remember in 2011 it was at just 29%. The reality is that the Union has lost the youth. 80% of young people do NOT support the Union anymore and long term that direction of travel is a death sentence, its just about how long and drawn out it needs to be. 

 

 

Have you got a source for the graph?  The visuals are saying something to me, but I'd rather see the numbers behind them.

[AyrJambo]

7 hours ago, Spellczech said:

Only problem with the "Colony" nonsense is that pretty much whenever the PM has not been an Old Etonian, he's been Scottish...

 

You mean like

 

Chamberlain

Atlee

Wilson

Heath

Callaghan

Thatcher

Major

Blair

May

Truss

Sunak

 

7 hours ago, OTT said:

 

It doesn't get away from the actual definition though - "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country". 

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope we're a long way away from having to make those kinds of arguments. I think they're deeply unhelpful. 

 

I think the SNP needs to start testing how the Scottish government can find a workaround to deliver a meaningful vote. Be that, a referendum on the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 or otherwise. Pick fights that can be won. 

 

Yes these matters are reserved, but democracy is also not static. Our needs are changing and it will be 30 years in a few years since it was introduced. Is it still fit for purpose? Even Gordon Brown in his panic pitch of Federalism seems to take account that the status quo isn't meeting the needs of our country - otherwise why pitch it?

 

The bit in bold above certainly applies to Scotland as illusrtated recently by England's Brexit vote and longer term by the fact that in only two post second world war general elections have votes in Scotland made any difference whatsoever to the result

 

 

 

Other characteristics of colonies are...

 

Extraction of resources without benefit to indigenous population

Suppression of language and culture

Military occupation

 

All of these have happened in Scotland under the union

 

3 hours ago, Spellczech said:

Legitimacy? So says the SNP... We are a democracy, and whilst I think Brexit was an incredibly stupid thing for the people of the UK to do - going it alone in a Globalised economy - as proven that we cannot even get a trade deal signed with India, even though the PM is of Indian heritage!...- we now just have to accept and make the best of it. The EU is unlikely to want an Independent Scotland as this could cause problems in many areas of the EU (not just Catalunya) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe

 

The SNP has had 14 years to prove that they could run Scotland. They've failed. They now just point the finger at Westminster for literally everything... They even partnered with the Greens who support independence for Shetland too, according the Wiki link above...The outgoing FM spent most of the last 6 months talking about Gaza more than Scotland, and Foreign Policy is not even in his remit!

 

I am pretty sure the SNP never had any willingness to work with Truss or Johnson either BTW. They were relieved and delighted to be seen to be snubbed...

 

Why?

 

Edited May 5 by AyrJambo

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Spellczech said:

We had a referendum a mere 10 years ago. That is exactly 2 election cycles ago...We cannot keep having them until Nationalists get the results they want!

 

 

Why not?

 

Before you jump in with a reflexive answer, my question is actually about the political reasons behind your statement.  In part, I'm asking what are the political reasons that you "can't keep having" independence referendums.  In part, I'm asking about an underlying assumption that referendums would continue to be held until such time as Nationalists got the result they want.  But why would you stop then?  If an independence referendum was carried by a narrow majority, why wouldn't the "losing" side seek to have another one to overturn the decision.  What are the political reasons that they wouldn't?  What are the political reasons anyone would deny that to them?  

 

I'm not challenging your opinion about any of this.  I'm asking deeper questions about who gets to decide when the people are permitted to vote on these things, when that can happen, and who gets excluded from that political decision-making process.  Those are pretty fundamental questions in any society, especially one that claims to be a democracy.

[manaliveits105]

[i wish jj was my dad]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Other than trying to put folk off their breakfast, what point are you trying to make? 

[Lord Montpelier]

3 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Reportedly 1200 at this all under one banner march yesterday, that seemed to crossover with the Palestinian conflict for some reason. Including by the looks of it an elderly Jambo taking his annual exercise. 

 

Independence, its happening folks !!

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

23 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Reportedly 1200 at this all under one banner march yesterday, that seemed to crossover with the Palestinian conflict for some reason. Including by the looks of it an elderly Jambo taking his annual exercise. 

 

Independence, its happening folks !!

Looks like a biker's rally and Alex just making his way to Parkheid

[manaliveits105]

53 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Reportedly 1200 at this all under one banner march yesterday, that seemed to crossover with the Palestinian conflict for some reason. Including by the looks of it an elderly Jambo taking his annual exercise. 

 

Independence, its happening folks !!

All under one banner 

with another banner ! 

[Spellczech]

10 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I'm not sure why you are getting so bent out of shape with the post and jumping on some anti SNP rant about it. I've voted for SNP in the past but unlikely to ATM. 

I'm not attached to any party or ideology, I'd be happy to see Labour or anybody else run the country - UK and Scotland - as long as they actually do it in the national interest. 

I think the SNP fell into a trap after Brexit of fighting the Tories instead of focusing on minding the shop.

A problem we've got in the country and your post sums it up is that if you disagree you assume that it is based on ideology or party and ATM that is ou are kabelled a Yoon, Nat or creepy green and get angry when somebody doesn't agree. I can't be arsed with that

Bent out of shape? Rant? Where are you getting that from? I'm just stating an opinion

[Spellczech]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why not?

 

Before you jump in with a reflexive answer, my question is actually about the political reasons behind your statement.  In part, I'm asking what are the political reasons that you "can't keep having" independence referendums.  In part, I'm asking about an underlying assumption that referendums would continue to be held until such time as Nationalists got the result they want.  But why would you stop then?  If an independence referendum was carried by a narrow majority, why wouldn't the "losing" side seek to have another one to overturn the decision.  What are the political reasons that they wouldn't?  What are the political reasons anyone would deny that to them?  

 

I'm not challenging your opinion about any of this.  I'm asking deeper questions about who gets to decide when the people are permitted to vote on these things, when that can happen, and who gets excluded from that political decision-making process.  Those are pretty fundamental questions in any society, especially one that claims to be a democracy.

People on here are pretty bad for picking one sentence from a post and ignoring all the context around it...You've even quoted the first sentence about 10 years but decided to highlight the next sentence and write an entire post centred on it...

[Australis]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Other than trying to put folk off their breakfast, what point are you trying to make? 

Sleepy cuddles is looking bigger than ever.

He is certainly not going out knocking on doors and climbing tenement stairs leafleting and campaigning for Alba.

 

Was really surprised at his appearance when he was wanting noticed at the Palestinian march on TV yesterday.

 

Edited May 5 by Australis

[Spellczech]

30 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

All under one banner 

with another banner ! 

Trying desperately to disprove that the accusation that they have just have one aim...It is as sad as Sturgeon, their Queen Bee announcing that if she achieved independence, she'd immediately disappear into political retirement.

 

These people have no plan except to take us into the economic disaster that would independence...Even their leaders don't actually want the extra powers that they claim they need! They know it would be Brexit x10, an utter shtshow for generations. You cannot lead Scotland by simply doing the opposite of what England does, but that is how the SNP "govern". They even managed to mess up over dangerous dogs with this approach...

[Spellczech]

8 hours ago, AyrJambo said:

 

You mean like

 

Chamberlain

Atlee

Wilson

Heath

Callaghan

Thatcher

Major

Blair

May

Truss

Sunak

 

 

The bit in bold above certainly applies to Scotland as illusrtated recently by England's Brexit vote and longer term by the fact that in only two post second world war general elections have votes in Scotland made any difference whatsoever to the result

 

 

 

Other characteristics of colonies are...

 

Extraction of resources without benefit to indigenous population

Suppression of language and culture

Military occupation

 

All of these have happened in Scotland under the union

 

 

Why?

 

I hope you didn't have to research the PM thing? I was being flippant. My point was that we over-index massively for running the UK...

 

Why accept the Brexit vote? Because we simply won't be allowed to reverse it. The EU would not accept us back. They have said this. The shocking thing about the Tory Party's view on Europe is that the EU was Churchill's idea - read the epilogue of his final War Diary if you doubt it...Boris Johnson betrayed his own hero.

Edited May 5 by Spellczech

[John Findlay]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why not?

 

Before you jump in with a reflexive answer, my question is actually about the political reasons behind your statement.  In part, I'm asking what are the political reasons that you "can't keep having" independence referendums.  In part, I'm asking about an underlying assumption that referendums would continue to be held until such time as Nationalists got the result they want.  But why would you stop then?  If an independence referendum was carried by a narrow majority, why wouldn't the "losing" side seek to have another one to overturn the decision.  What are the political reasons that they wouldn't?  What are the political reasons anyone would deny that to them?  

 

I'm not challenging your opinion about any of this.  I'm asking deeper questions about who gets to decide when the people are permitted to vote on these things, when that can happen, and who gets excluded from that political decision-making process.  Those are pretty fundamental questions in any society, especially one that claims to be a democracy.

So, say Scotland votes in a referendum to leave the UK say 55% against 45% to leave, but five years down the line, the Scottish economy is worse, and people are worse off, than they are perceived to be today.

Can we then ask for another referendum to rejoin the UK?

 

Might end up being like the hokey, cokey.

In, out, in, out every Ten years.

[Lord Montpelier]

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

All under one banner 

with another banner ! 

All Under Two Banners

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Reportedly 1200 at this all under one banner march yesterday, that seemed to crossover with the Palestinian conflict for some reason. Including by the looks of it an elderly Jambo taking his annual exercise. 

 

Independence, its happening folks !!

Looks like “ all under 3 barrels” 

[Konrad von Carstein]

21 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Does that not demonstrate that the current direction of travel with the SNP is badly wrong? 

 

Swinney has 2 years to stem the tide. I think it can be done. Around 50% of our country want Indpendence and want something to rally behind, that gives that block vote that the SNP have enjoyed up to now. Its just about breaking through voter apathy and refocusing on Independence and the route to get there. Its why the SNP are voted for in droves. People want Independence. 

 

On Alba, your views are known. But the current circumstances that allowed a Nationalist First Minister to be brought down were brought about by failing to secure a Nationalist supermajority in the Parliament. Had it been SNP1 ALBA2 in 2021, we'd have seen 20 odd Alba MSPs elected and a renewed focus on delivering Independence and strong opposition from Salmond to push the SNP back to delivering on core issues instead of divisive fringe issues like the GRA or the various green vanity projects. 

 

The greens actions in bringing down Humza were purely petulant and actually lend reason to why he was correct to bin them from Government, it was emotion, they were angry and that guided their position which is bad. The simple fact is that the Tories think they're lunatics, and Labour would sooner work with the Lib dems/ Tories. A continuation of Humza and his strong position on Gaza whilst being able to push their own green in a less formal arrangement might have worked, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the SNP called "Tartan Tories" under Swinney? He's absolutely further to the right than Humza and with Forbes agreeing to step back, it might be in exchange for a pivot to more central of the road policies which aren't really in keeping with the heavy lurch to the left under Sturgeon/ BHA.

 

20 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I think its getting closer. Rome wasn't built in a day, and its certainly helped having Hanvey, MacAskill and Regan as elected reps able to showcase that they are sane, and able to push common sense policies which everyone can get behind. Salmond also is ever the statesman and I think presents extremely well. 

 

Because of how the Scottish Parliament is set up, its fine margins to deliver a majority - its specifically designed not to, which makes list/regional votes so pivotal. 

 

On the greens, no idea. On one hand I do think some folk have woken up to SNP1&2 being a bad strategy when so dominant in the Constituencies, but I assume those votes have came from those on the left of the party, which I don't believe could be flipped to Alba. I think the SNP voter type most likely to lend their 2nd votes to Alba would be the type to vote Kate Forbes for leader. Maybe a bit older, more central politically and sick of inaction on Independence! 

 

20 hours ago, OTT said:

 

The issue you have is that you need "star power" to do that. ISP have exisisted for years and are a complete waste of energy. If not Salmond then who?

 

On the last part, voters will get the chance to vote them out at the next general election. I think all 3 have shown great principles, rather than stick with a party and leadership they don't believe in. The SNP is litered with nodding dogs which is why the last few years have been so bruising for them. Sturgeon wanted the GRA - bullied everyone who disagreed, likewise with the HMPA and deposit return scheme. Any dissent was ridiculed instead of debated. The SNP are not in a healthy state, and thats because the leadership has been terrible. Alba also aren't the SNP, there are going to be areas of disagreement. That isn't attacking, thats just simply the reality of being in a different party. 

 

Personally, I'd rather our Nationalist Government focused on delivering in core issues like housing, health & the economy, whilst also continuing to build the case for Independence. Salmond, love him or hate him, developed the blueprint for that - govern competently and the votes will follow. Niche issues like the GRA are electoral suicide. 

 

17 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I think what we're about to see is how dogmatic the SNP vote is. Like, is Independence such a driving factor for the vote that it will remain solid regardless of performance? See, as an Independence supporter myself, I'd rather stay home than vote Unionist (or Devolutionist as the SNP seem to be morphing into). 

 

Agree - by allowing themselves to get dragged into all the divisive side project stuff and ignoring core issues like: Ferries, Dualling the A9, Education, Health and the Economy, they've pissed the public off and broken trust. Yes, they've delivered in other areas and had some success, but you cannot tell me a ****ing Baby box - which lets face it, is basically a corporate giftbox with baby food in it, is a viable trade off for failing to deliver of a governmental pledge to dual a crucial part of the Highlands infrastructure or failing to deliver working ferries for Islanders. 

 

I might be sounding like JKB resident Alex Salmond fan boy, but when you compare and contrast his time in office with... whatever you want to call this and then have people trashing him, its ****ing offensive. 

 

On your bit in bold - Thats exactly what Robin McAlpine said, essentially that whoever leads the SNP into the general election is going to be on a hiding to nothing and take a massive hit to their career because who wants it on their record that 17 years of SNP electoral dominance fell apart on their watch? In difference circumstances I would be annoyed at Kate Forbes for shirking responsibility here, but the reality is that she'd be dealing with non-compliant colleagues that would fight her, brief against her and just generally be harder work than the opposition AND THEN have to deal with the inevitable collapse in the next general election. Its too much work to put on one persons shoulders. Better to be the saviour offering change at the next opportunity just after 2026 when the SNP need to reset in opposition. Although should that happen, the careerists need to be wiped out. 

 

Nicola Sturgeons role in all this cannot be ignored. She took the SNP from a position of massive, unprecedented strength to leaving them utterly rudderless. Make no mistake, the landslide victory in 2015 wasn't down to Nicola Sturgeon, it was down to the Referendum and the awakening of a political conciousness regarding Independence. She then cynically used that in the following years - carrot and little else. The losses in 2017 were a flavour of what happens when the SNP stop talking about Independence and I think next year, or whenever Sunak calls for the General Election, we'll see a repeat of that. 

 

16 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, the literal definition of a colony is "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country", Lisa Nandy has previously talked about the UK (England) taking after the tactics of the Spanish in response to the Catalonian Independence movement - to be clear that means state sponsored violence. Whilst I do agree that the suggestion we're a colony is a bit tactless, I do think there is merit to the argument in a technical and legal sense. Its one of those, well, if we're not then show us how we can leave the UK? - Answer, through a Section 30 referendum. Response, Give us one. Answer, No. 

 

If we are being provided with no mechanism to leave the UK despite  the cross-party Smith Commission agreeing that:

 

"nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."

 

We cannot "choose" as the right to choose is being withheld. 

 

We've voted for a party that clearly states it wants a referendum in a free and fair election and then been denied that. 

 

At a certain point, it becomes necessary to start asking difficult questions around why exactly our democracy is being ignored - and I think that includes asking provocative questions like that. 

 

I would love a journalist to put the question to Kier Starmer or Rishi Sunak and watch them squirm because its an uncomfortable topic as the reality is that the British government are ignoring a democratic mandate because they are scared of the outcome. 

 

16 hours ago, OTT said:

 

It doesn't get away from the actual definition though - "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country". 

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope we're a long way away from having to make those kinds of arguments. I think they're deeply unhelpful. 

 

I think the SNP needs to start testing how the Scottish government can find a workaround to deliver a meaningful vote. Be that, a referendum on the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 or otherwise. Pick fights that can be won. 

 

Yes these matters are reserved, but democracy is also not static. Our needs are changing and it will be 30 years in a few years since it was introduced. Is it still fit for purpose? Even Gordon Brown in his panic pitch of Federalism seems to take account that the status quo isn't meeting the needs of our country - otherwise why pitch it?

Excellent posts, enjoyed reading them.

[OTT]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Have you got a source for the graph?  The visuals are saying something to me, but I'd rather see the numbers behind them.

 

https://www.ukonward.com/data/vote-in-future-referendum/

 

I believe thats a Unionist site, which makes me laugh a bit! - Arguing for Scottish independence using their data!  

 

One of the interesting things about that data is that Yes has made strides in every category - Yes, the 65+ result is still terrible, but its also up 2%. It would be interesting to see what a Yes Scotland campaign centred around bringing more pensioners round to the idea of Independence would look like. 

 

Scotland has an aging population, so the net result in these opinion polls because they are weighted to better reflect the demographics in Scotland is that a meaty chunk of the 1000 people polled will be those over 65% which then impacts the result. Something I'm really keen to see an actual breakdown of the weighting of a poll so I can then filter out the 65+ as that that would be quite illustrative of how strong support for Independence is for wider society (outwith the Pensioners). 

 

I think the pensioner vote is really the final frontier on breaking the polling numbers to consistent yes majorities. 29% currently is dire, and it doesn't even need to be won, getting that up to 40-50% would likely be enough to flip the numbers into the Yes Camps favour. 

[redjambo]

2 hours ago, Spellczech said:

People on here are pretty bad for picking one sentence from a post and ignoring all the context around it...You've even quoted the first sentence about 10 years but decided to highlight the next sentence and write an entire post centred on it...

 

Thanks Spellczech. That's really kind of you.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Thanks Spellczech. That's really kind of you.

 

[Spellczech]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Thanks Spellczech. That's really kind of you.

Haha! Way to make the point better than i did!