How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

[pablo]

 

If there ever is another referendum, which let's face it, isn't exactly guaranteed, I do sometimes wonder how Scotland will cope with the aftermath in terms of healing the division. Is it even possible?

[Roxy Hearts]

7 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

If there ever is another referendum, which let's face it, isn't exactly guaranteed, I do sometimes wonder how Scotland will cope with the aftermath in terms of healing the division. Is it even possible?

Most intelligent folk would just get on with it but the nastier elements of the Unionists will just have to mature. 

 

Scotland has always had some sort of division and always will. Hear it everyday at work. Most countries have their idiots either side of any argument. 

[pablo]

4 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Most intelligent folk would just get on with it but the nastier elements of the Unionists will just have to mature. 

 

Scotland has always had some sort of division and always will. Hear it everyday at work. Most countries have their idiots either side of any argument. 

 

And if it's a vote for the Union again?

[Roxy Hearts]

15 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

And if it's a vote for the Union again?

Just need to get on with it. I want independence and can wait but I can see why some want it now due to the better together untruths and dreadful propaganda. I think we can change our lives and outlook for the better if govern we ourselves. More self esteem and a new confidence also we get to choose our own government. 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Roxy Hearts

[Thunderstruck]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

No and no, tbh.  Their primary goal is independence and, to them, it is tantalisingly close, therefore it over-rides any squabble.  There does appear to be a difference of opinion on how to "cross the line" regards independence and it is here that you may see a schism in the future.

 

The SNP also have to show that they are a party capable of impact, both at Holyrood and Westminster.  Labour & Tory have both had the luxury of being able to accommodate fringe "elements" due to the size of their parties within parliament.  The SNP lead a minority Government at Holyrood and although third biggest party at Westminster, want to create the air of a party all pulling together, moving in the same direction.  That's why, IMO, there is little public disagreement over policy.  So on from that, if/when independence happens, you will see a much more diversity of opinion.  Or, if/when independnece fails, you will see the same - a split between moderates who wish to bide their time for indy and those seeking it much more immediately.  Just my opinion though.

 

Are you now taking Craig Murray as a reliable source then?  Good to know for future reference!

 

‘Tantalisingly close’ - I don’t think the key personnel see it that way. The ‘gradualists’ are still in charge and there is no way that they are going to risk another referendum on polling that struggles to get over 50% of what was stated to be ‘clear and unambiguous’ evidence of popular  support. 

 

On your main point, if healthy debate and proper representation of constituents is to be subverted to the “cause”, isn’t that anti-democratic?

 

Shouldn’t policies/plans/ideas be put to the test in open debate by elected members before being enacted? If they had been, failures such as education and State Guardians might have been averted. Debate may well happen in camera but openness is, we were told, the watchword of Sturgeon’s SNP. 

 

As an aside, the SNP were a majority government for 5 years and I can’t say I noticed much of a difference in terms of their ‘Omertà’ during that timeframe. So, I am not sure it is entirely a product of tight voting margins. 

 

As for Craig Murray and his general views on constitutional matters, there is a difference between respecting a point of view and agreeing with it.

 

In the instance quoted, he was explaining why he failed to be selected and we are left to decide whether to believe his account.

 

I see no reason to doubt the word someone who trades on his integrity (a trait that would certainly make him a stand out in a political party).

[Unknown user]

30 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

If there ever is another referendum, which let's face it, isn't exactly guaranteed, I do sometimes wonder how Scotland will cope with the aftermath in terms of healing the division. Is it even possible?

Countries recover from brother killing brother in civil wars, let's not be too dramatic about this!

[Pans Jambo]

35 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

So he claims aye...

Dunno about you but I’m calling shite on that  

[coconut doug]

9 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Scotland has the most educated adult population in Europe, beating Finland, Luxembourg. This isn't the SNP as it is from before their time (25-64 year olds). Do you think we will be claiming the same thing in 10 years after the mess the SNP have made of education? 

 

Scotland has played a major part in the UK and will continue to do so long after nationalism has had its day

 

 

Can you tell us how the SNP have made a mess of Scottish education?

[frankblack]

3 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Right back at you!

Whipping Boys though. Guess the explanation for that will never be seen. Or the crawling back to the UK either.

Your voting No again I get that. I stopped trying to convince you lot months ago. 

After the next vote it wont even matter anymore.

Tick Tock.

 

Seriously, you are acting the daft laddie by trying to compare your personal abuse of both myself and @Phil Dunphy with my words against independence?

 

P.S. I think I'll be long retired and maggot food before you get and lose your second Indy vote, and the former can't happen for a number of decades.

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

So he claims aye...

Dunno about you but I’m calling shite on that  

 

I told you to check my posting history last time you called me up on that.

 

After the White Paper proved to be a work of fiction, and the SNP showed their hypocrisy over referendums after Brexit I changed my mind.  I'm not interested in voting for a party who want Independence at any cost at our expense and do nothing but blame everything on anyone else that they can stick a label on.

[Pans Jambo]

21 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Seriously, you are acting the daft laddie by trying to compare your personal abuse of both myself and @Phil Dunphy with my words against independence?

 

P.S. I think I'll be long retired and maggot food before you get and lose your second Indy vote, and the former can't happen for a number of decades.

What personal abuse flower? Look back at the posts. I think it was YOU that stated I was a “Nationalist” etc. 

Get over yourself Frank. Youre coming across as a right Richard Head!

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

‘Tantalisingly close’ - I don’t think the key personnel see it that way. The ‘gradualists’ are still in charge and there is no way that they are going to risk another referendum on polling that struggles to get over 50% of what was stated to be ‘clear and unambiguous’ evidence of popular  support. 

 

Which proves there is a difference of opinion? One which may lead to a schism? 

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

On your main point, if healthy debate and proper representation of constituents is to be subverted to the “cause”, isn’t that anti-democratic?

 

Proper representation of constituents? You've described every politician ever! 

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Shouldn’t policies/plans/ideas be put to the test in open debate by elected members before being enacted? If they had been, failures such as education and State Guardians might have been averted. Debate may well happen in camera but openness is, we were told, the watchword of Sturgeon’s SNP. 

 

I'm not sure what your point is here. Parliament scrutinised your example of state guardians, and it failed. Wasn't that open debate by elected representatives? 

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

As an aside, the SNP were a majority government for 5 years and I can’t say I noticed much of a difference in terms of their ‘Omertà’ during that timeframe. So, I am not sure it is entirely a product of tight voting margins. 

 

First time in total control with a slim majority, do you think infighting publicly would enthuse an electorate about to be asked to vote on a Referendum for indy? 

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

As for Craig Murray and his general views on constitutional matters, there is a difference between respecting a point of view and agreeing with it.

 

In the instance quoted, he was explaining why he failed to be selected and we are left to decide whether to believe his account.

 

I see no reason to doubt the word someone who trades on his integrity (a trait that would certainly make him a stand out in a political party).

That's fair enough, I was kinda joking on that one. Thanks for your answers. 

[jack D and coke]

3 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

I told you to check my posting history last time you called me up on that.

 

After the White Paper proved to be a work of fiction, and the SNP showed their hypocrisy over referendums after Brexit I changed my mind.  I'm not interested in voting for a party who want Independence at any cost at our expense and do nothing but blame everything on anyone else that they can stick a label on.

Frank you bring up every single negative story or angle, even the ones that were trotted out at the time of the indyref yet you somehow ignored them and voted Yes. Yet you’ve completely flipped and now it’s nothing but doom and gloom for Indy Scotland. 

I don’t particularly care but there is absolutely no danger you voted Yes. 

[Sir Vladimir of Romanov]

7 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Do you two want to get a room or what?

Pans born & bred. Moved a whole mile down the road to Port Seton and I am fairly sure thats in East Lothian.

Most folk who voted No down here drive estate cars and wear beige slacks so no, I dont talk to them!

 

Of course you don't, the help like you need only speak when spoken to. ? 

[frankblack]

34 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Frank you bring up every single negative story or angle, even the ones that were trotted out at the time of the indyref yet you somehow ignored them and voted Yes. Yet you’ve completely flipped and now it’s nothing but doom and gloom for Indy Scotland. 

I don’t particularly care but there is absolutely no danger you voted Yes. 

 

I am a floating voter and hold no party membership or affiliations.  What is so hard to understand about that?

[frankblack]

3 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

What personal abuse flower? Look back at the posts. I think it was YOU that stated I was a “Nationalist” etc. 

Get over yourself Frank. Youre coming across as a right Richard Head!

 

 

You have completely lost the plot.

[Pans Jambo]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

You have completely lost the plot.

Ok love, if you say so. 

[jack D and coke]

48 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I am a floating voter and hold no party membership or affiliations.  What is so hard to understand about that?

Nothing I’m a bit the same. I’ve never been polarised in my views or at least I try hard not to be.

However I find it difficult to believe that you can flip round that much. You said the white paper turned you well that was long before the actual vote, you trot out the bank bailout lies, Scotland would be like Greece, etc etc It’s just really difficult to believe you’ve went from a Yes to an unbelievably staunch No. It just doesn’t add up. 

[JamboX2]

12 hours ago, Boris said:

 

No and no, tbh.  Their primary goal is independence and, to them, it is tantalisingly close, therefore it over-rides any squabble.  There does appear to be a difference of opinion on how to "cross the line" regards independence and it is here that you may see a schism in the future.

 

The SNP also have to show that they are a party capable of impact, both at Holyrood and Westminster.  Labour & Tory have both had the luxury of being able to accommodate fringe "elements" due to the size of their parties within parliament.  The SNP lead a minority Government at Holyrood and although third biggest party at Westminster, want to create the air of a party all pulling together, moving in the same direction.  That's why, IMO, there is little public disagreement over policy.  So on from that, if/when independence happens, you will see a much more diversity of opinion.  Or, if/when independnece fails, you will see the same - a split between moderates who wish to bide their time for indy and those seeking it much more immediately.  Just my opinion though.

 

Are you now taking Craig Murray as a reliable source then?  Good to know for future reference!

 

I think that attitude is in itself worrying. The idea that you should seek to limit debate in a democratic body - of any size - is just odd. The SNP have very little policy making function out with the leaders office. There are no committees or groups like other parties have - Fabians, ERG, Progress, Yellow Book etc - who propose policy positions or papers to seek to influence party debate. It's a very top down hierarchical structure.

 

This may work at keeping the party on page but it will in time be it's downfall as it'll either rip itself apart when they eventually loose power or they loose another referendum.

 

Added to this, the inability to criticise the group - to me - opens a very interesting question about the democratic contract between party, representative and constituency. If the SNP government decided to build a new runway at Edinburgh airport and was forced to demolish half of Ratho to do so and the MSP for that area was inundated with pleas to vote the bill down they'd be in an incredibly tricky position. In fact in the time since they came to power I can't think of a single time one of their representatives has stood against a party or government decision that has affected their constituents negatively. The bold Mhairi Black was very sheepish over plans to reorganize health services in her Paisley seat and referred to raising the matter "privately". To me a representative should be public where possible in their dealings as their first duty is to the constituency not the party they represent. 

 

To me that rule flips that practice to serving the party and representing the party in the constituency. 

 

The ideological debate within the SNP is very stagnant looking in. There never seems to be much of a debate on the direction of the party and that to me isn't healthy and that rule doesn't help. As I've said before if they want independence to win they need to woo Tory Nos and Liberal Nos. They've so far pandered mainly to the Labour vote with success. But that won't win it. Perhaps letting Mike Russell and the Ewings go back to arguing for market forces in the NHS and scaling back the public sector they'd make in roads with business and the centre-right voters they need to win.

 

If the coalition of voters is too focused on the left again they'll loose again. 

Edited October 23, 2018 by JamboX2

[jack D and coke]

22 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

No, That'll be the 70's and 80's I was referring to & oil was NOT going to prop up the Scottish economy in 2014 but would be a large part of it. (It's also the same oil trading at $69 dollars PB just now)

 

& BTW, we have more of it than the whole of Europe put together plus 15 x per head of population more than England on Natural Gas.

 

Its brutal having all these natural resources on your doorstep. Funny how its a bad thing & a cause for these:  in Scotland but a good thing everywhere else on the planet.

 

Scotland, one of the few countries on the planet to discover oil and actually get poorer. Thanks UK 

More bad news for the oil industry here

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/aberdeen-uni-researchers-raise-north-sea-production-forecast-by-4-billion-barrels-in-bullish-new-report/

[Pans Jambo]

39 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

More bad news for the oil industry here

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/aberdeen-uni-researchers-raise-north-sea-production-forecast-by-4-billion-barrels-in-bullish-new-report/

Aye its worthless in Scotland though. Only as part of a UNITED kingdom of equals is it worth anything.

[frankblack]

58 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

More bad news for the oil industry here

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/aberdeen-uni-researchers-raise-north-sea-production-forecast-by-4-billion-barrels-in-bullish-new-report/

 

12 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Aye its worthless in Scotland though. Only as part of a UNITED kingdom of equals is it worth anything.

 

So what exactly do those numbers mean?  Are they magic numbers or are they going to create a significant number of new jobs and tax income for the UK economy?

 

Is the Aberdeen oil industry going to get back to its pre-2014 levels?

 

If you are going to quote figures at least translate them into something meaningful that would benefit the economy - jobs created, tax revenue raised, as otherwise they are just meaningless "magic numbers".

[Pans Jambo]

4 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

So what exactly do those numbers mean?  Are they magic numbers or are they going to create a significant number of new jobs and tax income for the UK economy?

 

Is the Aberdeen oil industry going to get back to its pre-2014 levels?

 

If you are going to quote figures at least translate them into something meaningful that would benefit the economy - jobs created, tax revenue raised, as otherwise they are just meaningless "magic numbers".

It means "your man" Sir ian WID was talking pish all along (much like the rest of you).

[jack D and coke]

10 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

So what exactly do those numbers mean?  Are they magic numbers or are they going to create a significant number of new jobs and tax income for the UK economy?

 

Is the Aberdeen oil industry going to get back to its pre-2014 levels?

 

If you are going to quote figures at least translate them into something meaningful that would benefit the economy - jobs created, tax revenue raised, as otherwise they are just meaningless "magic numbers".

They were the magic numbers that made you (allegedly) vote Yes in 2014 

[frankblack]

12 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

It means "your man" Sir ian WID was talking pish all along (much like the rest of you).

 

8 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

They were the magic numbers that made you (allegedly) vote Yes in 2014 

 

Ok - so to conclude - you haven't got a scooby.  Thanks for confirming.

 

I mean - if you are going to post links to news articles., at least try and understand what their impact is short and long term.

[jack D and coke]

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

Ok - so to conclude - you haven't got a scooby.  Thanks for confirming.

 

I mean - if you are going to post links to news articles., at least try and understand what their impact is short and long term.

Soz Franko I bow to your superior knowledge of these things. Seems you didn’t have a scooby in 2014 either then eh??‍♂️  

Would you like me to explain the bank bailouts again? Seems you’ve had issues getting that one?

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by jack D and coke

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, frankblack said:

 

 

Ok - so to conclude - you haven't got a scooby.  Thanks for confirming.

 

I mean - if you are going to post links to news articles., at least try and understand what their impact is short and long term.

Why are you looking for deep and meaningful answers on a football forum? And who put you in charge of asking them? Strange bloke!

 

Fact is, theres shed loads of resources which can only be a good thing (unless your fanboy of the Theresa may and Boris et-al).

 

Long story short, It's not running out anytime soon (unlike the union).

[jack D and coke]

7 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Why are you looking for deep and meaningful answers on a football forum? And who put you in charge of asking them? Strange bloke!

 

Fact is, theres shed loads of resources which can only be a good thing (unless your fanboy of the Theresa may and Boris et-al).

 

Long story short, It's not running out anytime soon (unlike the union).

Funny eh him and thunderstruck seem to forget they’re just bams on a football forum  Pontificating like they ken and we dinny likesay and demanding answers to the economy that no one can give. 

Obviously 4billion barrels of oil is disastrous I was merely posting it up with a facepalm to illustrate??

[Pans Jambo]

Pre 2014 when oil price was high the loony yoons said it would run out...and it was worthless to an Indy Scotland. Sir Ian Wood et-al said so...

 

Then when the oil price did crash, the same loony yoons took great pleasure (& still do) in saying "I told you so, look what you could have won". Oh how they celebrated when 100,000 jobs in the oil sector were lost (strange lot).

 

Now, Theres probably £2Trillion + worth of oil (& gas) in the water off Scotland so its NOT running out.

 

Now I am no expert of this but I would assume that that amount of resource should keep jobs going in that sector for the foreseeable future and at least some of that £2Tn will be taken by either the UK or (In the event of a future YES vote) the Scottish treasury.

 

Also, its now trading at almost $80 a barrel so its profitable.

 

This has to be a good thing right?

 

Well not if your a yoon apparently!

 

Good for them but not good for us. And that's what the yoons are all about.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

Funny eh him and thunderstruck seem to forget they’re just bams on a football forum  Pontificating like they ken and we dinny likesay and demanding answers to the economy that no one can give. 

Obviously 4billion barrels of oil is disastrous I was merely posting it up with a facepalm to illustrate??

Only a disaster in 5 million folk share it. Its all good when 65 Million share it.

 

Makes perfect sense.

[frankblack]

6 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Funny eh him and thunderstruck seem to forget they’re just bams on a football forum  Pontificating like they ken and we dinny likesay and demanding answers to the economy that no one can give. 

Obviously 4billion barrels of oil is disastrous I was merely posting it up with a facepalm to illustrate??

 

The fact is you can't quantify what affect this will have on the economy and the net result will be for jobs and revenue.  I doubt you can even say what proportion of the oil is in UK waters and will benefit the UK.

 

You guys were the ones pushing this as a winning factor for Independence but you don't even know what that news amounts to, and I am the one that is apparently a "bam" for challenging you on it?

 

[jack D and coke]

8 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

The fact is you can't quantify what affect this will have on the economy and the net result will be for jobs and revenue.  I doubt you can even say what proportion of the oil is in UK waters and will benefit the UK.

 

You guys were the ones pushing this as a winning factor for Independence but you don't even know what that news amounts to, and I am the one that is apparently a "bam" for challenging you on it?

 

You guys???

You were one of “those guys” last time Franko eh  

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/aberdeen-uni-researchers-raise-north-sea-production-forecast-by-4-billion-barrels-in-bullish-new-report/

Id imagine that has absolutely zero benefit to the uk. 

End of the day it wouldn’t matter who mentioned the benefits or potential benefits you wouldn’t believe it anyway.

It’s the only reason “you guys” demand answers from any pro Indy person, so you can attempt to pull it apart and push the doom and gloom angles. 

 

 

[SE16 3LN]

8 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

You guys???

You were one of “those guys” last time Franko eh  

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/aberdeen-uni-researchers-raise-north-sea-production-forecast-by-4-billion-barrels-in-bullish-new-report/

Id imagine that has absolutely zero benefit to the uk. 

End of the day it wouldn’t matter who mentioned the benefits or potential benefits you wouldn’t believe it anyway.

It’s the only reason “you guys” demand answers from any pro Indy person, so you can attempt to pull it apart and push the doom and gloom angles. 

 

 

Two problems. They gave Salmond the information required to claim that NSO would benefit the treasury to the tune of 16 billion by, er, 2018. Not got long to go.

 

Secondly, we're going electric, a strategy fully endorsed by the Scottish govt. In fact they have said Scotland will be a flagship example of renewable energy around the globe and do not see NSO as a corner stone to the Scottish economy.

[jack D and coke]

14 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

Two problems. They gave Salmond the information required to claim that NSO would benefit the treasury to the tune of 16 billion by, er, 2018. Not got long to go.

 

Secondly, we're going electric, a strategy fully endorsed by the Scottish govt. In fact they have said Scotland will be a flagship example of renewable energy around the globe and do not see NSO as a corner stone to the Scottish economy.

Yeah I know and a commendable policy that is. What will happen to the ME states? Is the whole world about to abandon oil? In that case they’re truly snookered. 

Im assuming all the up and coming countries will all be buying electric cars, planes will be electric, shipping tankers etc? Just no point anybody getting oil out the ground anymore? 

 

[SE16 3LN]

55 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Yeah I know and a commendable policy that is. What will happen to the ME states? Is the whole world about to abandon oil? In that case they’re truly snookered. 

Im assuming all the up and coming countries will all be buying electric cars, planes will be electric, shipping tankers etc? Just no point anybody getting oil out the ground anymore? 

 

If they can live with that hypocrisy while claiming to be a world leader in renewables then I wouldn't be taking their views seriously. The ME states are already preparing for this but no doubt will continue to sell oil to anyone who buys it.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

The fact is you can't quantify what affect this will have on the economy and the net result will be for jobs and revenue.  I doubt you can even say what proportion of the oil is in UK waters and will benefit the UK.

 

You guys were the ones pushing this as a winning factor for Independence but you don't even know what that news amounts to, and I am the one that is apparently a "bam" for challenging you on it?

 

Over 40 000 jobs to be filled in the oil industry by 2035. Is that not good? 

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

If they can live with that hypocrisy while claiming to be a world leader in renewables then I wouldn't be taking their views seriously. The ME states are already preparing for this but no doubt will continue to sell oil to anyone who buys it.

Our natural gas will surpass oil soon. Or will we just magic up all this electricity. 

[frankblack]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Over 40 000 jobs to be filled in the oil industry by 2035. Is that not good? 

 

Looking at the BBC article below, there are an awful lot of ifs, buts, and maybes in this report - most notable the reliance on the stable price of oil.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-45962756

 

Then there is always the question of how much money from this would benefit the people as opposed to being filtered off to accounts in the Virgin Islands etc.

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Looking at the BBC article below, there are an awful lot of ifs, buts, and maybes in this report - most notable the reliance on the stable price of oil.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-45962756

 

Then there is always the question of how much money from this would benefit the people as opposed to being filtered off to accounts in the Virgin Islands etc.

Well, that's where independence comes in. New ownership and new rules. 

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Well, that's where independence comes in. New ownership and new rules. 

 

Are they things you can control if Scotland rejoins the EU after Brexit?

[Boris]

5 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Are they things you can control if Scotland rejoins the EU after Brexit?

 

Yes.

[SE16 3LN]

22 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Our natural gas will surpass oil soon. Or will we just magic up all this electricity. 

Another fossil fuel

[frankblack]

7 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Yes.

 

Ok, I'll take your word for it.  I'd welcome a solution as it seems that has been difficult for other countries to deal with in the EU and perhaps globally also - firms transferring profits away by buying from other companies owned by the parent company.

[SE16 3LN]

16 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Are they things you can control if Scotland rejoins the EU after Brexit?

No

[Boris]

9 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

No

?

 

[Thunderstruck]

11 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I think that attitude is in itself worrying. The idea that you should seek to limit debate in a democratic body - of any size - is just odd. The SNP have very little policy making function out with the leaders office. There are no committees or groups like other parties have - Fabians, ERG, Progress, Yellow Book etc - who propose policy positions or papers to seek to influence party debate. It's a very top down hierarchical structure.

 

This may work at keeping the party on page but it will in time be it's downfall as it'll either rip itself apart when they eventually loose power or they loose another referendum.

 

Added to this, the inability to criticise the group - to me - opens a very interesting question about the democratic contract between party, representative and constituency. If the SNP government decided to build a new runway at Edinburgh airport and was forced to demolish half of Ratho to do so and the MSP for that area was inundated with pleas to vote the bill down they'd be in an incredibly tricky position. In fact in the time since they came to power I can't think of a single time one of their representatives has stood against a party or government decision that has affected their constituents negatively. The bold Mhairi Black was very sheepish over plans to reorganize health services in her Paisley seat and referred to raising the matter "privately". To me a representative should be public where possible in their dealings as their first duty is to the constituency not the party they represent. 

 

To me that rule flips that practice to serving the party and representing the party in the constituency. 

 

The ideological debate within the SNP is very stagnant looking in. There never seems to be much of a debate on the direction of the party and that to me isn't healthy and that rule doesn't help. As I've said before if they want independence to win they need to woo Tory Nos and Liberal Nos. They've so far pandered mainly to the Labour vote with success. But that won't win it. Perhaps letting Mike Russell and the Ewings go back to arguing for market forces in the NHS and scaling back the public sector they'd make in roads with business and the centre-right voters they need to win.

 

If the coalition of voters is too focused on the left again they'll loose again. 

 

Thanks, your well-argued points save me making a further response. 

[Thunderstruck]

53 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Are they things you can control if Scotland rejoins the EU after Brexit?

 

It seems that EU-wide control and unification of such matters are on the agenda. This link is about Macron’s agenda but it does seem to chime with the views of others. 

 

I’m sure a unified Corporation Tax across the EU will go down well in Ireland (and Scotland for those who see reducing CT as a means to attract businesses).  

 

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2017/0926/907710-emmanuel-macron/

[Boris]

34 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

It seems that EU-wide control and unification of such matters are on the agenda. This link is about Macron’s agenda but it does seem to chime with the views of others. 

 

I’m sure a unified Corporation Tax across the EU will go down well in Ireland (and Scotland for those who see reducing CT as a means to attract businesses).  

 

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2017/0926/907710-emmanuel-macron/

 

I can't see it happening tbh, unless just within the Eurozone.

[Boris]

14 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I think that attitude is in itself worrying. The idea that you should seek to limit debate in a democratic body - of any size - is just odd. The SNP have very little policy making function out with the leaders office. There are no committees or groups like other parties have - Fabians, ERG, Progress, Yellow Book etc - who propose policy positions or papers to seek to influence party debate. It's a very top down hierarchical structure.

 

This may work at keeping the party on page but it will in time be it's downfall as it'll either rip itself apart when they eventually loose power or they loose another referendum.

 

So Kinnock was wrong to demonise Militant?  You support the current moves within local Labour groups to deselect MP's? 

 

I don't know enough about the SNP to know what pressure groups/lobbyists they have, although taking the ERG as an example, they don't really do their party any favours, do they?

 

But you do admit that there is a difference of opinion within the SNP, and as I've said previously, they are keeping it together to attempt to win independnece, which you seem to agree with.

 

14 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Added to this, the inability to criticise the group - to me - opens a very interesting question about the democratic contract between party, representative and constituency. If the SNP government decided to build a new runway at Edinburgh airport and was forced to demolish half of Ratho to do so and the MSP for that area was inundated with pleas to vote the bill down they'd be in an incredibly tricky position. In fact in the time since they came to power I can't think of a single time one of their representatives has stood against a party or government decision that has affected their constituents negatively. The bold Mhairi Black was very sheepish over plans to reorganize health services in her Paisley seat and referred to raising the matter "privately". To me a representative should be public where possible in their dealings as their first duty is to the constituency not the party they represent. 

 

To me that rule flips that practice to serving the party and representing the party in the constituency. 

 

See pretty much any sitting MP at the moment.  Every constituency (council) in Scotland voted to remain in the EU.  Are these Tory MP's not worthy of your scorn by voting with the Government?

 

I guess my point is people in glass houses etc etc.  

 

14 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The ideological debate within the SNP is very stagnant looking in. There never seems to be much of a debate on the direction of the party and that to me isn't healthy and that rule doesn't help. As I've said before if they want independence to win they need to woo Tory Nos and Liberal Nos. They've so far pandered mainly to the Labour vote with success. But that won't win it. Perhaps letting Mike Russell and the Ewings go back to arguing for market forces in the NHS and scaling back the public sector they'd make in roads with business and the centre-right voters they need to win.

 

If the coalition of voters is too focused on the left again they'll loose again. 

 

Well, surely that's the SNP's look out?  

 

The SNP are being criticised because they are, outwardly at least, unified?  And folk criticise this because...why exactly?

 

Democracy?  Hardly, given the experience of all political parties previously.

 

To me it smacks of sour grapes.  Their, the SNP's, "seige mentality" if you like means that the opposition parties find it hard to land a blow, meanwhile their own parties are riven with internal strife and look like they couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery!  If there was public dissent, would all you critics be saying "actually, that's good, look democracy in action, I like them and I'll vote for them!"  Of course not.  Critics would jump on the division and describe them as falling apart and incapable.

 

How political parties organise their policy adoption is up to them.  What's important is whether the electorate want to vote for those policies.  Parliament then votes on what gets enacted.

[Harry Potter]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, due to the fact i voted no 1st time, 

And that Scotland is stronger in the union.

Not in to lets have a wee shot then it all goes pear shaped, im out.