Zern
-
Posts
598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Zern
-
-
7 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:
I am making the mistake of assuming that the electorate want it in the first place, for example elections fought on a purely independence mandate.
Personally in that case, I see no need for a referendum, but it might keep some people happy.
You certainly are mistaken about a lot of things. Independence being one of them.
The Scottish government, Greens and SNP, are attempting to do this peacefully and democratically and that is why the referendum is important prior to independence. We choose it. Not impose it.
If the UK government persists in denying the vote, there is whole slew of protest and politics before we arrive at any form of UDI.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:
What are your qualifications on deciding who can support who? What relationship do you have with the UN?
To answer your question about who would support us? Read this.
Scotland is recognised as a country by the UN.
The ruk has lost a lot of its weight with leaving the EU.
Europe is in favour of Scotland rejoining the EU.
We have Europes backing, that is enough.
Referendum can come after we declare we are Independent. It is the only way it can be done. Under UN rules and supervision.
What would be the point? Have a referendum on independence post-independence? What if we lose?
0 -
16 hours ago, Grant228 said:
Again though, how severe the omicron variant effects people, is also just, if not more relevant and it's something that Parp seems to keep deliberately missing out. And let's be honest here, it's because the more data that comes out with regards to it points it out as being a strain that simply isn't as big a problem as Sturgeon, and the snp have painted out.
It's wild how you seem to know how much more transmissable it is, but not much less severe it is.
The word "if" is doing allot of heavy lifting in your hypothesis. Is it four times as transmissable?
My point from my original post was that I beleive the the measures are far too harsh considering the data that's been coming out of South Africa and various other countries that have been dealing with Omicron.
You're the one who keeps insisting that it is not a problem yet you have absolutely no idea of the mortality rate for this variant. What data we do have indicates that it is several times more infectious and yet retains the ability to kill a significant proportion of people infected.
To put that into some perspective. If the omicron variant was half as deadly, yet 4 times more liable to spread it would be able to overwhelm our health services simply due to numbers being infected and hospitalised.
This also has knock-on affects with staff isolating due to infection.
The data we have is partial so being cautious is the right thing to do.
I am also very aware the UK government is ideologically opposed to restrictions; that they celebrated "freedom day" and rebelled against what little measures were proposed recently and it only passed due to the Labour Party's support.
This is the same Tory administration that, when this plague began spreading, were talking about herd immunity and keeping everything open.
Since there was no vaccine at the time, that basically amounted to survivor's immunity.
That was their plan.
Let everyone get infected.
I do not trust anyone who thinks Johnson and cabal of braying idiots are worthy of praise. They ignored the science and pursued their ideology.
Just as they ignored the economics and pursued their brexit ideology.
6 -
21 minutes ago, Grant228 said:
Because you have no point. You were very keen to point out how more transmissable this variant is, but for whatever reason you totally missed out how much more mild it is.
Glad you've agreed it was odd.
The measures are designed to decrease the transmission, so that is why it is relevant.
Mild?
Is it non-fatal yet?
The fact is; increases in the number of cases leads to increased numbers of hospitalisation and deaths.
Are you really in the position of declaring it nothing of concern whilst the health service -which has no respite- has to deal with the fallout.
0 -
1 minute ago, Detournement said:
The SNP don't want full fiscal autonomy.
They want to piggyback on GBP.
Oh FFS
Any plan for independence requires using the currency that we currently use.
Whether we transition to the Euro or some other currency is largely irrelevant as they all begin with using the GBP.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Detournement said:
How in the world do you think Sturgeon or the SNP are going to implement UBI?
Sturgeon and Murrell must wake up every morning and give thanks that the population of Scotland has so many people actively seeking magic beans.
Through independence, full fiscal autonomy that allows areas of welfare and spending to be managed.
Just as the UK government is able to slash welfare spending and cut NHS spending, our state could do it differently.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Grant228 said:
My worry is the SNP are also, quite aware of that. It doesn't bode for a government that does well by it's electorate because it knows it will get elected purely because they're not Conservative, it's what happened to Labour and we've all seen what they've become in Scotland.
The SNP have had continuous high support since 2014, I don't feel we're any closer to a second referendum.
They passed the referendum act in 2020 and ran for election in 2021 with one of their manifesto pledges being to hold one during the lifetime of this parliament. By making a pact with the Greens and separating the section 30 powers from the referendum itself they are planning on holding a referendum it in 2023. On that front they appear to have been consistently active in pushing forward with every legal avenue.
Without a UK Government that recognises the legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament to represent its electors, then we are at something of an impasse. The section 30 is unlikely to be granted as before, and it is only if we are able to actually vote in a referendum and win would that be likely to change.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:
There are several things from the SNP Govt that I don't particularly agree with. However, on the other hand I think it would be hard, if not impossible, to find any political party where you agree with everything they said and did. I'm not saying that makes it right, but I just think in supporting a party you sometimes have to take the rough with the smooth as long as they are going in a general direction you like.
I think that is my and many others position with regards to SNP, they're ok, competent, not unlikelable, but they get the vote because they MOST represent what i want in general. What they lack is the power to implement a social democratic policy to any great extent as the reserved matters deny them full access to the economic levers that needed to shake up the system further.
The Greens also.
The 3 others; pass. They offer nothing.
One of the key moments during the debates this year was around UBI, and the responses from Labour and Lib Dems was that they would support this, but only if they could get their colleagues outwith Scotland to agree.
0 -
22 minutes ago, Grant228 said:
Because I think the measures are simply too heavy handed and excessive.
If the variant is so severe we need to be putting restrictions on then I don't get why we need to wait four? Days for the restrictions to be imposed either.
Because people complain more if restrictions come in without notice?
The timing also appears to be trying to allow some semblance of a normal Christmas i guess.
As someone else pointed out above, we're not the only country taking action as the Omicron variant becomes dominant. Other countries are putting measures in place, some more restrictive, whilst the UK Gov is pretending that they need to do very little Something of a pattern for them during this covid crisis.
0 -
3 hours ago, Grant228 said:
Because its another policy/decision that I simply don't agree with.
Why?
I don't understand why you disagree with measures designed to restrain the spread of infection. The rates have been rising. No response would be reckless.
0 -
5 hours ago, Grant228 said:
Like not chucking us into a lockdown? She's been made to look ridiculous by Boris Johnson.
Greetings visitor from a obviously alternate universe.
0 -
2 hours ago, BFTD said:
I'd have thought you'd still have a Tory party tied to Westminster who'd be campaigning to rejoin the glorious union. If you thought 'SNP Bad' was funny, 'Westminister would never let this happen' would bring the house down.
f**k knows what Labour would do. Total paralysis as they struggled to work out why they exist, probably.
Our very own version of the DUP.
Pining for the Union.
As for what Labour and the Lib Dems do? f**k knows. Sir Kier Starmer and Sir Ed Davey are establishment to the core. Their parties offer only token dissension and i sincerely doubt they would have any real place in a post-independent political landscape when their is ample opportunity for an alternative to gain power under the MMP system.
Nicola and the SNP as arch-unionists does tickle me though. Saying they have no interest in independence.
Did you not read your Conservative leaflets?
1 -
3 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:
If you think there's going to be a referendum in 2023 then you're in for a shock.
It won't be that shocking it is almost identical to the previous referendum.
Very familiar ground.
We get to watch this unfold.
0 -
20 hours ago, Kenneth840 said:
Do other countries use a local council election franchise to decide on national issues? i dont think so. I am sure that other countries around the world require citisenship to vote in general elections and referendums. Does that make them blood and soil nationalists too. In most countrys you need to be a citizen to vote on national affairs.
The british establishment need nicola and she needs the british establishment permission for her next job. she has no interest in independence, nicola is safe for the union. The same way that boris is good for Scottish independence nicola is for the union. If nicola wanted independence she would have declared it in 2015 after she got nearly every Snp mp elected to Westminster.
The referendum that is planned for 2023 will not take place. nicola will be refused permission of section 30 and the Scottish government will appeal to the Scottish courts which will reject the appeal claiming UK law superior. We have already saw this with the Keatings case. Domestic law will overule.
But if we were to make all future elections a plebiscite, if campaigned on a purely independence ticket, then there would be no doubt that Scotland wants her Independence and nothing could stop it, International law trumps domestic law.
The SNP government has increased the franchise further and don't appear to have suffered any ill-effects. What constitutes a Scottish citizen includes EU nationals and people resident here. I like that inclusivity and it stands in contrast to the narrower view of what constitutes a UK citizen when it came to the Brexit vote. You've not made clear what would be the advantage in restricting voting rights for this one issue.
The British establishment and Nicola. That appears to be at complete odds with how the establishment actually functions with regard to the SNP and other non-establishment political parties.
The referendum that is planned for 2023 will take place. I'm not sure why you consider this to be in doubt when the Scottish Government has already put in the legislation necessary for this to occur. This is the third time you've mentioned the "Keatings case". Would you like to explain this a bit more, with some references? You obviously consider it to be important.
All elections are plebiscites. Sort of. It's not direct. We vote in parties who have positions on this particular issue the Yes and No, without any middle ground. What is planned for is there to be the question posed directly and Scotland returned a majority in favour of that at the recent election. Westminster like to claim that they are superior and what not, what they often fail to realise is the legal standings. Scottish voting rights are entirely devolved and with the remit of the Scottish Parliament. The referendum act sets out the structure and it's all nice and legal. In both Scotland and the UK.
0 -
Conservatives lose the safe seat, and not by an insignificant amount.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:
Oh god no, anything but that.
Philately might work. 1929 Universal Postal Union £1 stamp is a cracker to start off with. No, I don't have one.
Happy to help
Philately will get you nowhere.
3 -
Aye, who can forget the glorious battles that took place in the fields of Ghana and Togo.
1 -
Gerry Adam's evil past? Look forward to seeing you unpacking that.
As for human rights legislation, Raab's got that covered.
37 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:She was invited over by the County Grand Lodge of the East for their 50th anniversary, and graciously accepted the invitation. She's not a member of the Orange Order but is certainly cut from the same cloth as us.
What's divisive or not is subjective. Orange parades may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the tradition has importance, depth and meaning for those who take part as well as the many onlookers and supporters.
To answer your questions, if Muslims wanted a march through Manchester to commemorate Ottoman victories then it would be allowed and be protected by law. You actually do get Islamic parades over here sometimes. Parades/protests/demonstrations take place for all sorts of things in a free society. Just not liking what a parade stands for isn't a good reason to have it banned, nor is any violence which may arise from either supporters or opponents. The police should deal with these people.
Arlene's attendance may have been interpreted as provocative by some, but to be honest YB.. if people can't handle her attending an event with historical, cultural and traditional significance for her without getting all offended then it's hard to see how they get through life in the first place. Even if it was provocative (which it wasn't) then what's the big deal? Look at this amount of provocation in society, on the telly.. on this message board. It's part of life.
Gerry Adams would be free to attend a Republican march in Kelty if he wanted IMO. It's hardly an appropriate analogy given his evil past, but he's a free man and he'd have every right to go to an event that he cares about.
The stipulations you speak of are simply unfair and against human rights legislation. Not being funny, but it's not for you to decide what's acceptable for those who want to hold a parade. It's up to the organisers.
Sounds like a cult.
0 -
Screenshot in profile, too hard to read.
It's like they've had memes described to them yet didn't quite understand the essence
or haven't ever seen a cover of Private Eye
0 -
A lesbian? In Scottish politics!?
Not sure that's quite as off the scale a scandal as it used to be.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said:
It'll be the classic Sturgeon is a lesbian and has a lesbian partner, as if that should be the business of absolutely anybody except to creepy conservative internet incels.
Is that it? That's what all this coyness has been about?
How thoroughly non-eventful.
I prefer the space lizards. In Icke's narrative Nicola is humanity's last hope against the mega-elite.
0 -
For all you David Icke fans here is what he is saying about Nicola:
"The conspiracy theorist David Icke has claimed Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon “lacks the brainpower” to understand the coronavirus pandemic is part of a megalomaniacal global elite’s secret plan for world domination."
0 -
An anonymous source, not Google, as recommended by some rando bloke on the internet.
David Ike would be more credible.
Space lizards may be barmy, but at least he is not unprepared to talk about it.
0 -
16 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:
I believe it to be the truth, but I'm not about to take any risks.
I heard it from more than one person who is very much in the know.
You can find information on the rumour via google though.
And I thank you for keeping it respectful
Google is your source?
Okay then, searches for Nicola Sturgeon Rumours
Top result:
Nicola Sturgeon said rumours she might soon be looking to leave frontline politics were "wishful thinking" by her opponents. And she said she would continue to govern as first minister for the full term of the Scottish Parliament.
whit a revelation.
0
When will indyref2 happen?
in The Politics Forum
Posted
We do not need a section 30 to poll the electorate. The referendum act of 2020 sets out the framework for holding advisory referendums in Scotland and it is under that legislation we proceed.
UDI is not a goal. The goal is to to have a referendum.
We look to the Scottish government to legislate competently. Which they are doing and setting a timescale for 2023. Every piece of political protest that occurs will be in pursuit of that referendum.
Not UDI.