Zern
-
Posts
598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Zern
-
-
17 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:
For such a salacious story, it's a bit surprising that no other news outlet has gobbled it up. Maybe they think the public won't swallow it?
Perhaps they think it's too salty, and people would find it distasteful.
1 -
20 minutes ago, G51 said:
They also managed to lose it to a campaign fronted by Alistair Darling, which was exceptional in a very different way.
Time will tell, and it's impossible to know what it'll look like whenever this GE is actually held. But if you were pricing it up today, I don't think you'd have the SNP odds-on to win that majority of votes.
Another first for the SNP though, coming second in their own referendum.
Indeed time will tell. We are having the debate though and discussion and it does seem that unionist's may struggle to muster any arguments at all. Unionism and Brexit are inseparable. The EU is strong attractor, it offers stability and increased trade and international agreements and recognition with a song contest on top.
0 -
1 minute ago, G51 said:
I can think of one fairly notable exception to that.
Regardless, it's going to be very difficult.
They managed to get the referendum. That was exceptional.
It is. But we're beginning from higher support base from last time, and there is time to give each paper on the issues around this their due. A well done campaign should increase that. It's been a good start.
Unionist support is polling much lower than the result from last time. It suggests that there is less enthusiasm on that side. Lack of a coherent campaign from the unionists is unlikely to help.
0 -
11 minutes ago, G51 said:
It would have to be a record-breaking electoral performance.
SNP have set records before. Every hurdle set has been met and exceeded so far.
0 -
13 hours ago, Left Back said:
I assume you’ve read the criteria for winning that Sturgeon has proposed?
That has been clarified and corrected. I was mistaken. Majority of votes. It is very possible.
0 -
48 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:
The ECHR, The ICC.
This subservience to courts stuff is totally bonkers.
The very very very good reason that there should be an international body or court in place to protect rights and liberties not beholden to the state alone, is that often the body impinging upon these rights and liberties is the state.
Very silly stuff from @strichener
The also EU cannot extinguish member states, the UK can dismiss the parliament of Scotland on a bloody whim.
2 -
54 minutes ago, strichener said:
The only equivalence is that a smaller member is always going to be beholden to the wishes of larger members.
Which international courts are we subservient to?
ICJ, ICC, ECHR to name a few.
0 -
I like the fact that the separatists are all under one banner and the unionists are divided on how to deal with this. SC ruling of legal would only deepen that divide.
Boycott or participate? Do they have numbers to do both? heh. Not likely.
Well played First Minister, well played.
0 -
48 minutes ago, strichener said:
If we were in the EU, we couldn't hold a binding referendum on leaving the CAP or CFP.
And whilst you mention courts, our judiciary would be subservient to the EU courts.
We absolutely could hold a binding referendum on whether to continue to uphold the CAP of CFP or any other obligation of membership, by having a vote on membership.
All our courts are subservient to international courts, what's your point?
You tried to make the UK and EU equivalent; they are not. You are ignoring the fact that EU membership is heavily codified and UK membership entry/exit conditions are extremely vague. The nearest we have is the GFA.
0 -
The SNP can totally make it a single issue vote. Nothing stopping them from doing this, especially if they flag it up in plenty of time beforehand.
The GE, because of the quirks of FPTP, is an easier win for them. I expect some support from the Greens and Alba too. Lending votes to the cause.
Will the unionists unite?
Will they 'eck.
0 -
25 minutes ago, strichener said:
We would be no more a nation of equals in the EU than we are in the UK.
Untrue. We wouldn't have to go to court to decide the legality of a referendum for one thing.
6 -
How does one of us lowly peasants remove a Lord or Baroness from the 2nd house? How do we hold those to account?
0 -
1 hour ago, G51 said:
The EU is almost completely unaccountable. It's a world superpower and it's starting to act like one. From it's shameful behaviour in the Mediterranean, to it's blackmail of Syriza due to the exposure of German banks to Greek debts, it throws it's weight around and doesn't particularly care who it hurts by doing so.
Literally the only good thing about the EU is the free movement of people. But we don't have to be in the EU to grant such a boon.
One mans backwards racist tips are another mans underdeveloped communities who have been shit on from enormous heights by the wealthy.
That's the caricature. The EU functions, it has elected parts and other parts are appointed by their respective countries governments. Compared to other trading blocs it has the highest standards and most benefits. The UK, by comparison, offers nothing.
1 -
9 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:
If the No side wanted respecting the result to mean everyone has to stfu for 30 years or whatever they should have written these things down in a prospectus before the vote. As it is everything other than not leaving the UK and becoming independent is respecting the result.
If they wanted it to mean more than that they should have written it down.
I respect the last referendum so much that i want another one.
0 -
1 minute ago, G51 said:
Greater power to achieve what?
I would far rather devolve power to local regions and affect real change in communities than have a very tiny influence in the shaping of global/continental policy.
The EU will always do what is right for France and Germany. It doesn't give a f*ck about anyone else.
Oh do shut up. The EU is not he caricature that it is portrayed as, nor as monolithic. We can work with it, because it works through negotiation and recognition.
It functions. It grants us benefits. It grants us protections. We gain more than we lose.
5 -
16 minutes ago, G51 said:
I can understand a lot of reasons for voting Yes/No, but voting for independence so that you can cede a chunk of that sovereignty to the EU just makes no sense to me at all. Proper galaxy brain shit.
It's because you think of sovereignty all wrong. We pool it to gain greater power, as part of the EU we gain much more than we could under a Brexit-type of secession that seeks isolation.
1 -
It's official, Labour have no policies:
0 -
1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:
I'd be perfectly happy if the UK and Scottish government came to some kind of agreement that put limits on the timescales of referenda as long as the legal power to hold binding referenda came with it. Once every 25 years and no need for a section 30, for example. That would have been a pretty reasonable compromise in 2014. But it didn't happen, so everything's just perpetually in limbo.
We are in a similar position as we were pre 2014, there is the option for negotiation but it is Westminster that is currently failing to live up to that this time around. The court, i hope, will take a full view and render a decision that a referendum would be legal, but not binding. It would then go ahead.
0 -
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
It is our easiest route into the EU. Far easier than convincing the Brexity bits of the UK to think again.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:
Aye but there's blood thirsty great white sharks circling the boat and you've got a gash on your leg whereas Sir Keir is on the horizon furiously rowing towards you.
Oh dear god.
What the hunky EU lifeguard swimming to our rescue with his antishark spray.
2 -
7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:
I accept that there are people who don’t want Scottish Independence, it is a legitimate position though one that I vehemently disagree with.
However to deny Scotland the right to vote again on Independence or argue that a Westminster Tory government, that has very limited support in Scotland, should have the final say is not a legitimate or defensible position.
It also appears to imply that the Westminster can interfere in a vote held in Scotland, something that is supposed to be devolved.
0 -
De facto referendum, start quaking when the SNP withdraw their MPs from Westminster and pass a motion for UDI.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:
Good luck with that!
Plan 1 is ask (we know the answer is no)
Plan 2 is courts (we don't know)
Plan 3 is GE (that's not a plan)
It is a plan though. With several steps. At the last they will finally become the thing they've been called all these years; a one issue party.
Just like how the Tories only stand for 1 thing in Scotland, the NO TO INDYREF2 party.
0 -
9 minutes ago, Left Back said:
the route to a border poll is vague and in theory could be whatever the secretary of state decides.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/irish-reunification
I have a feeling that the US and Ireland may have something to say about that. If Sinn Fein where able to command as much control of the NI legislature as Nicola Sturgeon is able to, with a plurality of parties supporting the border poll it would appear that the UK government is obliged to recognise that.
0
No Voters - what say you?
in The Politics Forum
Posted
Greens would also benefit from independence and grow to be a larger party in the parliament, they know that environmentally-conscious energy is an industry and one that can be exported if generated on a larger scale.
I wonder if Anas' pick of purple branding for the Scotch branch, a mix of red & blue, is a conscious move towards the middle ground? A Labour Union Party.