Jedi2

Hopefully the Tartan Tories will be up front before the GE about their neoliberal dream to take a scorched earth policy towards Scottish public services post-Independence, all to keep the fat cats taxes as low as possible and chase a maybe, maybe rejoin the EU 'someday'...all the while letting the Bank of England set Scotland's interest rates. Wouldn't need the full fat Tories back in power in Westminster as you could enjoy the diet version in Scotland (while being 'Independent' in name only as your currency amd economic levers still rest in London...and of course, you get to keep the monarchy as well...win, win

Again....a Labour campaign in this GE to rejoin the EU now or hold another Ref....which guarantees the Tories victory would be worth it..eh?

If say there was another Referendum/or the SNP win enough seats to be able to say 'that's us Independent now' it will be Humza/Andrew Wilson/Robison/Gilruth/Gray et al, who will be implementing their decade of austerity plans...that is still one 'shade of Independence'. The SNP do of course have the opportunity to change course, recognise that imposing a 'hard' Independence, in terms of there being little difference between their 'vision' and the Tories between 2010-19, might, just might, not be the best route. They need to be absolutely clear and honest with the people of Scotland on what they are currently asking them to support..an austerity which would make George Osborne blush, to get into bed with the fat cats, if a majority of folk in Scorland want that.. fine. Or...could the SNP yet throw out this ridiculous proposal amd start getting serious with an Independence which would actually improve people's lives in Scotland.

The SNP one?..sure does

You would indeed think that he would have to go after the GE..(current poll prediction SNP 25 Labour 24). 'If' that was indeed the result not sure how a 1 seat win can be spun as an 'achievement' (with a loss of 18 seats) At a time when they knew that there were 'troubles ahead' (Branchform, Salmond, Covid Enquiry), they still chose to put the comedy act in as First Minister..at a time when they needed a serious leader Yousaf is who they thought could take the fall.

Absolutely...one is based on properly funding public services, not running public spending down to chase the EU 3% Aquis (maybe consider an EFTA route instead), and try not to base the economy on pleasing big business interests.Also trying to move to a Scottish currency as quickly as possible, to not rely on the B of E to set interest rates etc for Scotland. Thr other is the SNPs current 'plan' to reign in public spending for the 3% dream, to maybe if they play nice, rejoin the EU in 5-10 years, near 'decade' of austerity, fire sale of Scottish assets, and chase big business/private interests.

And...there you have it. Thread entitled 'Nicola' but it's about Starmer and Gaza

What are the chances of Yousaf being replaced this year, with a Robertson or Keith Brown type figure and ditching the arrangement with the Greens?

'Israel must be subjected to the rules of international law . . . the Palestinian people must be protected' (Starmer's own words). He has called for humanitarian pauses to allow aid and supplies to reach people in Gaza He has said that the people of Gaza should 'not be displaced', and that the international community needs to find a solution which enables 'dialogue' and a 'peaceful solution'. He did get it wrong at the start, no question, but not sure what else he is meant to say in addition to the above at the moment. Yes, he could be more critical of Israeli military actions, and he should be. Anyway...back to Nicola..

He really doesn't (on Israel)..its become a tired trope. Over the past 2 months he has consistently called for a ceasefire. I admit that he handled it badly at the start and should have been much clearer..he wasn't, but has a consistent ceasefire position since. Only in it to gain power and his own ego....think you have described about 90% of (all politicians there). There is something to be said for Billy Connelly's 'don't vote for them, it only encourages them' line.

I know but still. I genuinely do think a change of leader (soon), with the replacement being Robertson or Brown, ditching the Greens, and being able to argue about the Economy, Cost of Living, NHS etc, (while inevitably also talking about Independence..just don't make it the 'only' focus), would see the SNP being a different prospect at the GE. Stick with Yousaf, the Greens (and their agenda) and bang on about 'most seats and we're Independent', will only lead to a further fall in the polls.

I really don't. It takes about a 5 minute Google search (you should try it) to discover that there are significant policy differences between them.

A possible way back for the SNP as I see it, in terms of salvaging seats this year would be: 1. Ditch Yousaf as leader really soon, and replace him with the likes of Angus Robertson or Keith Brown. (Ideally have a 2 way contest between them) 2. End the arrangement with the Greens and run as a minority govt. Park the Gender policies for the moment, as well as the Deposit Return Schemes etc 3. Fight the GE on the ground of Cost of Living, the Economy, the NHS. By all means target 'The Cost of Westminster' etc, but drop the 'most seats makes us Independent' priority...save that for the next Holyrood election by which time circumstances could be more favourable.

Given that even Ian Blackford has now called for giving it a rest with the 'two cheeks of the same ar*e chat' and given that they might be the 'same' (apart from both parties main policies that is).....

As long as the remaining SNP membership (what is it, just the 50,000 plus members 'lost' in the last couple of years), contine to bellow about anyone not recognising their essentially unblemished record in govt over 17 years, and being right behind the Humza, Saint Nicola et al, as being therefore 'anti-Scottish' they are doomed to contine their plunging descent in the polls. 'If' there was an acceptance that maybe, just maybe, they sometimes get things wrong (I know), that 'everything 'isn't the fault of Westminster etc, they might have some chance of salvaging some seats from the recent car crash administration Here's a thought to give you a shudder as well believe it or not there are actually quite a few Labour supporters who favour Independence, just not the SNP's version of it.

Does that include the many famies who lost loved ones during Covid? Is that what they are? 'Pruriant and Malevolent'? Just because they might want to know how Saint Nicola made decisions in that period. The arrogance of the Scottish govt and its ever diminishing cabal of fans knows no bounds.

Spot on. All this 'but, but..Sir Keef isn't overturning Breixt so he is a waste of space' chat. 'If' the Labour Party at the moment entered the election promising another Referendum on Brexit, what would the result be?...Straightforward Tory victory. Look what happened to the Lib Dems in 2019 who were going to 'overturn' Brexit..Jo Swinson anyone? No, me neither. Rather, Labour have the opportunity to move closer to the EU and possibly move to joining EFTA (as an example). Or..at the next GE if the mood of the country dictates it, 'then' put another Ref in the manifesto. Again, why would they simply hand the Tories a win this year, by bringing it all back up again at the moment? 'Make Brexit work' is suitably vague..its not 'pandering to the gammons'...its leaving the door open to work better with the EU (at the moment)

' But, but...what about the Tooarries'?

Ultimately, of course there will no doubt be thousands of these messages with someone asking Nicola if she wanted milk in her latte, and clearly these can all be dismissed as 'irrelevant'. However, within many other messages will be decision making by those in power. To arrogantly laugh at the public over 'deletion' of them as they have done, is not a good look, to say the least. To retort with 'but the Tories did worse' doesn't wash either. This is a govt which is still under investigation with Branchform, an upcoming legal action by Salmond over their conduct, and now wants to sweep the Covid period under the carpet with 'but, but, Nicola appeared oan the telly every day so she did' isn't good enough.

As is ever the case in politics, its all about the 'optics'. Of course government ministers are 'allowed' to delete WhatsApp about cats, the weather, or nasty things they said to each other about Boris, and no, these shouldn't be subject to FOI However, the public is still entitled to know what lay behind the government's decision making process, and here, its not a good look, to say the least, that said messages were either deleted, or 'we didn't use WhatsApp for govt business' after both calling for an enquiry, and promising that all relevant info would be made available. The Dentist is currently not covering himself in glory 'But, but, the Tories deleted their messages as well' or 'but, but, we handled Covid better than Wastemonster' doesn't cut it.

Exactly...so in short-SNP win a majority of seats at the GE..go to Westminster 'right, that's us Independent now'...Westminster 'er naw'. 'Off to the UN...'so it was a Referendum on Independence? 'No, a General Election for the UK govt' 'We see, so what percentage of the vote did you get to give you Independence? '..it was about 37%, but its first past the post so we got most seats' 'Was it agreed in advance that this would could as a Referendum?' 'Well...no' 'Okay, see you in 2 years time'

So from Wishart's article there 'is' a 'strategy' in place, if the SNP win a majority of seats this year, and Westminster says no...they are off to the UN and EHRC.

Exactly. 'Laws' which are left so deliberately vague as to create a minefield. Nobody objects to the overarching intention behind them eg to crack down on sectarianism and hate crime (racism, sexism, homophobia etc) and indeed 'if' the current idea was to challenge Conversion Therapy. As you say, the record on bringing them into action hasn't exactly gone well. Is this the SNP keeping the Greens on side (again)?

The Hate Speech Bill is indeed law, and does make provision for 'conversations in your own home' to be reported for potential prosecution, and no, nobody has been carted off to a 're-education' camp yet. What the 'Consulation' appears to be doing, is lumping together 'Conversion Therapy' which yes, the vast majority of people would oppose, all well and good, with a lot of grey areas around what constitutes 'challenging' someone's choice to transition. The two are totally different, but when you have ambiguity, and a 'potential' for legislating against 'questioning' of transitioning, it leads to said grey areas arising, and the possibility of litigation being brought against (some) parents. Whereas if the proposal/consultation stuck exclusively to Conversion Therapy, without mention of these other areas left open to interpretation, it would be an uncontentious process.

The Guardian also carries an article about it. I suppose you will find the same 'moon howlers' on there.