When will indyref2 happen?

[Antlion]

1 minute ago, Jedi said:

Yes, hating it that much that I want to see an Independent Scotland based on socialist principles (and not the SNP's pro big business/multination public sector slashing corporate agenda), and would therefore prefer to see that Indepedent country run by politicians who are more interested in people than profy.

Odd that you don’t want to see an independent UK run along the same lines. You’d hardly be supporting the jolly, immigrant-bashing, Brexit-loving knight of the realm if you did.

[Guest Jedi]

2 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Odd that you don’t want to see an independent UK run along the same lines. You’d hardly be supporting the jolly, immigrant-bashing, Brexit-loving knight of the realm if you did.

I think you need to look up the actual Labour proposals on immigration, and then compare them to the SNP's and come back with what the key differences are, rather than basing the immigration card entirely on (I admit) poor comments made by Starmer.

And no, we still don't know what 'Make Brexit work' means, until there is a published manifesto outlining the plan, whether it is even pushing to join EFTA, find more alignment with the single market or whatever,

Meanwhile, the classic right wing tactic of trying to play public sector workers off against each other in Scotland, claiming there is 'no money' (despite magically 'finding; an extra £550 million to offer some sectors of health care tonight), and indeed having been handed £1.5 billion extra by Hunt's budget last week, continues. Still, no money for these pesky teachers though.

[carpetmonster]

The Labour Party that exists inside Jedi’s head sounds brilliant. I’d be overjoyed to vote for it if it wasn’t entirely fantastical. 

[carpetmonster]

20 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Where is this codified? It looks to me like the UK could simply say “60% for a couple of years is not enough”.

We have only ever had a “referenduma” on whether or not to be part of an EU member state. We have never voted on whether to be part of an aggressively anti-European non-member state. Don’t blame us for nullifying the 2014 vote - blame David Cameron, Boris Johnson, and the good voters of England and Wales.

I’m not saying this new poster is a sockpuppet account, but check its pattern of greenies and then when it started making actual posts. 

[Guest Jedi]

9 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

The Labour Party that exists inside Jedi’s head sounds brilliant. I’d be overjoyed to vote for it if it wasn’t entirely fantastical. 

So, what does Make Brexit work' mean? What is the policy outline? Or is it there, there isnt one?

On Immigration...in what ways are a points based skills system different to the SNP's Scottish Visa system (also based on skills)?

Both parties oppose the Tories Rwanda plan

Both parties agree on the priority of ensuring that asylum seekers have proper access to housing, benefits, and employment.

Both parties agree on the necessity of ensuring that migrants are reunited with their families in the UK

And finally, both parties agree to end the Tories detention centres.

Labour's other immigration policies include cracking down on criminal gangs, and ensuring safer crossing of the Channel...or do the SNP oppose these?

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Jedi

[Antlion]

25 minutes ago, Jedi said:

I think you need to look up the actual Labour proposals on immigration, and then compare them to the SNP's and come back with what the key differences are, rather than basing the immigration card entirely on (I admit) poor comments made by Starmer.

And no, we still don't know what 'Make Brexit work' means, until there is a published manifesto outlining the plan, whether it is even pushing to join EFTA, find more alignment with the single market or whatever,

 

You are supporting Labour, not knowing “what Make Brexit Work means”, in the blind belief that a nothing like Sir Keir will somehow just produce an independent socialist UK? This, despite his “poor comments”? This, despite him distancing himself from the perceived socialism of Corbyn?

I think you need to look up Starmer’s comments and history rather than simply believing that he’ll wave a socialist wand over Blighty. It’s not going to happen.

You really are in no position to criticise any party if you’re willing to put blind faith in one, just invent what you want it to stand for, and hide behind it not having a published manifesto to excuse your fantasies.

[Antlion]

22 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

I’m not saying this new poster is a sockpuppet account, but check its pattern of greenies and then when it started making actual posts. 

Fluffing DPB is the mark of a real socialist, no?

[Guest Jedi]

23 minutes ago, Antlion said:

You are supporting Labour, not knowing “what Make Brexit Work means”, in the blind belief that a nothing like Sir Keir will somehow just produce an independent socialist UK? This, despite his “poor comments”? This, despite him distancing himself from the perceived socialism of Corbyn?

I think you need to look up Starmer’s comments and history rather than simply believing that he’ll wave a socialist wand over Blighty. It’s not going to happen.

You really are in no position to criticise any party if you’re willing to put blind faith in one, just invent what you want it to stand for, and hide behind it not having a published manifesto to excuse your fantasies.

I deal in facts rather than fantasies....Fact is that Labour have not published a manifesto, rather an outline of intentions for the next GE.

Fact is, as I have agreed, that Starmer's comments on immigration recently, are poor. He is clearly trying to shore up Red Wall 'Brexit' seats there, when he doesn't need to. I don't imagine he will 'wave' a socialist wand over the country, given that the only arguably 'socialist' govt the UK has had, was Clement Atlee's 1945-51 administration. I do however believe that we will see a considerable improvement on the current Tory govt.

'No position' to criticise any other govt.....(by offering 'opinions' on where I think Labour will improve the country viz a viz the Tories). Am I to assume that you support the current SNP mantra there isn't an extra penny available to increase say teachers wages in line with inflation (£300 million would be the cost), but yet they managed to find a magic £550 million tonight, and had an increase of £1.5 billion last week?

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Jedi

[Cowden Cowboy]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

What a steaming pile of shite.

So 60% to leave the Union but leaving the EU was 52% - and could have been 50% + 1 vote.

 

 

Which is the point - such decisions should have to meet a 60% or similar hurdle given the scale of its impact and to as best as possible ensure a meaningful majority are solidly in favour rather than it just being a transitory majority situation 

[Antlion]

8 minutes ago, Jedi said:

I deal in facts rather than fantasies....Fact is that Labour have not published a manifesto, rather an outline of intentions for the next GE.

Fact is, as I have agreed, that Starmer's comments on immigration recently, are poor. He is clearly trying to shore up Red Wall 'Brexit' seats there, when he doesn't need to. I don't imagine he will 'wave' a socialist wand over the country, given that the only arguably 'socialist' govt the UK has had, was Clement Atlee's 1945-51 administration. I do however believe that we will see a considerable improvement on the current Tory govt.

 

 

So to be clear, your demand is no less than a socialist independent Scotland (and anything that falls short is unacceptable), but you’ll settle for … *reads again* a Labour-led UK which is only “a considerable improvement on the Tory govt” (based on an unwritten manifesto from a man pandering to xenophobes) but still not socialist.

Seems legit. Doesn’t seem at all like you’re demanding far more from Scotland than you do from the lying, pandering (by your own admission) knight of the realm.

[Antlion]

7 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Which is the point - such decisions should have to meet a 60% or similar hurdle given the scale of its impact and to as best as possible ensure a meaningful majority are solidly in favour rather than it just being a transitory majority situation 

Why stop at 60? Why should we even believe the line would be drawn at 60%? Surely, just to be safe, we should not accept Scotland can ever be a real, sovereign nation state until every single living voter across the whole of Blighty (and at least 101% of dead ones) has the callous temerity to vote (consistently for 100 years minimum) to tear apart the seamless fabric of the glorious UK?

[renton]

19 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Which is the point - such decisions should have to meet a 60% or similar hurdle given the scale of its impact and to as best as possible ensure a meaningful majority are solidly in favour rather than it just being a transitory majority situation 

And when Labour - in government - finally plucks up the courage to put a referendum to the UK about going back into the EU, you think they'll demand a 60% criteria? Of course not. It's only the answers you don't like that people generally want to chuck hurdles at.

I have sympathy with the notion that 50%+1 is a less than stellar way of deciding such matters. Then again, British democracy where we basically chuck out the entire government every 5 years on slender pluralities isn't genius anyway.

I previously have thought a good compromise would be to codify a vote into every Scottish electoral cycle, regardless of the party(ies) in power. However, a single Yes vote wouldn't be enough to trigger Indy - instead you'd need to get two on the bounce (think of it as a two strike system.)

As a compromise it has the advantage of giving the pro-Indy side a hardwired mechanism for exiting the UK, while giving the pro-shite side a similarly codified cool down period that would give them time to rectify or address the grievances that had created a Yes vote in the first place. Meanwhile the constitutional question would be somewhat removed from everyday political life.

Edited November 24, 2022 by renton

[Guest Jedi]

8 minutes ago, Antlion said:

So to be clear, your demand is no less than a socialist independent Scotland (and anything that falls short is unacceptable), but you’ll settle for … *reads again* a Labour-led UK which is only “a considerable improvement on the Tory govt” (based on an unwritten manifesto from a man pandering to xenophobes) but still not socialist.

Seems legit. Doesn’t seem at all like you’re demanding far more from Scotland than you do from the lying, pandering (by your own admission) knight of the realm.

'Hoping' for an Independent Scotland which would at some point be run on more socialist principles, is hardly 'demanding'...neither is it a 'higher bar' for Scotland, as I would 'hope' to see a UK govt in the meantime which also set out its stall along more socialist lines. As things stand, the proposals put forward by Labour, while in some parts 'socialist' and in some parts, less so, (though still an improvement on the Tories), will I believe improve the lives of a lot of people.

On the 60% point....yes, it does seem high....could go in, on a 55% plus 'consistent' polling. The point, as Nicola Sturgeon herself made is to demonstrate a clear demand for Independence by a majority.

If the SNP don't reach 50% in the GE, do they then just move onto the next Holyrood election, and again go on a single ticker campaign, and 'this time' if they get 50% in a de facto Referendum, then...Independence happens......or, do they go back to the 60% polling idea, which they themselves first floated?

[git-intae-thum]

Re the teachers strike......Scotgov cannot win on this issue tbh. I would imagine most have sympathy for the plight of all workers when faced with cost of living rises far outstripping pay.

Where does it stop though. A devolved administration with limited fiscal levers cannot fix the public sector finance disaster initially caused by Labour and magnified by the Tories.

When the teachers get their rise...who is next. With a fixed budget it just can't happen. SLAB Britnats in the public sector unions and the media know this, but it doesn't stop them agitating.

Full fiscal independence would allow the necessary fiscal leverages that could be used to try to offset any rising cost of living demands.

Incredulous anyone purporting to want an independent socialist Scotland can't see this tbh.

 

 

[Antlion]

3 minutes ago, Jedi said:

 

On the 60% point....yes, it does seem high....could go in, on a 55% plus 'consistent' polling. The point, as Nicola Sturgeon herself made is to demonstrate a clear demand for Independence by a majority.

 

Nope - no need to go in at 55%. The precedent is a simple majority. If the UK can’t win that, then it should cease trading.

Let’s face it, the UK as an entity has been on a downward spiral since it started breaking up, and especially since it lost its empire in the 20th century. Brexit has only highlighted its directionless nature even further. It has no conception of a future in its current form and is now reduced to actively denying democracy to hold its shroud together.

The question is whether to prolong a doddering state that was formed for a reason it’s since outlived, or to reenergise and reset politics across these islands. ZombieUK and its farcical constitutional setup can’t shuffle on, as is, indefinitely.

But that appears to be its only ambition. Westminster, under the Tories or Labour, is far more conservative, myopic, and retrograde than ever. Hell, even the old Unionist Party, for example, openly pushed Scottish history, identity, and distinctiveness; it’s only since the UK really started to collapse in on itself that strident, single-identity UK Nationalism took hold (of the Tories, Labour, and the other one). That appears to be their only solution to further disintegration: to ram a single, mythical identity down people’s throats and pretend it was ever thus.

If it’s now reduced to trying to gerrymander life support by demanding arbitrary thresholds of opposition, it really is fucked.

[Guest Jedi]

6 years on from the Brexit vote and its close run conclusion of 52/48, there is still a lot of agitation (understandably) for a reversal, or at least a far closer alignment with the EU's mechanisms than Johnson's hard deal delivered. That will always happen in a near 50:50 vote split, where half the electorate are left unhappy with the outcome. Of course any Referendum whatever the issue, has to run on a 50.1% majority, but where it is so tight (as in the current Yes/No split), it is storing up ongoing problems.

That's where a more comfortable stable majority over a fair period of time fits in...while democracy 'demands' 50.1 it doesn't account for a losing half. The Brexit split will rumble on for some time yet, and a Scottish Referendum which delivered a similar result would be the same. Had the vote in 2014 been, say 60:40 No, there would be far less room to call a 2nd Ref 8 years later. Similarly, if there was a consistent 60ish backing Independence in polls it is clear cut (the SNP often cite 62% of Scottish voters backing stay in the EU, understandably), because it is a very clear majority, as was the vote of 75% to set up a Scottish Parliament. 

On the issue of public sector pay....choices are often made on 'political' reasons....what will be more popular with the public so....nurses (good) need a rise, popular with the public, they should get one. Teachers (bad) need one too, but as they aren't popular with the public, we can hold out on them, (despite a figure of £300 million for a teachers rise compared to £700 million for the NHS). 

Of the extra £1.5 billion given to Holyrood last week, which we are told is 'already spent', what has it been spent on?

The Scottish government currently makes around £75 billion a a year (£41 billion from Barnett and £34 billion from its own income tax raising powers (totally devolved)

Btw, 'SLAB' is not currently running the EIS, but I see that there is a narrative building in some parts of social media that the teachers campaign is orchestrated by purely an 'SNP bad' backroom staff.

 

[Antlion]

6 minutes ago, Jedi said:

 

That's where a more comfortable stable majority over a fair period of time fits in...while democracy 'demands' 50.1 it doesn't account for a losing half. The Brexit split will rumble on for some time yet, and a Scottish Referendum which delivered a similar result would be the same. Had the vote in 2014 been, say 60:40 No, there would be far less room to call a 2nd Ref 8 years later. Similarly, if there was a consistent 60ish backing Independence in polls it is clear cut (the SNP often cite 62% of Scottish voters backing stay in the EU, understandably), because it is a very clear majority, as was the vote of 75% to set up a Scottish Parliament. 

 

Which navel gazing doesn’t deliver anything. Neither Westminster’s ruling party (of whichever hue) nor its MPs have to acknowledge “a comfortable stable majority over a fair period of time”. All they have to do is keep demanding a more comfortable, stabler majority over an ever-fairer and ever-longer period of time.

No majority of Scots can force a UK government to do otherwise, by any democratic means yet identified by any UK Nationalists (who appear to be simply hoping the numbers in favour of independence will fall due to apathy and/or an imagined “not as bad as the Tories” UK government).

This appears to be the UK’s only longterm plan: deny democracy, hope it all goes away, dig their heels in, and go ham on the flag-shagging, Scottish-identity-denying, full-throated-Brexit-humping UK Nationalism. 

[HTG]

13 hours ago, Aufc said:

Hopefully this will give the SNP to actually sit down and work out a proper financial plan for how an independent Scotland would look.

I'm in catch up on this thread but the SNP sitting down etc has f**k all to do with anything. The Supreme Court didn't rule on the basis of the competence of the argument and Westminster will never rule on the basis of the competence of the argument.  That element matters after the route to a democratic outcome has been established. 

[williemillersmoustache]

5 hours ago, Jedi said:

I think you need to look up the actual Labour proposals on immigration, and then compare them to the SNP's and come back with what the key differences are, rather than basing the immigration card entirely on (I admit) poor comments made by Starmer.

And no, we still don't know what 'Make Brexit work' means, until there is a published manifesto outlining the plan, whether it is even pushing to join EFTA, find more alignment with the single market or whatever,

Meanwhile, the classic right wing tactic of trying to play public sector workers off against each other in Scotland, claiming there is 'no money' (despite magically 'finding; an extra £550 million to offer some sectors of health care tonight), and indeed having been handed £1.5 billion extra by Hunt's budget last week, continues. Still, no money for these pesky teachers though.

You've already had the immigration questiond explained to you.

The SNP policy is different in 2 ways. 1) The restoration of freedom of movement. 2) Non EU migration determined by the needs of the people who live here and not the insane screeching of GB news about England being full.

On brexit, we know what his policy isn't.  It's not the single market, its not the customs Union and its not freedom of movement.  So we can say right away that it is idiot fucking nonsense. The UK will never have a stable relationship with the EU that doesn't involve single market membership. It's impossible for a whole host of reasons not least Northern Ireland, another part of the UK the current British Labour and Unionist parry couldn't give less of a f**k about if there are frother votes in Englandshire to chase.

Someone mentioned the non codified nature of the UK constitution and this is a good point. This whole farrago and it is a fucking horrible mess is just yet another example of the "good chap" system of government falling down the second it makes contact with a c**t, with a plurality of English votes behind it.  There are no rules, the UK is a midden failed state, with only democracy for some, if at all. 

As for the house jock comment, I've tried not to use it, despite doing so frequently in the past. It's not racist. But it is highly offensive. There is no racial component to this modern Scottish version but it is derived from those slaves prepared to inform on their fellows, lick boot, tug forelock, scrape and bow for the chance to move into service in The Big House with the quality, where they dream of one day pouring the tea, washing the clothes and emptying the chamber pots of their masters. Abandoning who they are and where they came in the process. Like Lindsay Hoyle or any member of the Scottish accounting unit of the Labour Party. 

So highly offensive but the most apposite 2 word description in the history of politics and while I try not to use it myself, mainly to avoid the sort of idiot rasper comments above telling me it is racist simply because of its history, despite the obvious lack of any racial component, (does Dobbie the House-Elf make JK into Bernard Manning?) you should know I absolutely am thinking it when I consider those servile creatures who'd rather wipe the arses, iron the shirts and deliver the breakfast trays to the owners, than live in the house themselves.

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by williemillersmoustache

[git-intae-thum]

Since the UK's supreme Court has decided the nation of Scotland and therefore the union does not exist.....what are Scottish "Unionists" going to call themselves now?