Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

Do you think we can become independent and prosperous without international recognition?

 

Also re the election of Boris. I get it. I think it's a bit of a catch-22 because a Corbyn minority government makes holding a referendum far easier given the willingness of the leadership then to concede one but arguably it becomes more difficult to take a consistent polling majority with you. Boris's win secures an indy majority pretty much permanent but correspondingly it becomes more difficult to hold a referemdum. 

What do you think Sturgeon should've done?

What should have been done is obvious re independence. This is how I would have conducted it.

The morning after the Leave vote I would have hired the best team of constitutional lawyers money can buy (Ad Lib need not apply). I would have instructed them to prepare the groundwork to take the UK government to court to establish if Scotland needs WM permission to hold a referendum and implement the result of it.

Then I would have sent a s30 request to Theresa May, as NS did. 

Then when May replied saying 'now is not the time' I would have called a press conference for the next morning at 11am and invited every journalist in the world.

There I would have announced at 9am that morning the Scottish government had initiated legal proceedings against the British government to fulfill the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland.

That was over 4.5 years ago.  We could have been in a lot better place by now, putting it mildly. 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

3 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Its been edited then, because people have been pointing it out and are outraged, rightly. 

Here is the original text

 

 

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Its been edited then, because people have been pointing it out and are outraged, rightly. 

Here is the original text

"Political party avoids mentioning the guy accused of 7 sexual assaults and two rapes" is not an outrage or a controversy. I expect it's being amended since he's been found not guilty.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

27 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Do you think we can become independent and prosperous without international recognition?

 

Also re the election of Boris. I get it. I think it's a bit of a catch-22 because a Corbyn minority government makes holding a referendum far easier given the willingness of the leadership then to concede one but arguably it becomes more difficult to take a consistent polling majority with you. Boris's win secures an indy majority pretty much permanent but correspondingly it becomes more difficult to hold a referemdum. 

What do you think Sturgeon should've done?

Glad someone’s asked this...

Two examples: first, the UK itself has recently confirmed, in the case of Kosovo, that the departing country does not require the agreement of the country from which it is departing. The UK, along with France, Germany, and most European nations, is part of a majority at the UN to recognise Kosovan independence. Kosovo declared UDI in 2008.

Or this: in 1991, Lithuania declared independence from the collapsing Soviet Union (the Russian Federation itself hilariously declared ‘independence’, more or less from itself, that summer). The UK, France, the US and the rest sat on their hands for a bit, worried about damaging relations with the Soviet Union or whatever would replace it. The Icelandic foreign minister flew to Vilnius, declared that Iceland recognised the sovereignty of Lithuania.... and a week later others began to follow suit.

The idea that Scotland won’t get international recognition unless it plays by the UK’s bent rules is a lie that has been set in motion by... the UK! All that is required is a clear, legal statement of the sovereign will of the Scottish people. That might take the form of a referendum agreed under a an S30; but it could take other forms, such as a plebiscitary election, to which international observers would be invited.

The idea that other states will refuse to recognise an independent Scotland - particularly states that are members of the EU, which the UK has just left - is a complete nonsense.

On the other question, I’ve already said what I think Sturgeon/the SNP should have done... and I thought it was obvious at the time. They should have declared that going through with Brexit, when 62% of Scots had voted to stay, was a de facto dissolution of the Union. That forces their political opponents into a choice: either compromise on Brexit; or compromise on the Union. It’s good politics, because, either way, you get a win: either independence or, for example, Scotland remains in the UK, but also part of the EEA. Instead, Sturgeon, Blackford, and the rest made loud noises... and in the end did nothing. They allowed to happen what they said would not happen. The only argument you can make in their favour is that this did finally move the polls in our favour (Sturgeon supporters argue that she’s consistently polled well, but the truth is the polls were static for five years).

You’ve made the point yourself: we have a _reasonably_ strong position in the polls (although I’d argue we would have been into 60%+ territory if they’d played hardball, as above)... but nowhere to put it. Everybody knows that Cameron only agreed to an S30 because he thought they’d win; and everybody knows Johnson won’t, because he knows he’ll lose.

Events have exposed Sturgeon as a devolutionist, whose priority is to entrench her own and her party’s power, and therefore terrified to do anything that would place that at risk.

But that’s now more or less irrelevant...

Edited January 30, 2021 by The Ghost of B A R P

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

19 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

"Political party avoids mentioning the guy accused of 7 sexual assaults and two rapes" is not an outrage or a controversy. I expect it's being amended since he's been found not guilty.

The editing of him out of their history started before he was charged with anything.  Lets keep an eye on it and see if his role is put back then.  I think you'll find we'll be waiting a long time, it got edited cause people were outraged about it.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Carnoustie Young Guvnor

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

7 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Glad someone’s asked this...

Two examples: first, the UK itself has recently confirmed, in the case of Kosovo, that the departing country does not require the agreement of the country from which it is departing. The UK, along with France, Germany, and most European nations, is part of a majority at the UN to recognise Kosovan independence. Kosovo declared UDI in 2008.

Or this: in 1991, Lithuania declared independence from the collapsing Soviet Union (the Russian Federation itself hilariously declared ‘independence’, more or less from itself, that summer). The UK, France, the US and the rest sat on their hands for a bit, worried about damaging relations with the Soviet Union or whatever would replace it. The Icelandic foreign minister flew to Vilnius, declared that Iceland recognised the sovereignty of Lithuania.... and a week later others began to follow suit.

The idea that Scotland won’t get international recognition unless it plays by the UK’s bent rules is a lie that has been set in motion by... the UK! All that is required is a clear, legal statement of the sovereign will of the Scottish people. That might take the form of a referendum agreed under a an S30; but it could take other forms, such as a plebiscitary election, to which international observers would be invited.

The idea that other states will refuse to recognise an independent Scotland - particularly states that are members of the EU, which the UK has just left - is a complete nonsense.

On the other question, I’ve already said what I think Sturgeon/the SNP should have done... and I thought it was obvious at the time. They should have declared that going through with Brexit, when 62% of Scots had voted to stay, was a de facto dissolution of the Union. That forces their political opponents into a choice: either compromise on Brexit; or compromise on the Union. It’s good politics, because, either way, you get a win: either independence or, for example, Scotland remains in the UK, but also part of the EEA. Instead, Sturgeon, Blackford, and the rest made loud noises... and in the end did nothing. They allowed to happen what they said would not happen. The only argument you can make in their favour is that this did finally move the polls in our favour (Sturgeon supporters argue that she’s consistently polled well, but the truth is the polls were static for five years).

You’ve made the point yourself: we have a _reasonably_ strong position in the polls (although I’d argue we would have been into 60%+ territory if they’d played hardball, as above)... but nowhere to put it. Everybody knows that Cameron only agreed to an S30 because he thought they’d win; and everybody knows Johnson won’t, because he knows he’ll lose.

Events have exposed Sturgeon as a devolutionist, whose priority is to entrench her own and her party’s power, and therefore terrified to do anything that would place that at risk.

But that’s now more or less irrelevant...

This isn't true. People going on about plebiscite elections etc are talking drivel and selling false hope. It has to be constitutional or its a non-starter.  The issue is ascertaining exactly what that means and how we attain it.  

And Sturgeon is not a devolutionist come on man she was campaigning for independence before you were born.

[Baxter Parp]

18 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

The editing of him out of their history started before he was charged with anything.

Pish.

[Detournement]

There's no public will for UDI though even amongst SNP supporters.

 

 

 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

25 minutes ago, Detournement said:

There's no public will for UDI though even amongst SNP supporters.

 

 

 

UDI isn't an option and nobody serious is proposing it.  It will have to be a referendum of some sort, with or without a s30. 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

56 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

This isn't true. People going on about plebiscite elections etc are talking drivel and selling false hope. It has to be constitutional or its a non-starter.  The issue is ascertaining exactly what that means and how we attain it.  

And Sturgeon is not a devolutionist come on man she was campaigning for independence before you were born.

Of course it has to be constitutional, but the last thing we want to do is allow the UK govt to frame what is or isn’t ‘constitutional’, because they’ll just lie and move the goalposts, forever. Margaret Thatcher’s interpretation of that was simply a majority of SNP MP’s at a Westminster election... soon as it’s likely to happen, the conversation moves on to some other ‘gold standard’.

I mentioned a plebiscitary election only as an example; the argument, though, is that Scottish sovereignty and International law on self-determination are the frame for what is ‘constitutional’; UK law can’t supersede that.

The one thing that won’t fly is a non-S30 referendum, because no council in Scotland would administer it. An S30, to say the least is, highly unlikely. So we need to move the discussion on. Everything else means leaving Westminster in the box seat.

Too many people in the independence movement imagine they’re going to get their Rose/Orange Revolution moment, all flags and celebration. It’s not going to be like that. We’re fighting an opponent with hundreds of years of experience of colonial bampottery, determined to hang on at all costs to what they see simply as an ‘asset’.

 We’ll only get independence if we take it; otherwise, they’ll do everything they can, for as long as it takes, to prevent it happening.

[Jacksgranda]

2 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Glad someone’s asked this...

Two examples: first, the UK itself has recently confirmed, in the case of Kosovo, that the departing country does not require the agreement of the country from which it is departing. The UK, along with France, Germany, and most European nations, is part of a majority at the UN to recognise Kosovan independence. Kosovo declared UDI in 2008.

Or this: in 1991, Lithuania declared independence from the collapsing Soviet Union (the Russian Federation itself hilariously declared ‘independence’, more or less from itself, that summer). The UK, France, the US and the rest sat on their hands for a bit, worried about damaging relations with the Soviet Union or whatever would replace it. The Icelandic foreign minister flew to Vilnius, declared that Iceland recognised the sovereignty of Lithuania.... and a week later others began to follow suit.

The idea that Scotland won’t get international recognition unless it plays by the UK’s bent rules is a lie that has been set in motion by... the UK! All that is required is a clear, legal statement of the sovereign will of the Scottish people. That might take the form of a referendum agreed under a an S30; but it could take other forms, such as a plebiscitary election, to which international observers would be invited.

The idea that other states will refuse to recognise an independent Scotland - particularly states that are members of the EU, which the UK has just left - is a complete nonsense.

On the other question, I’ve already said what I think Sturgeon/the SNP should have done... and I thought it was obvious at the time. They should have declared that going through with Brexit, when 62% of Scots had voted to stay, was a de facto dissolution of the Union. That forces their political opponents into a choice: either compromise on Brexit; or compromise on the Union. It’s good politics, because, either way, you get a win: either independence or, for example, Scotland remains in the UK, but also part of the EEA. Instead, Sturgeon, Blackford, and the rest made loud noises... and in the end did nothing. They allowed to happen what they said would not happen. The only argument you can make in their favour is that this did finally move the polls in our favour (Sturgeon supporters argue that she’s consistently polled well, but the truth is the polls were static for five years).

You’ve made the point yourself: we have a _reasonably_ strong position in the polls (although I’d argue we would have been into 60%+ territory if they’d played hardball, as above)... but nowhere to put it. Everybody knows that Cameron only agreed to an S30 because he thought they’d win; and everybody knows Johnson won’t, because he knows he’ll lose.

Events have exposed Sturgeon as a devolutionist, whose priority is to entrench her own and her party’s power, and therefore terrified to do anything that would place that at risk.

But that’s now more or less irrelevant...

Please learn the difference between "-" and "_". Or buy a new keyboard.

[NotThePars]

7 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Glad someone’s asked this...

Two examples: first, the UK itself has recently confirmed, in the case of Kosovo, that the departing country does not require the agreement of the country from which it is departing. The UK, along with France, Germany, and most European nations, is part of a majority at the UN to recognise Kosovan independence. Kosovo declared UDI in 2008.

Or this: in 1991, Lithuania declared independence from the collapsing Soviet Union (the Russian Federation itself hilariously declared ‘independence’, more or less from itself, that summer). The UK, France, the US and the rest sat on their hands for a bit, worried about damaging relations with the Soviet Union or whatever would replace it. The Icelandic foreign minister flew to Vilnius, declared that Iceland recognised the sovereignty of Lithuania.... and a week later others began to follow suit.

The idea that Scotland won’t get international recognition unless it plays by the UK’s bent rules is a lie that has been set in motion by... the UK! All that is required is a clear, legal statement of the sovereign will of the Scottish people. That might take the form of a referendum agreed under a an S30; but it could take other forms, such as a plebiscitary election, to which international observers would be invited.

The idea that other states will refuse to recognise an independent Scotland - particularly states that are members of the EU, which the UK has just left - is a complete nonsense.

On the other question, I’ve already said what I think Sturgeon/the SNP should have done... and I thought it was obvious at the time. They should have declared that going through with Brexit, when 62% of Scots had voted to stay, was a de facto dissolution of the Union. That forces their political opponents into a choice: either compromise on Brexit; or compromise on the Union. It’s good politics, because, either way, you get a win: either independence or, for example, Scotland remains in the UK, but also part of the EEA. Instead, Sturgeon, Blackford, and the rest made loud noises... and in the end did nothing. They allowed to happen what they said would not happen. The only argument you can make in their favour is that this did finally move the polls in our favour (Sturgeon supporters argue that she’s consistently polled well, but the truth is the polls were static for five years).

You’ve made the point yourself: we have a _reasonably_ strong position in the polls (although I’d argue we would have been into 60%+ territory if they’d played hardball, as above)... but nowhere to put it. Everybody knows that Cameron only agreed to an S30 because he thought they’d win; and everybody knows Johnson won’t, because he knows he’ll lose.

Events have exposed Sturgeon as a devolutionist, whose priority is to entrench her own and her party’s power, and therefore terrified to do anything that would place that at risk.

But that’s now more or less irrelevant...

There were a lot of historically contingent, ideologically driven, and geopolitical machinations that led the nations that left the Soviet Union to be given immediate recognition from the United States and its allies that don't apply to the United Kingdom. Same with Serbia/ Yugoslavia. 

 

Out of interest, what makes you think Sturgeon hasn't just pursued a strategy you think has failed  but is instead actively trying to preserve her own position over securing independence?

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

Please learn the difference between "-" and "_". Or buy a new keyboard.

Quality post. Never seen anybody use “_” for underlining, for _emphasis_?

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

There were a lot of historically contingent, ideologically driven, and geopolitical machinations that led the nations that left the Soviet Union to be given immediate recognition from the United States and its allies that don't apply to the United Kingdom. Same with Serbia/ Yugoslavia. 

 

Out of interest, what makes you think Sturgeon hasn't just pursued a strategy you think has failed  but is instead actively trying to preserve her own position over securing independence?

Yeah, nothing ever applies to the UK... that’s their game and they’re very good at it.

You’re right, tho, that there were complex circumstances in play at the end of the SU... which is why Britain and France initially sat on their hands. My point is that all it took was a wee Icelandic guy, guided by international law not geopolitical interests, for all the complexities to vanish in days. They didn’t in fact get automatic recognition for ideological reasons; they got recognition belatedly when it became clear there was no reason under international law to withhold it.

Unionists will tell you Scotland will be a pariah because they’re Unionists and they’ve got f**k all else but lies. It won’t.

As for Sturgeon... she has pursued a strategy that has failed _and_, partly because of that (and her catastrophic errors of judgement over Salmond), now has no choice but to fight to preserve her own position... at least until that is no longer tenable, at which point we’ll either get an attack of giant squirrels (e.g. ‘I’ve regrettably been forced to expel everybody who disagrees with me cos reasons’ or ‘aw sorry, we need to postpone the Holyrood elections cos COVID’) or a resignation ostensibly for health reasons.

If she somehow manages to cling on, the Unionist opposition and media, as I’ve already said, will take her out at a time of their choosing.

Edited January 30, 2021 by The Ghost of B A R P

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Quality post. Never seen anybody use “_” for underlining, for _emphasis_?

Yeah, nothing ever applies to the UK... that’s their game and they’re very good at it.

You’re right, tho, that there were complex circumstances in play at the end of the SU... which is why Britain and France initially sat on their hands. My point is that all it took was a wee Icelandic guy, guided by international law not geopolitical interests, for all the complexities to vanish in days.

Unionists will tell you Scotland will be a pariah because they’re Unionists and they’ve got f**k all else but lies. It won’t.

As for Sturgeon... she has pursued a strategy that has failed _and_, partly because of that (and her catastrophic errors of judgement over Salmond, now has no choice but to fight to preserve her own position... at least until that is no longer tenable, at which point we’ll either get an attack of giant squirrels (e.g. ‘I’ve regrettably been forced to expel everybody who disagrees with me cos reasons’ or ‘aw sorry, we need to postpone the Holyrood elections cos COVID’) or a resignation ostensibly for health reasons.

If she somehow manages to cling on, the Unionist opposition and media, as I’ve already said, will take her out at a time of their choosing.

That's underlining, _ xxxxxx _ isn't.

[strichener]

4 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Quality post. Never seen anybody use “_” for underlining, for _emphasis_?

Not when you can actually underline, or even use bold for emphasis.  

ETA: beaten to it by @Jacksgranda which doesn't happen very often!

Edited January 30, 2021 by strichener

[Jacksgranda]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

Not when you can actually underline, or even use bold for emphasis.  

ETA: beaten to it by @Jacksgranda which doesn't happen very often!

[strichener]

Just now, Jacksgranda said:

You go to school with him?

[Jacksgranda]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

You go to school with him?

Bruce Forsyth was hosting Sunday Night At The London Palladium when I was still at primary school. So no (even though he was a child prodigy).

[strichener]

6 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Bruce Forsyth was hosting Sunday Night At The London Palladium when I was still at primary school. So no (even though he was a child prodigy).

I'm not sure your memory is reliable though. 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

Nice to see you guys focusing on the important issues... to see you, nice...