Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[NotThePars]

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

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.

I don't agree that it was the result of some plucky Icelandic guy. He might've been useful in providing the necessary casus belli for some specific groups to give a justification that they wanted to give but that doesn't in and of itself mean the barriers to the Soviet Union's dissolution fell away because someone By Your Logic'd the way there. if the other big hitters in the international system don't feel they have to and don't want to recognise a state then they won't. The UK, in spite of everything, still possesses some clout and can make things very awkward if independence isn't seen as legitimate. It's not a case of saying "we have the right" and do it and it's not a unionist plot to thwart indy to say that even if it does clearly benefit the ongoing status quo of the UK. 

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

It's not so much that (even if it is a bit) but more that the USSR and Serbia were seen as somewhat outside of the international system or illegitimate in some regard in a way that the UK, despite the collective shitting itself over Brexit, resolutely is not. 

Maybe I'm underestimating the lasting effects of Brexit but as it stands I think if the UK doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Scottish independence (or isn't put in a position where failing to do so is untenable legally, politically, or internationally) then it doesn't happen.

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

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.

This is what I really don't get. How does she have to fight to preserve her own position? She's comfortably the most popular politician in the UK, is pretty beloved on her own terms, has been largely viewed as handling Covid-19 very well, and is still relatively fresh off a thumping election victory and can point to consistently strong polling on independence and electorally. Outside of an internal dispute which some are trying to amplify but broadly seems to be failing to ignite the popular imagination where is the threat to her position coming from? It would have to be a coup which doesn't seem to have much broad support even within the party. Is the NEC elections enough to engineer a shift in leadership that doesn't carry much of the party with it? 

[Jacksgranda]

23 minutes ago, strichener said:

I'm not sure your memory is reliable though. 

Do I know you?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

50 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

I don't agree that it was the result of some plucky Icelandic guy. He might've been useful in providing the necessary casus belli for some specific groups to give a justification that they wanted to give but that doesn't in and of itself mean the barriers to the Soviet Union's dissolution fell away because someone By Your Logic'd the way there. if the other big hitters in the international system don't feel they have to and don't want to recognise a state then they won't. The UK, in spite of everything, still possesses some clout and can make things very awkward if independence isn't seen as legitimate. It's not a case of saying "we have the right" and do it and it's not a unionist plot to thwart indy to say that even if it does clearly benefit the ongoing status quo of the UK. 

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

It's not so much that (even if it is a bit) but more that the USSR and Serbia were seen as somewhat outside of the international system or illegitimate in some regard in a way that the UK, despite the collective shitting itself over Brexit, resolutely is not. 

Maybe I'm underestimating the lasting effects of Brexit but as it stands I think if the UK doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Scottish independence (or isn't put in a position where failing to do so is untenable legally, politically, or internationally) then it doesn't happen.

This is what I really don't get. How does she have to fight to preserve her own position? She's comfortably the most popular politician in the UK, is pretty beloved on her own terms, has been largely viewed as handling Covid-19 very well, and is still relatively fresh off a thumping election victory and can point to consistently strong polling on independence and electorally. Outside of an internal dispute which some are trying to amplify but broadly seems to be failing to ignite the popular imagination where is the threat to her position coming from? It would have to be a coup which doesn't seem to have much broad support even within the party. Is the NEC elections enough to engineer a shift in leadership that doesn't carry much of the party with it? 

Yeah you clearly don't get it. None of this matters, if the enquiry finds she misled parliament knowingly she has to go, those are the rules.  None of the rest of it matters, she'll have broken the ministerial code and that's that.  And she definitely did. 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

53 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

I don't agree that it was the result of some plucky Icelandic guy. He might've been useful in providing the necessary casus belli for some specific groups to give a justification that they wanted to give but that doesn't in and of itself mean the barriers to the Soviet Union's dissolution fell away because someone By Your Logic'd the way there. if the other big hitters in the international system don't feel they have to and don't want to recognise a state then they won't. The UK, in spite of everything, still possesses some clout and can make things very awkward if independence isn't seen as legitimate. It's not a case of saying "we have the right" and do it and it's not a unionist plot to thwart indy to say that even if it does clearly benefit the ongoing status quo of the UK. 

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

It's not so much that (even if it is a bit) but more that the USSR and Serbia were seen as somewhat outside of the international system or illegitimate in some regard in a way that the UK, despite the collective shitting itself over Brexit, resolutely is not. 

Maybe I'm underestimating the lasting effects of Brexit but as it stands I think if the UK doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Scottish independence (or isn't put in a position where failing to do so is untenable legally, politically, or internationally) then it doesn't happen.

This is what I really don't get. How does she have to fight to preserve her own position? She's comfortably the most popular politician in the UK, is pretty beloved on her own terms, has been largely viewed as handling Covid-19 very well, and is still relatively fresh off a thumping election victory and can point to consistently strong polling on independence and electorally. Outside of an internal dispute which some are trying to amplify but broadly seems to be failing to ignite the popular imagination where is the threat to her position coming from? It would have to be a coup which doesn't seem to have much broad support even within the party. Is the NEC elections enough to engineer a shift in leadership that doesn't carry much of the party with it? 

You're not going to find many people saying they think she ought to go, especially so close to an election, but if the enquiry finds she misled parliament she has no choice she's gone.  You don't seem to be understanding that, though tbf you're far from alone.

[NotThePars]

25 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Yeah you clearly don't get it. None of this matters, if the enquiry finds she misled parliament knowingly she has to go, those are the rules.  None of the rest of it matters, she'll have broken the ministerial code and that's that.  And she definitely did. 

 

23 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

You're not going to find many people saying they think she ought to go, especially so close to an election, but if the enquiry finds she misled parliament she has no choice she's gone.  You don't seem to be understanding that, though tbf you're far from alone.

See if you click edit underneath a post, it will allow you to add text to the original post. HTH.

[BFTD]

19 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

See if you click edit underneath a post, it will allow you to add text to the original post. HTH.

He knows; he's been here longer than either of us.

The idea is to fill up every page to maximise bites. It's always worked pretty well for him.

[sophia]

Breaking the ministerial code* does not require a resignation.

At Holyrood, I recall A Salmond inadvertantly misspeaking with regard to factual information and a subsequent recant being accepted as sufficient.

 

*pfft £350,000,000pw

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

34 minutes ago, BFTD said:

He knows; he's been here longer than either of us.

The idea is to fill up every page to maximise bites. It's always worked pretty well for him.

 Talk about conspiratorial

[jamamafegan]

The yoons have been left fizzing after seeing this news today - the comments section is a great laugh on fb:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jennifer-aniston-hails-nicola-sturgeon-23414291

You love to see it. Always liked Jennifer Aniston!

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

The yoons have been left fizzing after seeing this news today - the comments section is a great laugh on fb:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jennifer-aniston-hails-nicola-sturgeon-23414291

You love to see it. Always liked Jennifer Aniston!

It seems like one of the most popular complaints about Scottish nationalism is that our unionist posters don't want to f**k any of the movement's leaders, so hopefully this will give them something to work with.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

13 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

As compared to proper debate?  A one eyed view of things?

Debate is healthy, if we don't discuss things it becomes unhealthy. 

 

8 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

Yeah, ignore peoples views, that will work.

Like those that claim I call for UDI.  

Are you seriously suggesting CYG's aggressive spamming delusional rants are "healthy"?

Jesus f**k 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

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).

Me too. Brucie had a chin then that could have prised open a manhole cover.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

If you actually read between the lines, there is a lot of information from CYG posts. 

I don't believe he is spamming at all, quite the opposite.  I said before, if people don't agree then they can make that choice.  Otherwise get off his back. 

They can also "make that choice" to put the tedious c**t on ignore. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

39 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

Yeah, ignore peoples views, that will work.

 

5 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

They can also "make that choice" to put the tedious c**t on ignore. 

 

Just now, Stinky Bone said:

True.

Splendid. What were you moaning about now? 

[HTG]

This pish feels like it's been running for the last 100 pages. Bottom line - if Sturgeon doesn't lead the SNP into the next election and through an indy referendum, it'll be lost because she has been the catalyst for turning the polls round. If Salmond, Cherry or any of the rest of them decide that now is a good time to try and nail her and in so doing cost Scotland the chance of breaking from this union they'll have some fucking legacy. Primarily that legacy will be that they fucked it for millions of us. 

[git-intae-thum]

9 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

They can also "make that choice" to put the tedious c**t on ignore. 

The only "tedious c**t" tendencies on this forum of late are from those who continually try to shut down discussions they don't want discussed.

[git-intae-thum]

3 minutes ago, HTG said:

This pish feels like it's been running for the last 100 pages. Bottom line - if Sturgeon doesn't lead the SNP into the next election and through an indy referendum, it'll be lost because she has been the catalyst for turning the polls round. If Salmond, Cherry or any of the rest of them decide that now is a good time to try and nail her and in so doing cost Scotland the chance of breaking from this union they'll have some fucking legacy. Primarily that legacy will be that they fucked it for millions of us. 

The problem is she may well be compromised.

You have to susoect there is a reason the Yoon press are currently her best pal and have no went to town on issues that we all know are festering away.

I suspect the reason is that they are keeping their powder dry.

For May.....or worse.....for indyref2.

 

 

 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

4 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

The problem is she may well be compromised.

You have to susoect there is a reason the Yoon press are currently her best pal and have no went to town on issues that we all know are festering away.

I suspect the reason is that they are keeping their powder dry.

For May.....or worse.....for indyref2.

 

 

 

Amazing how stupid someone would have to be to think Sturgeon has been the catalyst for the shift in the polls.

Helllllooooooo Brexit and Boris Johnson.  If it was Sturgeon the polls wouldn't have remained completely static for the first FIVE YEARS of her premiership.  The polls have shifted since Brexit became a reality and Boris took office.  They are obviously the reasons, as well as the inevitable demographic changes.

[HTG]

10 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

The problem is she may well be compromised.

You have to susoect there is a reason the Yoon press are currently her best pal and have no went to town on issues that we all know are festering away.

I suspect the reason is that they are keeping their powder dry.

For May.....or worse.....for indyref2.

 

 

 

I don't buy that at all. You simply can't be serious about removing comfortably the most popular politician in the UK on the basis of "might" and "maybe". Independence will not be won by people who have already decided that a non-binding referendum is the way forward. The election in May needs to be won convincingly, the S30 process tested and rejected, the journey through the courts tested and then we look at what needs to be done to deal with something close to oppression. 

Causing the removal of Nicola Sturgeon will kill Independence for more than a generation. There are people who need to think about whether they want that as their legacy. 

[git-intae-thum]

1 minute ago, HTG said:

I don't buy that at all. You simply can't be serious about removing comfortably the most popular politician in the UK on the basis of "might" and "maybe". Independence will not be won by people who have already decided that a non-binding referendum is the way forward. The election in May needs to be won convincingly, the S30 process tested and rejected, the journey through the courts tested and then we look at what needs to be done to deal with something close to oppression. 

Causing the removal of Nicola Sturgeon will kill Independence for more than a generation. There are people who need to think about whether they want that as their legacy. 

See the thing is...I hope you are right. I hope all the optimists and loyalists are correct and this is all part of a well thought out plan to work our way through processes to establish a basis for indy.

I hope that premis is right. I really do....but it's not....it's a load a shite.

As many argue.....the positive polls are more likely down to general changing demographics and external factors

The current leadership have done the square root of f@ck all to progress the cause of independence in 6 years. In fact if you include the nonsensical growth commission, it has almost been as if they have sought to dampen demands.

With regards to your comments about Nicola Sturgeon, well, I am well aware there is a bit of cult of dear leader thing going on wi some folk, but surely you can remember that significant support for independence existed before Ms Sturgeon was leader.

More importantly it was an undivided support.....with real momentum. Her tepid leadership has allowed all kinds of factions and truffers to climb on board and try to exploit the SNP membership and independence voting base. These folk, who have zero interest in independence have been allowed to climb to the highest echelons of the party. The consequences are that a big split is now very likely. As leader she has to own that.

All this is without including any of the possible ramifications of the Salmond matter. If you do include them, it is likely that at best she will be shown to have been stupid, gullible and ineffectual...and the Yoon press will go to town. At worst.........hmm

Sturgeon will probably be seen as a bit of a Tony Blair by history. Talks a good game and looks the part......but lacks substance and was very wobbly on the most important issue.