Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[Dawson Park Boy]

On 29/04/2022 at 23:46, lichtgilphead said:

Well, considering that he's offering a bet on something that isn't going  to happen anyway, he's not really risking much.

At this time, the snp intend to introduce legislation to have a referendum. This bill will be introduced before the end of 2023. The referendum itself will be a a later date.

A more appropriate bet would be on whether the snp will introduce an Indyref bill at Holyrood before 31/12/2023. If they do, I win, if not DPB wins.

If the snp don't introduce the bill, I'll save the money in subs anyway

If DPB offers this fair bet,, 'll be happy to take it up, and unlike The_Welcher, I'll pay up if I lose.

 

 

I appreciate you’re more up on this than myself, but it’s reported on the BBC that NS intends to introduce the necessary mechanisms which will allow a referendum to take place BEFORE the end of 2023.
Surely the bet should be on what Nicola is promising?

[Ad Lib]

7 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

This is just the "actually you need yet another election after the all the elections that have been held and lost by the no to a referendum side, in the hope that next time we'll win" argument.

You can’t have this both ways. You can’t say that the question of whether there should be a referendum should be settled only by a referendum and then say that the way people vote at elections somehow settled the argument.

7 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

There is no intellectual basis for this, its just denial. Long winded and polite denial, but plain denial all the same. 

I literally explained to you that precommitment strategies have a longstanding intellectual basis. Go and read Cass Sunstein, Allen Buchanan or Vicki Jackson then come back to me.

7 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

I almost take your point on meeting each of these spurious criteria and the diminishing returns for the Unionist side. But there's no basis to think that as each of these are put up another won't rise in its place. And that's what I meant by there being no reason to believe that if we met these goals there would be a sudden and damescene conversation from WM. Particularly when there has been no attempt to set these goals or criteria, it's just no. You haven't met them. Whatever they are. 

You’re still missing the point. The more of the criteria you meet, the less credible and the higher the political cost of them coming up with a new one.

Right now they have solid plausible deniability by appeal to the popular vote. Whether you like it or not that’s where we are.

7 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

It's also weird you think I'm trying to discredit the FM or her approach.

“Perhaps your prediction [that there won’t be a referendum held before the next Holyrood elections] will come to pass, I think not but that will be because the Scottish government have chosen to ignore the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate, not because of what amounts to little more than frankly desperate numberwang.“

Your words not mine.

Even if Nicola Sturgeon does everything within her power between now and the next Holyrood Election to hold a referendum, it won’t happen this side of that election.

Yet you were quick to suggest that this would involve “the Scottish government [choosing] to ignore the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate”.

The truth is that it would be *despite the Scottish Government following the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate* and it would be so *because* the UK Government remains both able and willing to engage in mandates numberwang.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Ad Lib

[williemillersmoustache]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

You can’t have this both ways. You can’t say that the question of whether there should be a referendum should be settled only by a referendum and then say that the way people vote at elections somehow settled the argument.

I literally explained to you that precommitment strategies have a longstanding intellectual basis. Go and read Cass Sunstein, Andrew Buchanan or Vicki Jackson then come back to me.

You’re still missing the point. The more of the criteria you meet, the less credible and the higher the political cost of them coming up with a new one.

Right now they have solid plausible deniability by appeal to the popular vote. Whether you like it or not that’s where we are.

“Perhaps your prediction [that there won’t be a referendum held before the next Holyrood elections] will come to pass, I think not but that will be because the Scottish government have chosen to ignore the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate, not because of what amounts to little more than frankly desperate numberwang.“

Your words not mine.

Even if Nicola Sturgeon does everything within her power between now and the next Holyrood Election to hold a referendum, it won’t happen this side of that election.

Yet you were quick to suggest that this would involve “the Scottish government [choosing] to ignore the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate”.

The truth is that it would be *despite the Scottish Government following the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate* and it would be so *because* the UK Government remains both able and willing to engage in mandates numberwang.

Again this is assertion before it has met a test. It's a position you favour clearly but it has not been tested. Therefore it is assertion. You're welcome to hold that view, but it doesn't gain merit the more times you smash it out. 

[Ad Lib]

40 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

I appreciate you’re more up on this than myself, but it’s reported on the BBC that NS intends to introduce the necessary mechanisms which will allow a referendum to take place BEFORE the end of 2023.
Surely the bet should be on what Nicola is promising?

I must confess to being confused by lichtgilphead’s offer.

It’s almost certain that the Scottish Government will introduce a referendum bill and that it will complete its consideration by the Scottish Parliament.

The uncertainty, so far as it exists, is whether that referendum bill will be allowed to reach the statute book or whether the UK Government will successfully challenge its legality before the UK Supreme Court.

The safer bet is that the UK Government will do this (having established the precedent that it’s happy to refer Holyrood bills whatever the political sensitivity in both 2018 and 2021), and the balance of legal opinion at the moment, based on relevant precedents, is that the Scottish Government will probably lose that case.

Therefore, a referendum won’t take place unless and until the UK Parliament (and therefore by practical extension, the UK Government of the day) accepts that one should be allowed to take place, on a set of terms it is prepared to agree to.

It is very difficult to see a Tory-led UK Government agreeing to any such an outcome in the current UK Parliamentary term. It is still fairly unlikely, even with a Labour-led Government, because any such commitment would be fatal to them in England.

Therefore, the pro-independence strategy comes down to essentially one of two approaches:

(a) trigger an early Holyrood election to try to move the political dial; or

(b) nurse the legitimate grievance, bank it, and carry on

Civil disobedience and wildcat polls are a total non starter and Sturgeon knows this. They ended very badly for Catalonia, they lack the mutual recognition necessary for an ordered transition to statehood, and the international community, especially while war rages on Europe’s eastern front, won’t have any sympathy for that sort of disruption within a nuclear state’s borders.

[Ivo den Bieman]

I still can't see this "pledge" as being anything more but a device to get the vote out on Thursday.

The SNP still dominate Scottish politics and don't have to try too hard to do so. The opposition is an absolute shambles led by a semi-retired linesman, a smarmy hypocrite and whoever leads the "Lib Dems" these days. There's been an undeniable rightward drift from the SNP in recent years and we've seen some of the old Labour entitlement begin to appear in the demeanour and attitudes of SNP politicians.

A government that rules by default because all potential alternatives are so crap isn't a government fired up and motivated to bring about change. The SNP also benefits from the UK government being an incompetent, corrupt, troughing binfire but one day these people will be out (and hopefully, more than a few of them in jail, where they belong).

One day the SNP will have do do a bit more than say "but at least Nicola isn't Boris Johnson/ Theresa May." For now, they don't have to bother much.

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

The only person who can dismiss a First Minister is the Queen, as the First Minister holds office at "Her Majesty's pleasure".

That one sentence is enough to discredit the "UK".  The "Queen". FFS.

[Duries Air Freshener]

Enjoying Ad Lib's well thought out posts.

Makes a pleasant change from the usual tit for tat.

[williemillersmoustache]

We're now onto indy is bad because something something Ukraine. 

Let's just check, yup that's the whole tory playbook

 

[Granny Danger]

17 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

We're now onto indy is bad because something something Ukraine. 

Let's just check, yup that's the whole tory playbook

 

They’ve got a point.  If Ukraine wasn’t a sovereign country there would be no need for Russia to invade.

[williemillersmoustache]

4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

They’ve got a point.  If Ukraine wasn’t a sovereign country there would be no need for Russia to invade.

BBC oatcake was full of it today too.  "How could you leave Britain defenceless without its deterrent while Putin blah blah blah."

[Albus Bulbasaur]

^^^

Rattled.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

^^^
Rattled.

Cool that you're basically directing that at yourself.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

15 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Cool that you're basically directing that at yourself.

 

[lichtgilphead]

2 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

I must confess to being confused by lichtgilphead’s offer.

It’s almost certain that the Scottish Government will introduce a referendum bill and that it will complete its consideration by the Scottish Parliament.

I know that. You know that. The question was did DPB know that...

[lichtgilphead]

11 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

1) If people were silly enough to have voted Yes we would also be out of the EU.

2) surely you saw the possibility of a referendum on the EU matter in the foreseeable future? I did and I voted No whilst being aware we would probably have a UK wide vote on EU membership in the future. 

3) I think the currency and

4) pensions issues were the big hitters though. These issues are still there and so is the EU one Brexit or no Brexit. 

1) Perhaps, for a short while. I assume that you've noticed the EU making positive noises about letting Scotland back in since the UK left?

2) I was aware of the possibility of a referendum. I never thought that E&W would be stupid enough to vote to leave though. That alone demonstrates the difference in Scottish & E/W politics

3) Can you remind me exactly how rUK was going to stop iScotland using a freely-traded international currency, in the short term at least? If rUK wanted to run up a big balance of payments deficit, refusing an initial currency union would be one way to acheive it! However, in the long term, I would prefer to see Scotland move to the Euro, but that will depend on the governments we elect after Indy

4) The pensions issue I recall most vivdly was the reports of Labour activists lying to pensioners on their doorsteps. Despicable.

However, the UK pensions minister, Steve Webb, confirmed at the time that "Citizenship is irrelevant. It is what you have put into the UK National Insurance system prior to separation, answer 35 years, that builds up to a continued UK pension under continuing UK rules" https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/uk-mp-state-pensions-would-be-paid-after-yes-vote-1537767

The rest of your post consisted of abuse. Why am I not surprised.

[Jeff Venom]

BBC oatcake was full of it today too.  "How could you leave Britain defenceless without its deterrent while Putin blah blah blah."

If for some weird inexplicable reason an indy Scotland with nuclear deterrent wasn't still going to protect the region then The Westminster gov can feel free to drive them down to Barrow or Portsmouth or the south west peninsula or somewhere.

Aye, didn't think so.

[williemillersmoustache]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said:

If for some weird inexplicable reason an indy Scotland with nuclear deterrent wasn't still going to protect the region then The Westminster gov can feel free to drive them down to Barrow or Portsmouth or the south west peninsula or somewhere.

Aye, didn't think so.

It was very odd. Like the interviewer thought submarines were immovable objects. 

[sophia]

4 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

 

I literally explained to you that precommitment strategies have a longstanding intellectual basis. Go and read Cass Sunstein, Andrew Buchanan or Vicki Jackson then come back to me.

 

I love it when you play at being endearing.

4 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

 

Therefore, the pro-independence strategy comes down to essentially one of two approaches:

(a) trigger an early Holyrood election to try to move the political dial; or

(b) nurse the legitimate grievance, bank it, and carry on

 

No it doesn't.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

1) Perhaps, for a short while. I assume that you've noticed the EU making positive noises about letting Scotland back in since the UK left?

2) I was aware of the possibility of a referendum. I never thought that E&W would be stupid enough to vote to leave though. That alone demonstrates the difference in Scottish & E/W politics

3) Can you remind me exactly how rUK was going to stop iScotland using a freely-traded international currency, in the short term at least? If rUK wanted to run up a big balance of payments deficit, refusing an initial currency union would be one way to acheive it! However, in the long term, I would prefer to see Scotland move to the Euro, but that will depend on the governments we elect after Indy

4) The pensions issue I recall most vivdly was the reports of Labour activists lying to pensioners on their doorsteps. Despicable.

However, the UK pensions minister, Steve Webb, confirmed at the time that "Citizenship is irrelevant. It is what you have put into the UK National Insurance system prior to separation, answer 35 years, that builds up to a continued UK pension under continuing UK rules" https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/uk-mp-state-pensions-would-be-paid-after-yes-vote-1537767

The rest of your post consisted of abuse. Why am I not surprised.

 

[lichtgilphead]

11 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

 

note to self:

13 sentences are too many for Albus's limited attention span. Try to keep replies shorter.

"F*ck off troll" might work in future