vikingTON Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said: That's Forbes now explicitly said she would have voted against GRR, and also that she would be "loath to challenge" the S35 Order. Quite apart from personal views of GRR, you can hardly open your tenure as an SNP First Minister by accepting that Westminster has a right to veto legislation passed by a two thirds majority of Holyrood if they happen not to like it, just because you also disagree with the legislation. This is about whether you believe in protecting the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament under devolution or not, before eventually getting to adding to them via independence: if you don't you've no business even being an elected representative of an independence supporting party, never mind leading it. The existing powers of the Scottish Parliament cannot be protected under devolution because of Westminster parliamentary supremacy and the absence of a written constitution on 19th century terms. There is absolutely nothing that the SG can do to challenge this. There is not even a right to self-determination as a nation in this hostage state. The fate of the GRR is simply a salutory lesson to the identify rights brigade that any radical changes can only be brought once an independent Scotland is created first. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotiaNostra Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, Trogdor said: I'm pretty certain you can vote more than once. Rendering this even more useless than a normal online poll. Really?? Why they even bother then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 I'm not at all sure I share the prevailing mood on here and I fear being drawn into culture wars with Westminster. Whilst I would hope self id legislation can be brought forward and agreed upon, I don't think playing into the hands of those with ill intent is wise. The narrative that is easy to see playing out is one that I don't think the yes movement needs. The people that need to be convinced on indy are the subset that are more concerned with stability and detail and Forbes is miles ahead of Yousaf in these areas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 10 minutes ago, sophia said: I'm not at all sure I share the prevailing mood on here and I fear being drawn into culture wars with Westminster. Whilst I would hope self id legislation can be brought forward and agreed upon, I don't think playing into the hands of those with ill intent is wise. The narrative that is easy to see playing out is one that I don't think the yes movement needs. The people that need to be convinced on indy are the subset that are more concerned with stability and detail and Forbes is miles ahead of Yousaf in these areas. All Forbes had to do was to let the appeal go ahead to establish the principle that Westminster can't overrule devolved legislation with frankly laughable "reasons". Instead she's jumped into the "culture wars" with two hobnail boots, there was no need. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Forbes allowing her batshit mental religious beliefs to overshadow her politics to the surprise of *checks notes* absolutely no-one. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: How can you, as an Edinburger who has walked up and down Dundas Street many times, say this since said street is named after the most influential member of the (English) East India Company in its history? A man, under whose patronage, Scots came to dominate the Company to the extent that, at its peak, about 1/3rd of the East India Company's writers were Scots? I know perfectly well who and what Dundas was. If Rangers appointed a Dutch manager and signed a host of Dutch players would that make them a Dutch club ? Would they start wearing orange strips ? No, that would be silly. 2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Like England, our involvement in both the North American fur trade and in trading in India and the Far East predated Darien, with the Scottish East India Company established in the early 17th C. But of course, 1707 made it much easier for us with one writer stating, It would be almost impossible to overemphasize the pre-eminent position which Scots of every stripe, Highlander, Lowlander and Islander, attained during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in the North American fur trade. An incredible stretch here to compare the nascent Scottish traders with the joint stock company big guns. The Scottish East India Company is barely a footnote in history, created exclusively by the Privy Council after the monarch fucked off to London, stuffed with English and Dutch investors and opposed by regular Scots merchants. Indeed in the very first paragraph of your link... Quote Scots of every stripe...possessed certain advantages...which fitted them for the service of the English in Hudson's Bay Gleefully joining wur big pals' already ongoing concerns. Lovely. 2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: In India we dominated - pound for pound - the EIC as I said and in China we became significant 'hongs' with Jardine Mathieson still being a massive global company as is HSBC, also established by Scots. Not to mention our role in the Opium Wars and in establishing tea plantations in India - using plants stolen (by a Scottish botanist) from China. One of the earliest recorded examples of industrial espionage. I clearly stated that Scots were over represented in empire post union. It's in the post you quoted. 3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Books and monographs have been written about this shite Indeed and plenty have been written about history pre 1707 too. 3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: in my experience, the less you know about Scotland the more likely you are to be a Nat. Less of this please. Coming from the man who forgot to mention 1650-52 in his Treaty of Leith/Road to the Union nonsense. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, welshbairn said: All Forbes had to do was to let the appeal go ahead to establish the principle that Westminster can't overrule devolved legislation with frankly laughable "reasons". It wouldn't establish that principle because Westminster can do so under the fiction of devolved powers. There is absolutely nothing for the SNP to gain to lollop into that fight - when the reality of Westminster's override of a democratic choice is already established. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiG Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, Gaz said: Forbes allowing her batshit mental religious beliefs to overshadow her politics to the surprise of *checks notes* absolutely no-one. Apparently she's also said she would have voted against gay marriage? Incredible if that's true. A few hours after launching her campaign she's f'cked it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignoramus Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/kate-forbes-i-would-have-voted-against-gay-marriage-says-snp-leadership-contender-4034704 Don’t know if this has been posted already, but surely that’s her gubbed for most members? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hibee_Hibernian Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Forbes also saying she wouldn’t have voted for gay marriage in her Channel 4 interview. Another seemingly stupid hill for her to die on considering that’s a law that’s already in place. Unless someone comes in from out of the blue before the end of the week this is looking like setting independence back years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 1 minute ago, RiG said: Apparently she's also said she would have voted against gay marriage? Incredible if that's true. A few hours after launching her campaign she's f'cked it. Live from Forbes Campaign team... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 I think some of you chaps might be rather surprised with the numbers that have up til now bitten their lip and gone along with the Party Line (as is the SNP way) on the GRR. I also think those (big) numbers will immediately coalesce round Forbes. Humza is the continuity candidate that hasn’t got a clue how to way out of the cul de sac. Other than it’s all Westminster’s fault… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genuine Hibs Fan Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Truly remarkable, and maybe actually admirable(?), to immediately say "I know you're all wondering and, yes, I do have quite reactionary social views" straight away in a leadership election. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Can I take this back now please. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Now I know how fans of managerless clubs feel when they look at these polls and see John Hughes as a viable option. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 (edited) Her answer on same sex marriage was interesting. She said she would have voted against it. However, she likened it to Angela Merkel who brought forward the vote on same sex marriage in Germany and voted with her conscience (against) but implemented the policy as it was the will of the parliament. Clip is here: https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1627745647356006400?s=20 Edited February 20, 2023 by Trogdor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Malkmus Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Just your standard supporter of Malky Mackay's Ross County imo 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 8 minutes ago, virginton said: It wouldn't establish that principle because Westminster can do so under the fiction of devolved powers. There is absolutely nothing for the SNP to gain to lollop into that fight - when the reality of Westminster's override of a democratic choice is already established. I'm not sure you're right in this circumstance, Westminster still has to match the "reasonable" test which was notable for its absence in their justifications. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNU_Linux Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 John Mason feeling upstaged for once. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orfc Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Quite refreshing compared to the "I'll say whatever gets me elected" types A ban on alcohol and Sunday trading next please. Football to be replaced by public Bible readings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.