|
Post by franki68 on Mar 2, 2021 13:01:25 GMT
I really generally have little interest in engaging in political threads,but it has to be said this government under BJ is about as corrupt as you can get.
I have had experience directly of government corruption both under tory and labour governments,and have seen evidence of it in my previous import business and in the business I am in now (property).
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Mar 2, 2021 19:33:11 GMT
With the recent documentary evidence disclosed, it really isn't looking very good for Sturgeon. Her position looks completely untenable to me.
The only way she will survive is if the institutions decree that ministerial standards don't apply to her. In which case, the institutions will look even more corrupt.
I think she will have to fall on her sword. This would probably bad for Scotland as a country right now (in the sense that she appears to be a popular and strong leader (relatively speaking of course), and people are respecting the lockdown pronouncements).
Moral of the story: don't f*ck with Alex Salmond.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 19:36:12 GMT
...or if you do, make sure he stays down. Too many friends in the party faithful though.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 2, 2021 21:07:28 GMT
The latest news is astonishing, quite frankly. It does actually look like they were trying to use powers of the state to get Salmond imprisoned. She has to go, that kind of behaviour isn’t acceptable in any way.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 3, 2021 9:41:13 GMT
Anything that makes an independence vote less likely, I am fully in favour of. The knives are so viciously out for her from so many quarters partly because she wouldn't let the independence vote go. By continuing to push for independence made this fight one to the death. The referendum was lost and it should remain that way for at least 25 years before it is revisited: if Politicians could accept this then we might get some proper governance back in the country and the crumbling infrastructure might start to get fixed.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 9:59:51 GMT
Would it make any difference? I can see some people being turned off by the actions of the SNP but surely this is simply going to be painted as an establishment stitch-up one way or another. I don't agree that Scotland should have to wait 25 years. The Brexit vote was a material change in circumstances but also one that must change the question. You can't want to leave one union and plan to join another and retain the question, "should Scotland be an independent country?". The question has to become more specific, "Should Scotland leave the UK?.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 3, 2021 10:35:36 GMT
Would it make any difference? I can see some people being turned off by the actions of the SNP but surely this is simply going to be painted as an establishment stitch-up one way or another. I don't agree that Scotland should have to wait 25 years. The Brexit vote was a material change in circumstances but also one that must change the question. You can't want to leave one union and plan to join another and retain the question, "should Scotland be an independent country?". The question has to become more specific, "Should Scotland leave the UK?. So what you are saying is that you want Scotland to leave the UK.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 10:40:45 GMT
Would it make any difference? I can see some people being turned off by the actions of the SNP but surely this is simply going to be painted as an establishment stitch-up one way or another. I don't agree that Scotland should have to wait 25 years. The Brexit vote was a material change in circumstances but also one that must change the question. You can't want to leave one union and plan to join another and retain the question, "should Scotland be an independent country?". The question has to become more specific, "Should Scotland leave the UK?. So what you are saying is that you want Scotland to leave the UK. Where did you read that bit?
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 3, 2021 10:50:58 GMT
Where did you read that bit? In the tone.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 10:53:36 GMT
Where did you read that bit? In the tone. The tone is factual. Brexit was a material change in circumstances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2021 11:32:05 GMT
I have to agree with John, the impression is of wanting Scotland to leave the UK but I'll qualify that to my reading of the comment and my interpretation of it rather than inference being a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 3, 2021 11:36:21 GMT
I don't think the Tories in general want Scotland to leave the Union but I honestly have no idea why that is since all they appear to do is complain about it being a drain.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 11:40:41 GMT
I have to agree with John, the impression is of wanting Scotland to leave the UK but I'll qualify that to my reading of the comment and my interpretation of it rather than inference being a fact. Your confusing a fair assessment of the situation, facts, with being pro-independence. Like it or not the SNP have a point that the circumstances have changed post Brexit. My point is this must change the question. Incidentally, when the question changes from Yes/No to Leave/Remain, support for independence drops by about 10%.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Mar 3, 2021 12:17:56 GMT
I have to agree with John, the impression is of wanting Scotland to leave the UK but I'll qualify that to my reading of the comment and my interpretation of it rather than inference being a fact. Your confusing a fair assessment of the situation, facts, with being pro-independence. Like it or not the SNP have a point that the circumstances have changed post Brexit. My point is this must change the question. Incidentally, when the question changes from Yes/No to Leave/Remain, support for independence drops by about 10%. I don't think michael was saying that that Scotland should leave the UK, just that the SNP position that circumstances have changed was a fair one. I think unionists need to argue differently. A Brexit referendum had already been announced as Conservative policy before the last referendum, so the possibility of us leaving was out there. Obviously, everybody ignored that fact in the 2014 referendum, but the elephant had already entered the room. And why does leaving the EU count as a change of circumstances anyway? The UK still exists. Nothing about the UK has changed. All we done is left a free trade zone (according to remainers like the SNP, being in the EU was all about trade and nothing else).
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 3, 2021 12:21:49 GMT
Surely leaving the EU DOES count as a change in circumstance because a lot of the pro-Union campaigning was based on Scotland being guaranteed to be in the EU if we stayed in the Union rather than having to apply - and possibly being refused entry - if we opted for Independence?
Turns out that was a crock of shit, eh?
Remember that prior to the vote nobody really expected a vote for Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 12:36:23 GMT
Leaving the EU matters as the remain/no campaign played heavily on the idea that Scotland wouldn't gain access to the EU and that there might need to be a border. In leaving the EU the residents of Scotland have lost access to the benefits of being in the EU which they overwhelmingly voted to retain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2021 12:57:34 GMT
I have to agree with John, the impression is of wanting Scotland to leave the UK but I'll qualify that to my reading of the comment and my interpretation of it rather than inference being a fact.Your confusing a fair assessment of the situation, facts, with being pro-independence. Like it or not the SNP have a point that the circumstances have changed post Brexit. My point is this must change the question. Incidentally, when the question changes from Yes/No to Leave/Remain, support for independence drops by about 10%. I clearly stated that I was accepting apparent meaning being defined by the reader and that not being a defining point. Not confusing anything.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 3, 2021 14:32:26 GMT
Leaving the EU matters as the remain/no campaign played heavily on the idea that Scotland wouldn't gain access to the EU and that there might need to be a border. In leaving the EU the residents of Scotland have lost access to the benefits of being in the EU which they overwhelmingly voted to retain. You can twist facts any way you like. In the independence referendum the electorate did not vote to retain the benefits of the EU, they voted to remain part of the UK. The fact is that one of the arguments that was used was that if Scotland left the UK it might/would find itself outside the EU and that was a big negative of seeking independence. I don't know anyone who voted against independence who did so solely because it would mean Scotland would be effectively leaving the EU - they did so because they believed that remaining part of the UK was a better option for a whole raft of reasons. We are now in a position that if Scotland became independent it still wouldn't be part of the EU and there is no guarantee that it would get membership. If membership were offered it would be on EU terms and according to the EU we would need to adopt the Euro. Scotland then effectively becomes a "sea-locked" country. Our only land connections would be through non EU England and our only sea routes are through non EU Northern Ireland. Can you imagine the shit storm of paperwork and bureaucracy for all countries and businesses involved. For me it is a complete non starter. I also don't believe that leaving the EU is a material change because it was a UK vote and there was a significant number of Scots who voted to leave. Unless someone has a definition of material change and the context in which materiality needs to be judged then I don't believe anything has changed from the once in a generation promise.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 15:07:10 GMT
It isn't twisting facts, it's stating them. The SNP are using this line of attack effectively which suggests a good number of people in Scotland think it's a reasonable argument. The lay of the land changed, they might say, and they'd be right.
The EU might make a special case mainly to seek leverage against the UK; but you're right, there are no guarantees. There's also the bigger issue of what the settlement would be, by leaving the 'club' do you leave the benefits of that club, citizenship for example. I think that if a debate about things like that were to be had the benefits of independence would soon fade. For the remaining UK the strategic issues are far more of a concern. The disruption military assets alone would cause significant problems.
But, if it is the line the SNP use to lobby a second a referendum then the unionist side need to seize the opportunity to use that motive to change the question. It's the best chance you've got to swing the result.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 3, 2021 15:26:46 GMT
Since Ruth Davidson stepped down as leader of the Conservatives in Scotland there has been a huge vacuum. Nobody can tell you who the leader is, hardly anyone has any idea what he looks like and he is nowhere to be seen when it comes to TV shows, radio or just general publicity. Ruth Davidson was vocal and visible and that is what is lacking and needed on the Unionist side. The SNP have a huge advantage because they get a platform to publicise themselves daily and due to their clever PR, they do a much better job of it than anyone else.
The SNP are only interested in gaining independence. They are a bit like the long distance runner who just wants to get to the finish. If they get there they will be elated but they have little idea about what they will do afterwards and even less of an idea about how the economy will operate or fund their spending programmes.
If you throw a 10% share of National debt into the equation, the figures all start to look a bit awkward.
If the Tories are serious about maintaining the Union then something needs to be done to elevate the visibility of the Unionist ideas in Scotland: they need to be voiced as loudly as the SNP voice their opinions and statements by the SNP need to be fact checked and countered intelligently and very publicly. At the moment no-one is countering any of the arguments for independence put forward by the SNP and that gives the impression that what they have said is correct. Again this wishy washy attitude at such a crucial time and in the run up to the Scottish elections just leaves me believing that there must be a fairly strong lobby somewhere in Westminster who believe that Scotland should just be cut adrift. There is no easier way to do that than to do nothing at all.
EDIT - I always thought the question was the wrong one. The positive Yes should have been for Scotland to remain part of the UK. I can't change the question but those in Westminster can and should ensure that if the question is asked again that the remain vote should be the affirmative answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2021 15:27:28 GMT
Just move the military assets, dockside, repairs etc and regiments et al into the new UK and the Scots can get of with forming their own assets to suit their pocket. No headache at all. Keeping the money and jobs within the new UK would be priority. Anyone wanting to join the new Scottish military would have the opportunity to leave and do just that. How many takers though? The biggest error I can see is the SNP suggesting they would keep certain aspects of the UK and the remainder would have to put up with their fiscal policy dragging the pound down is a false as the idea that they could have left the UK and remained in the eu automatically was squashed a long time ago. However, as has been mentioned before, this is not going to happen and if ever, it will be a long way down the road.
I hope we can get back to getting on for the most part and losing the hysteria about imaginary events.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 3, 2021 16:28:17 GMT
Since Ruth Davidson stepped down as leader of the Conservatives in Scotland there has been a huge vacuum. Nobody can tell you who the leader is, hardly anyone has any idea what he looks like and he is nowhere to be seen when it comes to TV shows, radio or just general publicity. Ruth Davidson was vocal and visible and that is what is lacking and needed on the Unionist side. The SNP have a huge advantage because they get a platform to publicise themselves daily and due to their clever PR, they do a much better job of it than anyone else. I got some bumph through the door recently from the Scottish Tories and it was very noticeable that the main photo had the new guy standing in a posed photo alongside Ruth Davidson. They really have to get that sorted if they want to get anywhere, I don't think I'm overly susceptible to it but a huge number of people are influenced by the personality. Hence why I heard some people in 2014 saying they wouldn't vote for Independence because they didn't like Alex Salmond even though they could've got independence then immediately voted for someone else if they chose.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 16:28:53 GMT
Just move the military assets, dockside, repairs etc and regiments et al into the new UK Where do you move Trident?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 3, 2021 16:50:09 GMT
Devonport. They spent a fortune on it back in the '90s so they could relocate the subs down from Rosyth (while kindly leaving the decommissioned subs up here).
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 3, 2021 16:58:11 GMT
The small city of Faslane might take a bit more effort to move. After the last independence referendum they built loads more accommodation inside the base. I did wonder if Westminster intended to declare Faslane as Sovereign territory.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 17:02:10 GMT
Devonport. They spent a fortune on it back in the '90s so they could relocate the subs down from Rosyth (while kindly leaving the decommissioned subs up here). From a security point of view I'm not sure it's a good idea to put a load of nuclear weapons in the middle of a town.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 3, 2021 17:06:39 GMT
Devonport. They spent a fortune on it back in the '90s so they could relocate the subs down from Rosyth (while kindly leaving the decommissioned subs up here). From a security point of view I'm not sure it's a good idea to put a load of nuclear weapons in the middle of a town. Er, Rosyth is right next to Edinburgh and presumably contained nuclear armed subs at various points. Presumably, mind. Faslane isn't far from Weegieland so if it went bang it'd wipe out million or so pretty easily!
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 17:12:01 GMT
From a security point of view I'm not sure it's a good idea to put a load of nuclear weapons in the middle of a town. Er, Rosyth is right next to Edinburgh and presumably contained nuclear armed subs at various points. Presumably, mind. Faslane isn't far from Weegieland so if it went bang it'd wipe out million or so pretty easily! It's not about it going bang, it's about monitoring people in the vicinity. It's much more difficult in a large town than it is in the remote location Faslane finds itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2021 17:32:34 GMT
Just move the military assets, dockside, repairs etc and regiments et al into the new UK Where do you move Trident? Belfast would do, massive facilities that are available right now as it happens. Easy access to the north Atlantic too so less time faffing in a narrow channel to get on station.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 3, 2021 18:14:43 GMT
The small city of Faslane might take a bit more effort to move. After the last independence referendum they built loads more accommodation inside the base. I did wonder if Westminster intended to declare Faslane as Sovereign territory. It’s pretty impossible to recreate Faslane, and more importantly Coulport, anywhere else in the British Isles. It’s also difficult to explain the amount of construction that went into that place during the 80s and 90s, at the time it was second only to the Channel Tunnel in size, scope and cost.
|
|