Indyref 2: This time it's personal.
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
How about Bannockburn 2018?
What next? May sayind "The bad thing about Scotland is that it has too many Scots in it?".
(Yes, I know how wildly inaccurate "Braveheart" is in many areas but Longshanks does have some great lines.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Or maybe doing a Edward the First imitation.....
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh, don't. I couldn't get that out of my head on 18th September 2014, even though it wasn't really appropriate. I think it was just the people online in the morning saying "see you on the other side." (That and the fact that we'd just performed it with our choir.)
Rolfe
Adult human female
Jamie Ross the Buzzfeed journalist put it quite well on twitter this afternoon.
It's an interesting situation. Someone else said Sturgeon was playing chess and May was playing draughts. To which someone else retorted, not draughts, snakes and ladders.
May has far more power of course. However Sturgeon is a far better strategist and has the advantage in really believing in the goal she's aiming for. She didn't walk out there on Monday morning on a whim or an impulse. The whole thing would have been war-gamed to death first. May has of course done pretty much what was anticipated, I'd guess. I mean, what did anyone think she was going to say? "OK fine, have your section 30 order then, here you are"?
She has actually made a very weak move. "Now is not the time", as a gambit, needs to have some sort of answer for "of course nobody was suggesting having it now, so what sort of time did you have in mind?" She didn't rule out a second independence referendum, and she didn't even rule out Sturgeon's timetable.
SNP conference starts tomorrow. People are already converging on Aberdeen. I believe there are over 8000 delegates registered. Sturgeon and her ministers get a platform for this event anyway and they're going to milk it for all they're worth.
There are three essential points at issue.
Sturgeon has several more possible moves and all of them are quite powerful. She can call a consultative referendum without a section 30 order, and if the unionists try to boycott it they risk losing by default. She can call on the 56 MPs elected on an SNP ticket in 2015 to resign their seats and force by-elections in all but three Scottish constituencies. She can pull some sort of stunt to get round the fixed-term parliaments that pertain in Scotland and call a fresh general election for Holyrood. Either of these last two can be represented as a proxy independence referendum.
Of course this is risky, she might lose. But there's a fair old chance she won't. Brexit isn't getting any better and even the people who don't do anything but watch Coronation Street and the six o'clock news and look at the rabidly anti-independence headlines in 95% of the newspapers are going to wake up to this at some point.
It's an interesting situation. Someone else said Sturgeon was playing chess and May was playing draughts. To which someone else retorted, not draughts, snakes and ladders.
May has far more power of course. However Sturgeon is a far better strategist and has the advantage in really believing in the goal she's aiming for. She didn't walk out there on Monday morning on a whim or an impulse. The whole thing would have been war-gamed to death first. May has of course done pretty much what was anticipated, I'd guess. I mean, what did anyone think she was going to say? "OK fine, have your section 30 order then, here you are"?
She has actually made a very weak move. "Now is not the time", as a gambit, needs to have some sort of answer for "of course nobody was suggesting having it now, so what sort of time did you have in mind?" She didn't rule out a second independence referendum, and she didn't even rule out Sturgeon's timetable.
SNP conference starts tomorrow. People are already converging on Aberdeen. I believe there are over 8000 delegates registered. Sturgeon and her ministers get a platform for this event anyway and they're going to milk it for all they're worth.
There are three essential points at issue.
- Insisting on delaying a second referendum until Brexit has actually happened is equivalent to insisting that an appeal will only be allowed to go ahead after the appellant has been executed. The Scottish government wants to transition into the status of an independent EU member state from inside the EU, when all the country's laws and procedures comply with the acquis. Delaying the referendum denies this possibility.
- If Scotland is still firmly a part of the UK during the entire Brexit negotiation period, with only a vague (and possibly dishonest) suggestion of a referendum some time in the future, the possibility of Scotland's fisheries and agriculture and other assets being horse-traded away for some sort of advantage for the City of London can't be ruled out. (That would be again, because this happened when the UK joined - Scottish fisheries were deemed to be expendable and were traded off, that's why the fisherman got such a bad deal and why so many of them were rabid Leave voters. I don't think the penny has dropped yet either.)
- Non-UK EU citizens resident in Scotland were able to vote in 2014. They were subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda that a Yes vote would see Scotland expelled from the EU and so they would lose residence rights. Most of them voted No as a result. (I told a couple of them that what has just happened was a more likely possibility but they didn't believe me at the time.) Then they were denied a vote in the EU referendum. Most of them are now rabid Yessers, but if the vote is delayed until after Brexit they will be off the electoral register. This is what May wants of course, but it would be an appalling betrayal to add to the rest.
Sturgeon has several more possible moves and all of them are quite powerful. She can call a consultative referendum without a section 30 order, and if the unionists try to boycott it they risk losing by default. She can call on the 56 MPs elected on an SNP ticket in 2015 to resign their seats and force by-elections in all but three Scottish constituencies. She can pull some sort of stunt to get round the fixed-term parliaments that pertain in Scotland and call a fresh general election for Holyrood. Either of these last two can be represented as a proxy independence referendum.
Of course this is risky, she might lose. But there's a fair old chance she won't. Brexit isn't getting any better and even the people who don't do anything but watch Coronation Street and the six o'clock news and look at the rabidly anti-independence headlines in 95% of the newspapers are going to wake up to this at some point.
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
I think if may refuses the referendum Scotland should simply stop paying it's taxes until she caves. And Sturgeon should simply press on anyway and give May the attention she deserves.
Just a quick, possibly off topic, post regarding a second referendum, May, Sturgeon and the way it appears to me it is being handled.
I was very strongly "anti" Scottish independence during the first referendum. There was no science or logic to it, just a personal belief that we are a single country and that the "Balkanisation" of Europe, especially this corner, would be a bad thing. I was therefore happy with the referendum outcome, especially the promises of increased powers for the devolved governments.
It's an interesting commentary on May's premiership that I'm now in favour of a second Scottish independence vote and I hope that the Scots get independence.
In part it's because it is absolutely and abundantly clear (before it was just very clear) that Scotland's policies, aspirations and so on are divergent from those of England. Apart from independence, there's no way that devolution could go far enough to bridge that gap.
In part it's because of the shameful and condescending way in which May has referred to, and talked to Sturgeon. May has merely confirmed my anti-Conservative prejudices and yet she believes that she is part of the solution and not part of the problem.
In part it's because I'd like May to go down in history as the worst Prime Minister we ever have had. Screwing up Brexit will obviously count against her but overseeing the dismantling of the UK would be, IMO, a fitting conclusion to her divisive premiership.
tl;dr version
Well done Theresa May for turning this Anglo pro-Unionist into someone firmly in favour of Scottish independence.
I was very strongly "anti" Scottish independence during the first referendum. There was no science or logic to it, just a personal belief that we are a single country and that the "Balkanisation" of Europe, especially this corner, would be a bad thing. I was therefore happy with the referendum outcome, especially the promises of increased powers for the devolved governments.
It's an interesting commentary on May's premiership that I'm now in favour of a second Scottish independence vote and I hope that the Scots get independence.
In part it's because it is absolutely and abundantly clear (before it was just very clear) that Scotland's policies, aspirations and so on are divergent from those of England. Apart from independence, there's no way that devolution could go far enough to bridge that gap.
In part it's because of the shameful and condescending way in which May has referred to, and talked to Sturgeon. May has merely confirmed my anti-Conservative prejudices and yet she believes that she is part of the solution and not part of the problem.
In part it's because I'd like May to go down in history as the worst Prime Minister we ever have had. Screwing up Brexit will obviously count against her but overseeing the dismantling of the UK would be, IMO, a fitting conclusion to her divisive premiership.
tl;dr version
Well done Theresa May for turning this Anglo pro-Unionist into someone firmly in favour of Scottish independence.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
I think there is a few more like you. Most progressive English folk seemed to be pro sticking together in 2014 but a sizeable chunk now seem to see independence as a good stride to preserve the kind of values they promote. Mays antics seem to be moving them further from can't blame you for wanting to leave firmly into you go girl territory.
The thing is that this is what the independence movement has always been it's just taken May to make it starkly obvious.
The ironic thing is that it is the rabid anti Scots who get most angry about not breaking up the union. That says everything you need to know about the arrangement. Is there anyone who can put the case for the union positively in Scotland now?
Darling again? Think he has lost credibility. Brown too. The Tories have noone. Lost a lot of respect for Ruth Davidson this week as she's allowed her strings to be pulled so openly from Westminster on this one. She won't convince anyone that isn't already convinced i think.
I'm fed up with Scotland hogging the news. Yorkshire has a bigger population than Scotland.
I already posted that I thought May should call Sturgeon's bluff, but instead she's done what Sturgeon wanted.
I now hope that the SNP do succeed in their aim of breaking Scotland free of the UK. It will be worth it just to get rid of the constant predictable bleating from the SNP bench at Westminster. Also it will save English tax payers having to pay for free services enjoyed by Scots that the English themselves don't have.
I already posted that I thought May should call Sturgeon's bluff, but instead she's done what Sturgeon wanted.
I now hope that the SNP do succeed in their aim of breaking Scotland free of the UK. It will be worth it just to get rid of the constant predictable bleating from the SNP bench at Westminster. Also it will save English tax payers having to pay for free services enjoyed by Scots that the English themselves don't have.
We could have those free services if only we didn't have a government whose priorities were to give healthy tax cuts to millionaire business owners (like me) rather than to look after the least well off in society.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Hey think how Scotland feels with constant coverage of that little twerp Farage (1.6% of the vote and no seats in Scotland at the general election), May (1 seat in Scotland) and Corbyn (1 seat in Scotland).
Not a big one for facts and accuracy are you?
Power is a fickle thing. Theresa May is able to issue orders with far greater consequences than Nicola Sturgeon, in that sense she has more power. On the other hand, that power is greatly tempered by that same fact. She ignores this at her own peril which makes her shadow grow larger than she is. The shadow will come back to haunt her in due course. She has the power to block aspirations for Scottish independence, but doing so will strengthen them, until they come to a boiling point, when independence becomes inevitable.
Sturgeon has another advantage, she is fighting for the same cause as May purports to fight for, taking back control and whatnot. Sturgeons' claim is legit, evidence for that is in the above paragraph, but May is evidently lying. May must simultaneously claim Britain will be better off away from it's main trading partner and that Scotland will be worse off if breaks away from it's own main trading partner. The two claims are contradictory, whereas Sturgeons' are not: she claims Scotland would be better off in EU than in UK. This could be true or it could be false, but one of Mays' claims must be false because they're mutually exclusive.
I wouldn't be so quick as to claim Theresa May has far more power than Nicola Sturgeon. She can order far more important things to happen, but she also faces far grater obstacles in doing so.
McHrozni
Brexit side isn't know for being home to many intelligent people. This is a symptom of that.
It will also give British firms one more place to move to when the fallout from Brexit bites in. Everybody wins!
McHrozni
I'll ignore your insults and address your points.
Farage has hardly been in the news lately, compared to Sturgeon who is on EVERY news bulletin.
When watching the house of commons, the sole UKIP MP rarely speaks but the SNP contribute on every issue - and they always say the same thing so could easily be replaced by a gramophone record or just a poster.
May is the PM of the UK, and Scotland voted to be members of the UK in the last "once in a generation" referendum two years ago.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
She really doesn't. She certainly has the power to frustrate them but not block them. She can make it difficult but the more she makes it difficult the more likely it becomes.
The positive sign is that her blocking this (if indeed she does, so far it's only words rather like Article 50, she hasn't yet blocked anything because the SG has not yet asked for anything) shows her weakness and her fear that she might not get the result she wants.
Whether she wants to preserve the union or merely keep Scotland's assets long enough to bargain them away for a not terrible EU deal is moot but one thing is clear. If she genuinely believed what she says then she would be giving the SNP enough rope to hang themselves.
Not sure they are mutually exclusive, it is her arguments that are contradictory. She is not arguing that Scotland would be better off staying in the Union (that's not necessarily contradictory) but that Scots shouldn't be allowed to choose. That they don't want to choose. That the will of the people CAN be ignored when it suits.
Constitutionally she holds the aces. However it may turn out that we are in fact playing chess rather than poker.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Scotland has, in recent years, been ridiculously over represented at Westminster. Scotland has a lot of land but in terms of population is small.
Yorkshire has a larger population than Scotland.
The West Midlands has a larger population than Scotland.
London has over twice the population of Scotland.
Scotland has been over-represented in Westminster in terms of members of parliament, cabinet ministers, party leaders, and Prime Ministers. They have a disproportionately large number of MPs at Westminster in addition to their own parliament with its members in Edinburgh. Despite this the Scots keep moaning and wanting even more representation and power.
Scots are heavily subsidised by the English and use those subsidies to provide free benefits to Scots that are not available in other areas of the UK.
English taxpayers have also spent billions propping up the Royal Bank of Scotland which was hopelessly mismanaged by its overpaid leaders. The bank is still a basket case and still losing money even after years of having billions poured into it over many years by long suffering English Taxpayers.
Yorkshire has a larger population than Scotland.
The West Midlands has a larger population than Scotland.
London has over twice the population of Scotland.
Scotland has been over-represented in Westminster in terms of members of parliament, cabinet ministers, party leaders, and Prime Ministers. They have a disproportionately large number of MPs at Westminster in addition to their own parliament with its members in Edinburgh. Despite this the Scots keep moaning and wanting even more representation and power.
Scots are heavily subsidised by the English and use those subsidies to provide free benefits to Scots that are not available in other areas of the UK.
English taxpayers have also spent billions propping up the Royal Bank of Scotland which was hopelessly mismanaged by its overpaid leaders. The bank is still a basket case and still losing money even after years of having billions poured into it over many years by long suffering English Taxpayers.
I did. If you can't read and understand that's your problem, not mine.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Not a big one for facts and accuracy are you?
We're saying the same thing here
This is mutually exclusive with her only argument for Brexit, that it was the will of the people.
Chess isn't the most suitable, because it's possible to accurately determine the opponents strengths of weaknesses 100% of the time. The only question is whether you're able to see them or if you miss them because there are so many possibilities.
If I were to pick a most suitable game, I'd probably say Crusader Kings 2. Poker players aren't known for their strategy skill, and I think Theresa May is indeed playing poker, hoping to get away with blatant bluffs. It really all reminds me of a highly skilled Old maid player trying Poker for the first time.
McHrozni