Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 9

[Welshbeef]

biggbn said:

Welshbeef said:

Why does Nicola always say “tooooaraarrry” and in a deliberate accent to mock/belittle everyone who votes for that party (22% odd of the Scottish population according to actual election ballot results).


What about Coooorbyyyn or Keeeiiirrf orlaaaaaabbbbour

Perhaps its her accent? I must admit, there are several posters on here who continually mock the way some speak. I find it quite arrogant and unpleasant. I have mentioned this before but to no avail.

My other point is why would she mention them. They are largely irrelevant as they have no power.

No I’ve watched her say “Story” oddly that comes out in the normal way of flowing conservation.


You know it I know it she takes every opportunity to have a dig but if you actually think it’s her accent ROFLOL well say no more.

[biggbn]

Welshbeef said:

biggbn said:

Welshbeef said:

Why does Nicola always say “tooooaraarrry” and in a deliberate accent to mock/belittle everyone who votes for that party (22% odd of the Scottish population according to actual election ballot results).


What about Coooorbyyyn or Keeeiiirrf orlaaaaaabbbbour

Perhaps its her accent? I must admit, there are several posters on here who continually mock the way some speak. I find it quite arrogant and unpleasant. I have mentioned this before but to no avail.

My other point is why would she mention them. They are largely irrelevant as they have no power.

No I’ve watched her say “Story” oddly that comes out in the normal way of flowing conservation.


You know it I know it she takes every opportunity to have a dig but if you actually think it’s her accent ROFLOL well say no more.

OK man, I wasn't defending her, nae time for her, merely thinking aloud. Pronunciation is a funny old thing. Perhaps she can me misspronunci(independent)nation...?

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 8th July 00:29

[McGee_22]

McGee_22]The [b]not-so-hidden-if-you-think-about-it [b/ said:

drawback against removing private schools charitable status is that perhaps as much as 60% of families could not afford the increase in subsequent school fees so those children would become encumbent upon state schools and resources and thus dilute those resources across the board.

ant1973 said:

Evercross said:

sambucket said:

I really only mentioned it as an example of a progressive policy that SNP has postponed.

How can it be justified as progressive? Is that not just a fig-leaf for the politics of envy?

Plus - the elephant in the room (remember I am privy to this sort of info) - private schools in Scotland achieve a lot more on significantly smaller average budgets than state schools (when PFI debt-servicing is factored in).

There are several school buildings in my division alone that are not sustainable on the number of pupils attending but are kept open just because even if they were closed down the financial obligations incurred would be the same (until the year 2037).

Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 7th July 22:19

I think the parental background makes a difference as well. I was told by an educational psychologist once that, adjusted for background, there was no real difference in attainment between public and private schools. So you close the private schools tomorrow, parents probably move to a better catchment or they may already be in a better catchment anyway. Overall attainment stays the same is my guess. Tax revenues fall from the closed school and state spending rises. It's a lose: lose. I have not sent my kids privately because they are in a good school cathchment. I was also concerned that the SNP would level up university entrance grades by creating a public\private differential.

Did I mention you had to think about it? It's one of those unintended consequences things that if you don't think it through can bite you in the ass - a bit like justifying a fiscal programme on the price of variable priced commodity, perhaps something like gas or oil maybe, or even assuming that another country would let you borrow their currency, tax facilities, military, overseas embassies, vehicle licensing, and so on.

There is a common theme here of elected people in charge taking responsibility for thinking things through rather than just throwing big wishes and dreams out to those people who can't or won't think things through...

[Roderick Spode]

It would appear that a leading nationalist academic now wants the independence movement to avoid using facts, and focus instead on 'emotive storytelling'.

Article said:

Thoughtful, analytical and rational thinking is “hard, takes lots of energy, and often leads to confusion”, according to Professor Black, convener of the Scottish Independence Convention, the grassroots nationalist movement chaired by the comedian Elaine C Smith. Nationalists must instead use “more stories, less facts” and “feel good” messages, Professor Black said, who is also on the board of Common Weal, a left-wing think tank.

I've checked the date, and today isn't April 1st, so can only assume that this is a serious suggestion. We have seen in the past that the SNP very much dislike using facts and figures, so it's no surprise that expectations are being realigned along mythical and fantastic lines. A free unicorn for every Yes voter perhaps?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/scotti...

Professor Black has subtly altered his narrative from 2017, when he proposed one avenue to independence would be if the SNP were to govern 'brilliantly' at Holyrood. There's a man with high ambitions. Hey, I'd like to be 6' 2" and a bronzed Adonis, but we have to be realistic here.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/snp-must-brillia...

[glazbagun]

Use even fewer facts than last time?

In one sense he's right- it worked for Trump, after all, and has worked on nationalists since the beginning of nations, but if Scots were ruled by nationalist flag-waving over rational debate we'd have voted out last time.

It's more of a strategy for doubling down on their core vote and ensuring other parties can't erode their large minority with reasoning as they'll all be Traitors who Hate Scotland if they suggest anything other than a thousand years of prosperity.

[Roderick Spode]

Another ridiculous bit of posturing from the Toon Councillor and her sycophants.

Reuters said:

(Reuters) - The Scottish government has warned it would defy a proposed UK legislation that will allow Westminster unilaterally to set food and environmental standards, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The Scottish National Party will challenge in the courts the legislation that will give London unilateral control to police the UK's "internal market", Michael Russell, Scotland's cabinet secretary for constitutional affairs, told the newspaper.

Do the SNP actually ever propose any policies other than those in direct opposition to whatever Westminster legislates?


https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scot...

[csd19]

glazbagun said:

Use even fewer facts than last time?

Didn't think that could be remotely possible!

I had considered using a copy of the fabled white paper for cleaning purposes during the toilet paper shortage at the start of the year, but it was more than obvious that I'd end up with more ste on me than when I started.

[Evercross]

csd19 said:

I had considered using a copy of the fabled white paper for cleaning purposes during the toilet paper shortage at the start of the year, but it was more than obvious that I'd end up with more ste on me than when I started.

[technodup]

[anonymous-user]

And.... we're back.

[wisbech]

Roderick Spode said:

Another ridiculous bit of posturing from the Toon Councillor and her sycophants.

Reuters said:

(Reuters) - The Scottish government has warned it would defy a proposed UK legislation that will allow Westminster unilaterally to set food and environmental standards, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The Scottish National Party will challenge in the courts the legislation that will give London unilateral control to police the UK's "internal market", Michael Russell, Scotland's cabinet secretary for constitutional affairs, told the newspaper.

Do the SNP actually ever propose any policies other than those in direct opposition to whatever Westminster legislates?


https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scot...

Gets out popcorn. They (SNP) can just use most of the Tory official brexit points against them. If it is wrong for policy for Dumfries to be made in Brussels , why is it OK to be made in London?

[s2art]

wisbech said:

Gets out popcorn. They (SNP) can just use most of the Tory official brexit points against them. If it is wrong for policy for Dumfries to be made in Brussels , why is it OK to be made in London?

But the SNP want to be in the EU, so why is wrong for policy for Dumfries to be made in London, why is it OK to be made in Brussels?


(apart from the fact that the UK parliament has much more skin in the game)

[amusingduck]

wisbech said:

Gets out popcorn. They (SNP) can just use most of the Tory official brexit points against them. If it is wrong for policy for Dumfries to be made in Brussels , why is it OK to be made in London?

In both cases it's the person paying the bills making the choices

[Roderick Spode]

s2art said:

wisbech said:

Gets out popcorn. They (SNP) can just use most of the Tory official brexit points against them. If it is wrong for policy for Dumfries to be made in Brussels , why is it OK to be made in London?

But the SNP want to be in the EU, so why is wrong for policy for Dumfries to be made in London, why is it OK to be made in Brussels?

I'm no great advocate for Brexit, and that would be for a different thread, but one major difference would be that London is the parliament for the UK, and so legislation promulgated there pertains to the UK as an entirety. Holyrood is a regional devolved talking shop, and has limited powers. To use your argument to it's logical conclusion, why is it okay for legislation policy for Inverness/Thurso/Fort William to be made in Holyrood? We demand powers for the Highlands, and a referendum... Don't get started on Orkney and Shetland.

[wisbech]

s2art said:

wisbech said:

Gets out popcorn. They (SNP) can just use most of the Tory official brexit points against them. If it is wrong for policy for Dumfries to be made in Brussels , why is it OK to be made in London?

But the SNP want to be in the EU, so why is wrong for policy for Dumfries to be made in London, why is it OK to be made in Brussels?


(apart from the fact that the UK parliament has much more skin in the game)

True, but won't stop them using the argument...

[wisbech]

Roderick Spode said:

I'm no great advocate for Brexit, and that would be for a different thread, but one major difference would be that London is the parliament for the UK, and so legislation promulgated there pertains to the UK as an entirety. Holyrood is a regional devolved talking shop, and has limited powers. To use your argument to it's logical conclusion, why is it okay for legislation policy for Inverness/Thurso/Fort William to be made in Holyrood? We demand powers for the Highlands, and a referendum... Don't get started on Orkney and Shetland.

But often this is not true. Classic example is abortion or gay marriage - London passed it, but it didn't pertain to NI. But now London are saying for internal market issues, they will over-rule. Could get interesting - is law an internal market, will Scottish & English lawyers now be interchangeable without having to re-qualify?

[Evercross]

wisbech said:

But now London are saying for internal market issues, they will over-rule.

They are not saying they will overrule. Mike Russell is saying this - putting words in their mouth. The reality is there is no overrule because Holyrood et al do not have the jurisdiction in the first place.

IIRC this is only becoming a matter because these are powers returning to the UK as a result of Brexit. Mike Russell has been banging on for ages about this as being a 'power grab' in his usual Orwellian fashion because what he wants instead is the powers to pass straight to Holyrood despite the devolved assemblies not actually existing at the time the UK entered the EU, so the attempted power grab is really his.

This is just the same fake argument presented from the other end.

Russell is a charlatan - he always has been and always will be. He thinks he is an intellectual and will string together a totally fallacious premise and present it with utter conviction. He's the SNP's chief grievance monger and this is just another example. Oh, and note the usual bks about challenging it in the courts. Joanna Cherry said something similar about challenging the UK government's right to reject s.30 order requests and we are still waiting for her to fire the gun on that one, and we will be waiting indeterminately because she (and Russell) know that what they are really challenging is the legal basis on which the devolved assemblies exist. They risk bringing the whole edifice down if they push things to the n'th degree.

Edited by Evercross on Wednesday 8th July 14:19

[Roderick Spode]

wisbech said:

Roderick Spode said:

I'm no great advocate for Brexit, and that would be for a different thread, but one major difference would be that London is the parliament for the UK, and so legislation promulgated there pertains to the UK as an entirety. Holyrood is a regional devolved talking shop, and has limited powers. To use your argument to it's logical conclusion, why is it okay for legislation policy for Inverness/Thurso/Fort William to be made in Holyrood? We demand powers for the Highlands, and a referendum... Don't get started on Orkney and Shetland.

But often this is not true. Classic example is abortion or gay marriage - London passed it, but it didn't pertain to NI. But now London are saying for internal market issues, they will over-rule. Could get interesting - is law an internal market, will Scottish & English lawyers now be interchangeable without having to re-qualify?

With respect, that's a different argument. The standards and legislation being discussed were controlled and mandated by the EU, with Westminster obligated by treaty to implement their decrees. This legislation then applied to the UK as a complete entity - Scotland as a stand-alone administration has never had responsibility for any of these standards. Now these powers to legislate are being returned to Westminster, there is no precedent nor mandate for them to be transferred directly to the Holyrood administration, despite whatever Mike Russell is claiming.

The difference between this and your example on the same-sex marriage legislation in NI is that Stormont did have devolved responsibility to legislate as a stand-alone executive - the non-functioning of the executive at that time gave Westminster the power to impose direct rule over devolved legislation. A somewhat different circumstance to the food standards example.

[hutchst]

I doubt anybody in Westminster will lose any sleep if Scottish industries decide to produce goods that aren't fit for export.

[ant1973]

wisbech said:

Roderick Spode said:

I'm no great advocate for Brexit, and that would be for a different thread, but one major difference would be that London is the parliament for the UK, and so legislation promulgated there pertains to the UK as an entirety. Holyrood is a regional devolved talking shop, and has limited powers. To use your argument to it's logical conclusion, why is it okay for legislation policy for Inverness/Thurso/Fort William to be made in Holyrood? We demand powers for the Highlands, and a referendum... Don't get started on Orkney and Shetland.

But often this is not true. Classic example is abortion or gay marriage - London passed it, but it didn't pertain to NI. But now London are saying for internal market issues, they will over-rule. Could get interesting - is law an internal market, will Scottish & English lawyers now be interchangeable without having to re-qualify?

There are so few matters which are "protected", almost anyone can give unregulated legal advice.