A bonailie, Nicola
Comments
-
Lots of anecdotal nonsense here.First.Aspect said:There have been rumours since she started travelling abroad on the public purse on what can only be described as personal marketing trips.
They are getting into problems with a number of silly policies.
1. Gender recognition
2. Going ahead with bottle deposit return scheme without the rest of the UK
3. Ferry contracts grossly over running in time and cost, and awarded questionably
4. Public purchase of a ship yard that has gone bust a couple of times
5. The NHS is a disaster here
6. Local services are a disaster here because they've been starved of cash so the SNP can be santa
7. Schools are a disaster here
8. There are huge drug problems in Glasgow that they have got worse since SNP pledged to improve them
9. they would lose both a defacto referendum, and would look weak kicking the defacto referendum down the road. The initial mistake was giving a press conference within an hour or so of the Brexit referendum result calling for another indyref.
10. taxes are higher than the rest of the UK.
11. there is a covid enquiry brewing, and she decided to send old people with covid back to care homes against advice.
12. the SNP are getting financially shady. Her husband loaned them money, and quite a lot of public money is unaccounted for.
I sincerely hope this is a prelude to some more balanced politics up here.1 -
Go on then my SNP supporting friend. Make a reasoned argument.
1 to 4 seem like fairly uncontestible politicial issues and facts to me.
6. Local government organisations are collectively opposing SNP funding decisions at the moment. So if it's anecdotal, I'm in good company.
7. Attainment gap has grown and Scotland's education rankings have fallen. Take it up with the organisations thst measure these things, because they aren't English i don't think.
8. Those are statistics thst even the SNP acknowledge.
10. Is not anecdotal is it? If so I'm careless with £3k a year.
11. There really IS a covid enquiry, and care home residents with covid really did get sent home. You do believe in Covid don't you?
12. Let's see how the two police enquiries turn out, eh?
So you are left with 5, which relates to the performance of the devolved NHS. And 9, which relates to opinion polling and a policy the SNP themselves will drop because they don't think they can "win" any imaginary defacto referendum.
Have I missed anything, or are you back in your cave now?0 -
I don't think a leadership contest will do them much good. Likely winner is a troublingly devout Christian, so there will likely be a u turn on both gender reform and how best to blame Westminster, and the cult of secrecy will probably slip somewhat. I don't see how they can debate anything between opposing candidates and opposing indy strategies by agreeing with one another in the usual clapping seals way.
And make no mistake there are some real loonies in the indy movement who are now chomping at the bit to have their say.0 -
I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked the requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.0 -
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.3 -
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
That sounds pretty likely. Interesting that Brexit and the aftermath, coupled with the Tory approach to Scotland (or lack of), seemed to foster the ideal social and political conditions that could have pushed more people into a "yes" vote. The fact that the SNP still haven't managed to sway enough of the Country in the last 5 years suggests, as you say, that it is not going to happen at any point soon.0 -
if the 40% were to happen do you think the SNP would ever swallow their pride and declare it a UK issue so that the referendum becomes UK wide?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.0 -
The irony of shortfall liking this comment when you could just swap out Indyref for Brexit and Westminster for Brussels and you get the same idea.First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
0 -
I reckon if it had been the whole of the UK voting in a referendum on Scottish independence back in 2014, they'd be gone by nowsurrey_commuter said:
if the 40% were to happen do you think the SNP would ever swallow their pride and declare it a UK issue so that the referendum becomes UK wide?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
"Yes", as they say up here.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon if it had been the whole of the UK voting in a referendum on Scottish independence back in 2014, they'd be gone by nowsurrey_commuter said:
if the 40% were to happen do you think the SNP would ever swallow their pride and declare it a UK issue so that the referendum becomes UK wide?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.0 -
Couldn't agree more. And the point has been made. However, until last week making that point had you called anti Scottish.rick_chasey said:
The irony of shortfall liking this comment when you could just swap out Indyref for Brexit and Westminster for Brussels and you get the same idea.First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
The in fighting has already started. One of the clapping seals who is angling to be leader has said she's against the gender reform bill. Interesting how she's only just mentioning it now.0 -
See that was annoys me about planning permission on Green belt. It can be rejected multiple times, then suddenly it goes through.
How long is enough time to try again?0 -
First.Aspect said:
Couldn't agree more. And the point has been made. However, until last week making that point had you called anti Scottish.rick_chasey said:
The irony of shortfall liking this comment when you could just swap out Indyref for Brexit and Westminster for Brussels and you get the same idea.First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
The in fighting has already started. One of the clapping seals who is angling to be leader has said she's against the gender reform bill. Interesting how she's only just mentioning it now.
And in that respect, Scotland seems to have dodged the bullet: maybe, like the rest of Europe can see the basket case that is Brexit UK, Scottish voters can appreciate that being part of a bigger union with your nearest neighbours, with flaws, gripes and all, is better than imagining that you can go it alone in a big scary world.0 -
If a decision is $hit when do you cut your losses before it's too late?0
-
The interesting bit about the SNP movement is that, in general, seperatism aside, their politics seem to be on the left, hence the confusion amongst English remainers and leavers.
Presumably, this will be the peak of their popularity for a while, as, hopefully a less mental westminster leadership under labour would reduce the desperate need to separate yourself from Westminster. In addition, there will be fewer points of disagreement to grand stand over.
Unless of course SNP then swing rightwards the second labour get in power, which then would be la reveal magnifico.0 -
Reminds me of the time when Sturgeon said that the Covid pandemic was a once in a generation event. Some people thought she meant that she wanted another one in a few years time. (It does sound like a bit some of the votes on further integration into the EU where the electorate of certain countries were asked to vote again until they got the right answer).focuszing723 said:See that was annoys me about planning permission on Green belt. It can be rejected multiple times, then suddenly it goes through.
How long is enough time to try again?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They used to be known as the Tartan Tories. So they do seem to latch on to whatever bandwagon they think gets them closer to the finish line.rick_chasey said:The interesting bit about the SNP movement is that, in general, seperatism aside, their politics seem to be on the left, hence the confusion amongst English remainers and leavers.
Presumably, this will be the peak of their popularity for a while, as, hopefully a less mental westminster leadership under labour would reduce the desperate need to separate yourself from Westminster. In addition, there will be fewer points of disagreement to grand stand over.
Unless of course SNP then swing rightwards the second labour get in power, which then would be la reveal magnifico.
They aren't so much left wing as populist, which in a generally left leaning country means appearing to be left wing.0 -
Until you cast a critical eye on the Tory party, I struggle to take you seriously about broken promises and hypocrisy.Stevo_666 said:
Reminds me of the time when Sturgeon said that the Covid pandemic was a once in a generation event. Some people thought she meant that she wanted another one in a few years time. (It does sound like a bit some of the votes on further integration into the EU where the electorate of certain countries were asked to vote again until they got the right answer).focuszing723 said:See that was annoys me about planning permission on Green belt. It can be rejected multiple times, then suddenly it goes through.
How long is enough time to try again?0 -
Slightly different for a country whose GDP is over 11 times smaller than that of England:briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Couldn't agree more. And the point has been made. However, until last week making that point had you called anti Scottish.rick_chasey said:
The irony of shortfall liking this comment when you could just swap out Indyref for Brexit and Westminster for Brussels and you get the same idea.First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
The in fighting has already started. One of the clapping seals who is angling to be leader has said she's against the gender reform bill. Interesting how she's only just mentioning it now.
And in that respect, Scotland seems to have dodged the bullet: maybe, like the rest of Europe can see the basket case that is Brexit UK, Scottish voters can appreciate that being part of a bigger union with your nearest neighbours, with flaws, gripes and all, is better than imagining that you can go it alone in a big scary world.
https://statista.com/statistics/1003902/uk-gdp-by-country-2018/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Slightly different for a country whose GDP is over 11 times less than that of England.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Couldn't agree more. And the point has been made. However, until last week making that point had you called anti Scottish.rick_chasey said:
The irony of shortfall liking this comment when you could just swap out Indyref for Brexit and Westminster for Brussels and you get the same idea.First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
The in fighting has already started. One of the clapping seals who is angling to be leader has said she's against the gender reform bill. Interesting how she's only just mentioning it now.
And in that respect, Scotland seems to have dodged the bullet: maybe, like the rest of Europe can see the basket case that is Brexit UK, Scottish voters can appreciate that being part of a bigger union with your nearest neighbours, with flaws, gripes and all, is better than imagining that you can go it alone in a big scary world.
https://statista.com/statistics/1003902/uk-gdp-by-country-2018/
And yet, despite that, we're still relatively small fry in a world dominated by the US, China, and the EU, as Truss implied yesterday.
The principle is the same: you don't help your economy by breaking links with your nearest, bigger neighbours.0 -
Stop being so anti Scottish. We can do perfectly well on our own.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Slightly different for a country whose GDP is over 11 times less than that of England.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Couldn't agree more. And the point has been made. However, until last week making that point had you called anti Scottish.rick_chasey said:
The irony of shortfall liking this comment when you could just swap out Indyref for Brexit and Westminster for Brussels and you get the same idea.First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
The in fighting has already started. One of the clapping seals who is angling to be leader has said she's against the gender reform bill. Interesting how she's only just mentioning it now.
And in that respect, Scotland seems to have dodged the bullet: maybe, like the rest of Europe can see the basket case that is Brexit UK, Scottish voters can appreciate that being part of a bigger union with your nearest neighbours, with flaws, gripes and all, is better than imagining that you can go it alone in a big scary world.
https://statista.com/statistics/1003902/uk-gdp-by-country-2018/
And yet, despite that, we're still relatively small fry in a world dominated by the US, China, and the EU, as Truss implied yesterday.
The principle is the same: you don't help your economy by breaking links with your nearest, bigger neighbours.
Recycle.
Repeat.0 -
Is there any science to good decision making? I can only think some kind of monitered AI would give a factual decision not based on emotions.
I don't think even McEnroe would of have questioned Hawk Eye.
If there was a unified decision making Governance it would be interesting to see how Humanity would be directed.
Ummm.0 -
IIRC we are the 6th largest economy on the planet. The only near neighbour that is larger is Germany. Although not sure what you mean by breaking links as we're still travelling there, trading with them, cooperating with them on important stuff like defence (although Germany probably isn't a good example in that case...)briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Slightly different for a country whose GDP is over 11 times less than that of England.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Couldn't agree more. And the point has been made. However, until last week making that point had you called anti Scottish.rick_chasey said:
The irony of shortfall liking this comment when you could just swap out Indyref for Brexit and Westminster for Brussels and you get the same idea.First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
The in fighting has already started. One of the clapping seals who is angling to be leader has said she's against the gender reform bill. Interesting how she's only just mentioning it now.
And in that respect, Scotland seems to have dodged the bullet: maybe, like the rest of Europe can see the basket case that is Brexit UK, Scottish voters can appreciate that being part of a bigger union with your nearest neighbours, with flaws, gripes and all, is better than imagining that you can go it alone in a big scary world.
https://statista.com/statistics/1003902/uk-gdp-by-country-2018/
And yet, despite that, we're still relatively small fry in a world dominated by the US, China, and the EU, as Truss implied yesterday.
The principle is the same: you don't help your economy by breaking links with your nearest, bigger neighbours."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So you want Scotland to be independent, but also you don't like SNP because they want to break away from the UK?Stevo_666 said:
I reckon if it had been the whole of the UK voting in a referendum on Scottish independence back in 2014, they'd be gone by nowsurrey_commuter said:
if the 40% were to happen do you think the SNP would ever swallow their pride and declare it a UK issue so that the referendum becomes UK wide?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.0 -
It's only a win if they don't like it. 😉Jezyboy said:
So you want Scotland to be independent, but also you don't like SNP because they want to break away from the UK?Stevo_666 said:
I reckon if it had been the whole of the UK voting in a referendum on Scottish independence back in 2014, they'd be gone by nowsurrey_commuter said:
if the 40% were to happen do you think the SNP would ever swallow their pride and declare it a UK issue so that the referendum becomes UK wide?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I didn't say what I wanted. I do recall some poll amongst the English where sentiment was that they would vote for Scotland to go if it would just stop all the whingeing.Jezyboy said:
So you want Scotland to be independent, but also you don't like SNP because they want to break away from the UK?Stevo_666 said:
I reckon if it had been the whole of the UK voting in a referendum on Scottish independence back in 2014, they'd be gone by nowsurrey_commuter said:
if the 40% were to happen do you think the SNP would ever swallow their pride and declare it a UK issue so that the referendum becomes UK wide?First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
IIRC we are the 6th largest economy on the planet. The only near neighbour that is larger is Germany. Although not sure what you mean by breaking links as we're still travelling there, trading with them, cooperating with them on important stuff like defence (although Germany probably isn't a good example in that case...)briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Slightly different for a country whose GDP is over 11 times less than that of England.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Couldn't agree more. And the point has been made. However, until last week making that point had you called anti Scottish.rick_chasey said:
The irony of shortfall liking this comment when you could just swap out Indyref for Brexit and Westminster for Brussels and you get the same idea.First.Aspect said:
Nope, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To actually move the needle on independence, they need to persuade people who aren't already persuaded. And to do that, they would need to demonstrate what they could do with devolved powers, and at least out perform the rest of the non-London UK.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I don't have any in depth knowledge of the SNP, but I assume that part of the problem was, being a single issue party, the SNP lacked he requisite broad range of public policy knowledge and experience to actually govern Scotland successfully? Is this too simplistic a view?
I know there has been lots of praise for Sturgeon, particularly in the English media, but I have to admit, I always found her quite arrogant and dismissive of any viewpoint that didn't tally with her own.
Instead, what they did was bleat about what they couldn't do because of Westminster, repeat ad nauseam how great the promised land will be, and bang their fists.
In the meantime, earnings here have lagged further behind the rest of the UK, as has economic growth because the constant indyref2 rhetoric has stifled investment.
I predict "yes" will sink to 40% or below and stay there, at least for the duration of a Labour UK governmental cycle. Not quite low enough to dismiss, not quite high enough to support any credible argument for a second referendum. At those levels, (or below) the SNP will tend to be in coalition with a UK wide party and all the talk about "mandate" will evaporate.
The in fighting has already started. One of the clapping seals who is angling to be leader has said she's against the gender reform bill. Interesting how she's only just mentioning it now.
And in that respect, Scotland seems to have dodged the bullet: maybe, like the rest of Europe can see the basket case that is Brexit UK, Scottish voters can appreciate that being part of a bigger union with your nearest neighbours, with flaws, gripes and all, is better than imagining that you can go it alone in a big scary world.
https://statista.com/statistics/1003902/uk-gdp-by-country-2018/
And yet, despite that, we're still relatively small fry in a world dominated by the US, China, and the EU, as Truss implied yesterday.
The principle is the same: you don't help your economy by breaking links with your nearest, bigger neighbours.
So is trade with the EU going just as well as before Brexit? All going swimmingly?
IIRC, the UK was the 5th largest economy before Brexit.
0 -
Really saying something that Russia is going through a period of growth while being hit by extreme sanctions.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
