9 minutes ago, ToonGuns said:

Don't disagree at all with the logic. But it sets an appallingly dangerous precedent.

There is a fundamental difference between an election, which intentionally happen regularly and take place between political parties and cover topics that can be corrected at future elections if needed to keep the ebb and flow correct (e.g. Donald Trump), and a referendum which is a one-off fundamental long term decision and a cross-party issue. Manifesto pledges are very frequently not met.

Just because the flavour of the month happens to disagree with the result of the last referendum shouldn't mean a political party can redo a referendum willy nilly. It makes the whole concept of a "once in a generation" referendum completely moot. Which is very dangerous, even if there is, currently, a wish for it (which I am sure there is). I personally wish there could be a second Brexit referendum, and tomorrow!!!, but I understand that that concept is constitutionally and politically very very challenging (unfortunately!).

Another issue is that in my view the dissolution of the UK (which ultimately is the discussion point here, as this is not a Scotland-only conversation as allowing a second referendum in Scotland would also create huge knock-on consequences for Ireland / Northern Ireland) should not be a Scotland only vote. It affects us all.

And the world needs far fewer borders in my view, not more. We should all be trying to work together, not create more boundaries. Blindly forcing a second Scottish referendum based on heat of the moment views to score political points has almost infinite knock-on consequences that are far bigger than the specific issue at hand. It is an absolute mess and a second referendum would keep that path heading in the wrong direction. 

Don't get me wrong, if I was a passionate Scot I'd be pushing hard for it I am sure!... but there is a bigger picture which is often difficult to see when in the mix.

The better option might be to let things settle for a few years, see now Brexit plays out, and if goes the way I think it could, push for a referendum to rejoin the EU as "the UK", as I think, as an outsider to Scotland but from speaking to friends and family there, the reason for Scotland wanting a second referendum is frustration at being pulled out of Europe - and I completely sympathise. But sticking together is surely the better strategy rather than a knee jerk reaction to score political points, the consequences of which could, literally, be horrific (I'm thinking of the NI link here).

The fundamental issue / root cause in all of this is that referendums, given their consequences, need to be controlled and legislated much much better. It was and is completely appalling that the Brexit campaign could use lies and emotional blackmail in their campaign. Fair enough in elections political parties "embellish" their manifestos with bravado, much of which disappears when they are in power and manifestos become quietly forgotten about, but with referendums to lie to the public and use lies to convince voters on a "once in a generation" topic should be a major crime and the results void. Never again should there be a referendum where lies win.

So, are you saying that if the Scottish electorate do vote for a majority of MSPs standing on the policy platform of holding an independence referendum, that should not count for anything and be completely ignored? With the greatest of respect, if you're looking to keep people's faith in democracy, that sounds like a much more appallingly dangerous precedent to set than holding referenda more frequently than "once in a generation". Especially when between the last vote and now, we have seen the biggest material change of circumstances in the last half-century, and one which directly contravenes the promises made by those who convinced us to stay in the UK in 2014, as well as riding roughshod over our landslide "remain" vote in 2016. This has not been a 'normal' generation.

As for Scotland only being able to leave after a UK-wide vote, that's not really how self-determination works. To use an analogy, no-one would ever be able to get out of an abusive marriage if both people had to consent to the separation. If the electorate of the UK as a whole voted in a party with a commitment to holding a referendum on multilaterally breaking up the UK, then the UK-wide referendum you describe should absolutely take place, but if the people of one constituent nation decide that it's in their best interest to become an independent country, then they should be able to leave unilaterally without the threat of the other countries effectively locking the door and swallowing the key. The precedent was set in 2014 and I'd imagine those rules will continue to apply in any democratic process going forward.

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Irrespective of that, my take on it is that Brexit represents a fundamental change to the conditions under which the first referendum was held. For that reason alone I think the Scots deserve another vote. A second referendum on Brexit doesn't really come under the same criteria as nothing fundamental has changed with Brexit since the first vote. It's turning out to be just as big of a clusterfuck as we all thought it was going to be whereas the Scots who voted to remain part of the union did so under the assumption that the union would remain part of the EU. In fact if I remember correctly wasn't part of the anti-independence rhetoric that an independent Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU?

Fair to say...

12 hours ago, ToonGuns said:

The main issue with a second referendum is the precedent and constitutional issues it creates. Why should one referendum get a second chance at things asking the same question simply because, a few years later, possibly people have changed their minds, but another referendum is fixed for life? That's the issue, regardless of your political views.

The whole situation is fucked due to brexit - you can't allow Scotland to have a second referendum on independence  while not allowing the UK a second referendum on Brexit. Once the "once in a generation" referendum argument is gone if there was a second referendum, precedent then would allow for second referendums, third referendums, and so on (keep going until you get the answer you want), and before you know it you're into further political mess.

This is regardless of your personal views (and in the interests of transparency, I want the UK to remain together, and didn't want Brexit).

Brexit has basically constitutionally fucked the UK. 

If the people of Scotland elect a majority of representatives who have "hold an independence referendum" in their manifesto (either from the SNP, the Green Party or independently), then there's a democratic mandate for a referendum to be held. Generational frequency shouldn't come into the equation.

I would argue the same if a party were elected to the UK Parliament with a second referendum on EU membership (although I think that's unlikely). In a democracy, no politician or party should be able to look at the result of a plebiscite and decide whether they will 'allow' it to take its course based on something so subjective as their own opinion on whether or not it's 'too soon' since the people were last given the opportunity to make their voices heard.

In 2017, after five years out of continental competition Rangers were ranked 308th in Europe and unceremoniously dumped out by the fourth-ranked teams in Luxembourg. In the subsequent three seasons we've jumped up 247 places to 53rd, reached the last 16 of the competition from the early qualifying rounds twice and overcome (if you apply the knockout-tie rules to group games) Maribor, Rapid Vienna, Villarreal, Midtjylland, Legia Warsaw, Porto, Feyenoord, Braga, Willem II, Galatasaray, Standard Liege, Benfica, Lech Poznan and now Royal Antwerp (among others). A long way to go, but when you consider where we've been, I think it's an incredible turnaround and the 9-5 aggregate win we've just completed over Antwerp was football at its craziest and most thrilling. 

I didn't know her well personally, but she was around here long enough that she was an important part of the fabric and the story of this place. I'm really sorry to hear that she's gone. 

(For those who don't speak Scottish Football, he means that the Sun are reporting Celtic have sacked Neil Lennon).

20 hours ago, downzy said:

Do you think this is the thing that finally pushes Scottish independence to the finish line?  

Well, it's unlikely to be straightforward, but there are signs pointing in that direction.

During the first referendum, independence wasn't that popular to begin with - it had about 25% support when the vote was announced in 2011 and that grew to 45% over the course of the campaign, that being the final 'Yes' vote total in the 2014 referendum.

In the years after the referendum, the demographics basically stagnated at 55% No-45% Yes, although support for independence did creep up to around 48% after the Brexit vote, this wasn't seen as earth-shatteringly significant because it was still below 50%.

However, from the start of 2020 until now, there have been 21 consecutive opinion polls showing support for independence between 52% and 58%, so it would appear to have become the preferred position of the majority of people in Scotland.

Whether that can be converted into a legally binding vote remains to be seen. In the 2014 vote, the Conservative-led UK Government agreed to make it legally binding after the pro-independence, Centre-Left Scottish National Party won resoundingly in the Scottish Parliament elections, basically because they thought there was no chance in hell that 'Yes' would win. Now, they're being significantly more reluctant to do it, even if confronted with a strong pro-independence result in the Scottish elections, claiming 'now is not the time...' and other flimsy arguments that may hold water purely because they're the 'sovereign' government (although, under Scots Law, which has equal standing in the UK legal system, in Scotland, it is the people who are sovereign, not the government or the monarch - so this may be able to be challenged in court). They're basically trying to 'Catalonia' us, which is extremely frustrating, I wish they'd play fairly by the rules they already established...

At the moment, the Scottish National Party, which is the main (but not the only) party that supports independence is going through some pretty painful internal turmoil as well, splits, disagreements and scandals, which certainly doesn't help matters - so a successful independence bid may also depend on them getting their house in order.

4 hours ago, ToonGuns said:

I admittedly know little to nothing about US politics, but looking from the outside in, the impeachment process seems to be the equivalent of criminal court trial where 50% of the jurors are family of the accused and 50% of the jurors are family of the victim, with a 75% majority needed either way.

I can't see the point.

The system surely must allow for impartial "juror" decisions based on the evidence presented, not for decisions to be made based on the potential consequences of those decisions and / or impartial views regardless of whatever evidence is presented.

This is a brilliant analogy - it's a frankly moronic way to conduct a trial.

12 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know if I should relish in schadenfreude or be sad. I mean, I really, really like the Brits and wish them all well. But... they brought this upon themselves.

Be sad for us Scots at least, we didn't vote for this and are now being put through it by the Tory wankers anyway.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Seen this, @Graeme?

GoPro Gets Melted by Lava and Survives - YouTube

So I think Go Pros are key to winning our war against them volcanoes. Maybe we can wear them? Like put up on our clothes so the lava won't get us? Or live in them? Like huge GoPros that are houses. Or maybe stuff the crates full with GoPros so the volcano can't spew out and disintegrate us?

I think the volcanoes are one step ahead of us, plotting to develop lava that even go-pros can't resist.

That'll do, Scotland. That'll do. 

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Makes no odds to me what you like, I know it's an absolutely brilliant solo and the song itself is a GNR standout. That's enough for me😃

How you could possibly know that TIL would be any better if the early 90s line up recorded it, I have no idea! Crystal ball? besides that you're talking from your arse!😉

This is, I suppose, the downside for those who joined GN'R for the Chinese Democracy recording and tours, that there would be people (and quite a lot of people) who would always be convinced that their predecessors were infinitely better musicians purely because of who they were.

54 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Oooh, I really enjoyed Skull Island but don't remember that reference. Is this all in the same universe as Peter Jackson's Kong remake or completely separate? Since that Kong was obviously MUCH smaller than the big fella in this one.

Not the same universe as the Jackson one - but yes, the same universe as the other two Legendary Godzilla films and Skull Island. 

22 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Has Godzilla shrunk or has Kong gotten much bigger? 

The latter, they set that up in Kong: Skull Island by pointing out that he was an adolescent and still had a lot of growing to do.

Trailer just dropped - looks great, although as someone who is 100% on Team Godzilla, I'm slightly concerned that he wasn't shown to land a single blow. I don't just want it to be 'plucky underdog King Kong manages to beat Godzilla against all odds'. If one of them has to win (although I still think they may divert the plot away from that eventuality), I want Godzilla all day every day.

On 1/19/2021 at 6:12 PM, SoulMonster said:

That's an awesome photo.

What are the signs of a larger, more destructive eruption? More shaking leading up to it? Particular rumblings that can be monitored?  Fissures and cracks opening up further down?

There can be various! Volcanic earthquakes are usually a good indicator that magma is moving underground. If you have more than three seismometers then you should be able to triangulate the location of volcano-seismic events, and that will tell you whereabouts within the volcanic system they're occurring, so you can get some indication if activity is progressing towards the surface. Also, because the seismic signals move more slowly through magma than solid rock, you can also make a rough estimate of the size of a subterranean body of magma - so that can help give an idea of the potential size of an eruption, if you can estimate quantity of magma that's rising.

When rock is fractured by moving magma, it creates 'volcano-tectonic' earthquakes. These can happen without resulting in an eruption, the magma can just be sloshing about underground, but if you see a sequence of strong, frequent volcano-tectonic earthquakes progressing towards the surface then there's a strong chance you're looking at precursors to an eruption.

There's another type of volcano seismicity that's proven to be really important as well, they're known as 'Type B' or 'Long Period' events, and they're indicative of the pressurised movement of gasses within a volcanic system (it's the same waveform you'd see analysing the sonic signal from a pipe organ, where the sound is generated by air being funnelled through the pipes). Even when volcanoes aren't erupting, gasses from the magma can make their way up through systems of cracks and emerge at the surface from vents called 'fumaroles', or through volcanic hot springs/geysers if there's a layer of groundwater for them to pass through. These gasses, if analysed, can tell volcanologists about the chemical composition of the source magmas, which can give an idea about how explosive we might expect them to be. Also, sometimes there's a pretty straightforward relationship between the amount of gas being emitted and the magmatic conditions below the surface (i.e. more gas = more magma and it's closer to the surface), but this isn't always the case, and this is why Long Period earthquakes are important... In the early 1990s, there was a big debate among the gas geochemists in volcanology and the seismologists - the gas guys basically argued that you couldn't have an eruption without precursory gas emissions. However, it's since been shown that in scenarios where there isn't a lot of gas being emitted, you should look for Long Period seismic signals, and if you see a lot of those, that means the gas is getting pressurised with no escape route, so you're likely to see a very violent explosion.

That doesn't necessarily mean a 'big' eruption; magnitude and intensity are two different parameters, you can have a big, gentle eruption and a small, violent one, so the other variables are very important to look at in order to get a better idea of if you're potentially dealing with a worst-case scenario (i.e. a big, violent eruption). You can also use tiltmeters or INSAR to measure changes in elevation around a volcano. The ground level can rise if a volcano is being inflated with a body of magma, and this can give you an idea of how big the eruption might be. This image from Mount Saint Helens in 1980 is a good example, where the magma created an enormous bulge on the side of the volcano that showed the volcanologists (who were witnessing this for the first time) that they were potentially dealing with something big...

Alternatively, in some volcanoes, deflation can be an indicator that a previously emplaced body of magma has found somewhere else to go, like this timelapse of the summit of Kilauea volcano in Hawaii from 2018, when the lava lake at the summit drained and a large part of the summit collapsed as the magma escaped through a fissure on the flank of the volcano (shown conveniently at the end of the clip).

The important thing is, wherever possible, not to take any of these things in isolation as an indicator of what the volcano is going to do, but always to try to cross-reference with other variables! I hope that helps!

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

How can you exclude the possibility of an eruption further below the summit spilling hot burning lava over all the Italians? Or just a good scolding with hot ash? Seem perilous when you look at that photo. 

I mentioned that it's a possibility, I just clarified that's not what's happening at the moment ... and if it was going to happen then I'm confident that the volcanologists at the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia would pick up the signs.

The ash in that cloud in the photo will be cold long before it settles, at worst it will be a thin layer for people to wipe off the top of their cars. Notice the cloud isn't very high above the crater? That's because there's not a lot of explosive power in the eruption - the magma here is very hot and runny, so the dissolved gasses can easily escape. You can see in this video it's just a (relatively) gentle fountain of larger globules of lava:

We're not getting the pressurised jet of gas required to pulverise the magma into fine particles and carry the ash tens of kilometres above the crater, whilst keeping the interior of the ash cloud hot. Here's an example of what that looks like when it happens at the same volcano:

Even that eruption, which was several orders of magnitude bigger than what's happening right now, wasn't really a danger to people in the surrounds because Etna's a huge volcano and the summit crater's a fair distance from any towns. It is capable of eruptions tens of times larger (and they would be terrifying) but the last time one of those happened was more than 2,000 years ago!

38 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why? What on earth could you have done? Plugged the hole with your enormous ego? Face it, volcanoes rule this earth and there is nothing we can do about it.

Oh no, just to watch  these kinds of eruptions at Etna aren't typically a threat to anyone unless they go looking for trouble. It has other eruptions at times that are more severe, but the hazards in these frequent, small paroxysms tends to be localised around the summit craters, so unless you climb up to the top (which is prohibited by law when the activity is high) then you can watch from the surrounds in peace and wonderment!

Sicily right now, Mount Etna doing her thing. Wish I was there, in a world without Covid.

In this thread, can Dazey still make the 'quoted for posterity' compilation extravaganza when Trump officially ceases to be President?

And the award for bump of the year goes to... 

(In fairness, the year is only two days old, but yknow...)!

Bliadhna mhath ùr, MyGNR! Lang may yer lums reek!

Found this quite a good, and level-headed read https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/29/the-guardian-view-on-the-future-of-the-union-britain-faces-breakup?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR0QwBENzw738nsYMpY1glzW_7-827bOrzTYJq2154hZiZ_OOJEW1Z0xXFY.

The Guardian's editorial stance has traditionally been anti-independence, but they seem to have mournfully come round to the idea that since we're pulling in a different direction with regard to most areas of governance, it's really only fair to let us go.