British Politics

[SoulMonster]

35 minutes ago, Graeme said:

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.

Sure, there will be a little less sadness available for the English then, but sure.

[spunko12345]

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, you can sit in a corner and be funny. Cheer me up.

Hope you've got plenty of custard creams for him.

[downzy]

On 2/10/2021 at 2:32 AM, Graeme said:

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.

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

[Dazey]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

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

As much as I don't want to see the break up of the UK I think that the Scots should at least be given the opportunity to hold a second independence referendum. I think Brexit is a big enough fuck you for them to argue for it. 

[Dazey]

So England has implemented hotel quarantine from today meaning that anybody arriving from a high risk country has to stay in an airport hotel for 10 days at a cost of £1,750. Scotland however has implemented the same scheme only they are applying it to arrivals from all countries without exception. Today a flight was due to arrive in Scotland from Istanbul (not on the England list) with 65 people on board. The flight landed with 5 passengers as the rest likely re-booked a flight via England and got a train home.  

Edited February 16, 2021 by Dazey

[Padme]

Well it looks like Scotland has company... Wales. On top of that the morons voted Leave and now they want to Remain

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/15/britain-welsh-support-independence-nationalism-wales

[Graeme]

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.

 

[willl]

Seeing lots of sympathy for Shemima Begum or whatever her name is online. I'm as leftie as they come 99% of the time, believe in universal healthcare for all, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, child support, free council housing for the homeless, maybe even a universal basic income etc etc.... but sympathising with ISIS members.... c'mon, like what the fuck?

Best thing would be to put a bullet in her head, and all her terrorist buddies. The alternative is her being in prison either in the UK or abroad, where she'll be able to radicalise others whilst taxpayers pay for her to get a roof over her head, three meals a day and healthcare - there are millions of hardworking people living in poverty who don't get that luxury, so why should she? Fuck em, I don't care how old she was or if she was groomed online at a young age. She doesn't deserve shit.

They bombed and beheaded innocent people around the world. Lets do the same to them and make it a Pay Per View, we could all do with some cheering up after dealing with Covid for the last year

[ToonGuns]

On 2/15/2021 at 11:03 PM, Dazey said:

As much as I don't want to see the break up of the UK I think that the Scots should at least be given the opportunity to hold a second independence referendum. I think Brexit is a big enough fuck you for them to argue for it. 

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. 

[MillionsOfSpiders]

What the fuck is going on in Scotland? 

[Graeme]

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.

[Dazey]

51 minutes ago, Graeme said:

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.

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?

[Graeme]

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...

[ToonGuns]

2 hours ago, Graeme said:

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.

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.

[Graeme]

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.

 

[ToonGuns]

9 hours ago, Graeme said:

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".

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.

 

Absolutely views should not be ignored. My key point is that holding a referendum at the moment, on this particular subject, would be incredibly dangerous for multiple reasons (those I mentioned above - in particular the damage to politics and constitutional precedent it sets, and the likely highly dangerous knock-on consequences it would create for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK), the world needs to take a breath and assess the overall situation, and there's other ways of doing things.

There's always a bigger picture, and the problem is in these situations this often gets lost.

Having politicians like Nicola Sturgeon constantly stoke the fire of independence understandably might serve the interests of the likely 50%+ of Scottish voters who, at the moment, may want to hear that narrative for fair and understandable reasons, but it creates so much damage for so many people beyond that core and it is an incredibly dangerous and selfish attitude. 

It is also a knee jerk reaction fuelled by anger at the current political landscape within the UK, and anger is a very dangerous mindset to be in to force a "once in a lifetime" vote. The last time we had a knee jerk referendum fuelled by anger at the current political landscape within the UK (Farage and his tossers blowing up on the migrant crisis etc etc etc) it did not exactly go well (at least in my view), and the knock-on consequences of that have actually ultimately fuelled this very discussion among thousands of other issues. I completely understand the knee jerk reaction (Brexit was a car crash), but politicians should very carefully consider the "greater good" in these situations, and not just focus on self interests and / or on the short term.

9 hours ago, Graeme said:

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.

Totally understand. But the constitutional counter argument (whether I agree with it or not) is that Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and the UK voted to leave the EU. It's fucked I agree, but that happened. Giving Scotland another "once in a generation" referendum, a fraction of a generation after the last referendum, simply because a % of the generation disagree with subsequent changes, undermines the whole process, political power, situation and everyone else - why should Scotland get another chance but nobody else. And where do you draw the line - should Northern Ireland have another vote? What about London? What about people under 50 (given young people, who this will affect through their working lifetime, voted strongly to remain)? It will descend into a mess (more than we have at the moment).

There is a logic to the argument that a second referendum on Scottish independence should be held because promises that were made in that referendum that were directly contravened by the outcome of the Brexit referendum, yet I would equally argue that the outcome of the Brexit referendum also contravened the promises that the Brexit pushers made in that referendum - so it's a cyclical argument. Undoing one referendum because of broken promises due to a second referendum within which there were broken promises! Pretty much nothing that the Brexit pushers said would happen has happened and in many instances what they said were out and out lies. People voted on lies, pretty much nothing the Brexit pushers said has come true or was even remotely possible in the first place. So I'd rather undo Brexit (carefully and over time) or at least give it the chance to play out and see what happens and have us all stay together, than have one subset of the Brexit vote do their own thing, in anger, as a knee jerk reaction, the consequences of which would be much harder to undo, would likely be permanent, and would have substantial ripple effects (some of which very dangerous) across many more people than the initial voter set. This is literally falling into the same mistake as Cameron set with the Brexit vote.

This is why I think careful reflection, time and empathic "greater good" thinking is needed. Not rush into things.

The world has been very "me me me first!" recently ("America first", Brexit, Scottish Independence, China, etc) and it is selfish, short-sighted and very dangerous. As I mentioned before we need to work hard as a more global society to come together. Building yet more borders (whether physical or not) and fuelling further friction within and between nations, cultures, societies and people is not the answer.

The whole thing is fucked and I totally disagree with the outcome we have as well. We are in a frankly disgraceful situation. I think we agree with the appalling situation we are in, and just disagree on the solution to fix it. There is no perfect solution here. This is why it needs careful thought not an immediate reactionary decision.

12 hours 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?

Clusterfuck pretty much sums it up

Edited February 28, 2021 by ToonGuns
"Nicole Sturgeon" typo!

[downzy]

You have to think the royal most happy with all this nonsense around Meagan is Prince Andrew.

The guy is credibly accused of sleeping with underaged girls and the bigger scandal is accusations of racism.  

Kind of says everything about the situation.  

[Padme]

On 3/9/2021 at 4:29 PM, downzy said:

You have to think the royal most happy with all this nonsense around Meagan is Prince Andrew.

The guy is credibly accused of sleeping with underaged girls and the bigger scandal is accusations of racism.  

Kind of says everything about the situation.  

I haven't watched the interview. But I read a few things about it. I really don't understand. She wanted to commit suicide because some people at the Palace was concerned about her son's skin color?

If the British media insulted her or harassed her in some way or whatever.  I guess she can file a difamation lawsuit or something like it against them

[MillionsOfSpiders]

I don’t know how Piers Morgan managed to be on TV for so long anyway, the one time I saw GMB he was talking all over everyone else and it was totally unwatchable, had to change the channel. 

It’s funny he can’t handle someone giving him some shit back, what a total bellend he is, no balls, all bark and no bite. 

He’s the same as Jeremy Clarkson. A big man baby. 

[ToonGuns]

38 minutes ago, MillionsOfSpiders said:

I don’t know how Piers Morgan managed to be on TV for so long anyway, the one time I saw GMB he was talking all over everyone else and it was totally unwatchable, had to change the channel. 

It’s funny he can’t handle someone giving him some shit back, what a total bellend he is, no balls, all bark and no bite. 

He’s the same as Jeremy Clarkson. A big man baby. 

Tbis deserved your 9,999th like!

James Corden is another one - I've no idea how the likes of him or Piers even get above the bottom rung of the career in entertainment ladder, nevermind reach the top.

[Padme]

1 hour ago, MillionsOfSpiders said:

I don’t know how Piers Morgan managed to be on TV for so long anyway,

Because a lot people watch his show. It's a simple as that. Without viwers, and sponsors any show gets canceled

[MillionsOfSpiders]

3 hours ago, Padme said:

Because a lot people watch his show. It's a simple as that. Without viwers, and sponsors any show gets canceled

I’m sure the show will carry on just fine without him. Maybe people will be able to answer the questions asked when they guest on it now. 

[Dazey]

5 hours ago, MillionsOfSpiders said:

I don’t know how Piers Morgan managed to be on TV for so long anyway, the one time I saw GMB he was talking all over everyone else and it was totally unwatchable, had to change the channel. 

It’s funny he can’t handle someone giving him some shit back, what a total bellend he is, no balls, all bark and no bite. 

He’s the same as Jeremy Clarkson. A big man baby. 

At least Jeremy Clarkson punched him once.  

 

[downzy]

[Padme]

RIP Prince Philip. He was 99   My heart goes to Queen Elizabeth, the Royal family and everyone in the UK who care about them