PapofGlencoe

I know but we always had the threat of voting SNP for independence hanging about which hadn't been rejected and/or legally blocked at that point. My concern is it sets in that it doesn't matter if we vote SNP anymore, London will just say no. Therefore, to many, the whole thing becomes pointless. i don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, I just think there needs to be a better policy than "let's just campaign for something until it goes up to 70% in opinion polls". that, of course, is true but I don't see it coming to fruition without setting out a path. People I know are saying "we can't get independence, it's being blocked so let's just vote Labour". For it to get there, in my view, there needs to be a policy we're willing to take to achieve it. If no path is given, it'll go the way of socialism. Something people used to be able to say proudly. An old idea we had a go at but not for these times. I think if the SNP said something like; we want to test the Union at every UK election as a defacto referendum; I think if that caught on it would bring political weight to the opinion polls.

I agree with a lot of that but I think if we're anywhere near getting the SNP and others to over 50% anytime in the next 10/15/20 years then we are probably well on the way to that level of support anyway. I'm not really putting this out there for the next election, it's a tactic for the long term. But there does need to be an actual policy to deliver the pressure, which makes it any way realistic for voters as a live agenda item, which in turn is voted for. what im worried about is that it begins to set in this idea "Scotland isn't allowed a referendum" after a heavy SNP defeat and the whole idea withers and dies as a futile effort. My suggestion is the threat is needed to keep it as a potential way through. I agree there is every chance this may be a tool only to getting an actual referendum. Noone wants to do UDI.

I do think Wings is potentially a bad actor and I find some of his stuff really unhelpful. Unfortunately I cannot get my head round why the SNP's finances are as they are and his analysis does ring solid there. In my view the SNP should be rolling in it given the amount of members they've had since 2007. I do think there is undeniably something really odd about the finances. I cannot understand how a party can be in deficit in a non election year given the members numbers, reduced as they are. If you look at what Spain did to the Catalan leaders and far left politicians, is it really so unfeasible London wouldn't infiltrate a credible threat? I find it worth considering.

I don't understand what is so difficult about saying if a majority of our people vote for unambiguous, pro-independence parties at a UK general election then we expect to declare independence and expect London to respect the wishes of the Scottish people. You can't force the other side to do anything, but you can make your own position clear. We absolutely put on the table UDI only if our people vote for it. At this stage, you can't be squemish and this threat is the only threat left. The difference with catalonia is they did it without clear majority support and in an illegal election boycotted by half the population. UK elections are legal and if the manifesto has one line in it, that this is trumpeted as a major change in tactic, then it cannot be disputed what people have voted for. Thankfully in a UK election only one line is indeed needed. We're never going to be in power there. Government policy is for HR. Westminster form now on will be Scotland testing it's place in the UK. There's no other option other than deciding which Parliament's election you go for. I suggest UK for very specific reasons both policy and international. The only change to Sturgeon's plan really is that we are always allowing our people to make this vote at every UK election. If we lose, we just go on to the next one. It's baked in to allow our people the chance to express their view. If Scots don't want it they won't vote for it. If they do, they will. At least it's a campaign and during this campaign London have to explain why they won't listen to our people.

Blatant to me the only way to progress independence from now until there is a settled will is to ask the people to vote for it in a vote. in my opinion, every UK election, from pro-independence party point of view, should be a direct vote for independence. The first line in any manifesto should make this clear. No-one is going to concede a referendum on opinion polls. Do it in an election where there's no prospect of governing day-to-day policies and the eyes of the world are on the UK. You can then correctly say normal government is in Holyrood so you're not taking eye off people's daily priorities. The UK election is well made for our purposes. A four, five yearly check in an election is the best way to continue the cause in a meaningful way in the medium term too for those in the gravy train/"pragmatic" wing. The more radical elements get their vote to go out campaigning for. It means there is time to target certain dates in the diary. If you get the majority of votes and London still say no, then it builds to maybe using a HR election and at least you have done your side of the bargain. International pressure will only come if it's shown we want it in an election, not opinion polls. If you don't get the majority of votes, you consider what you need to do in the next UK election... Probably gone over this umpteen times now but I don't think there is any alternatives. None of the other ideas seem to have any better success. At least this leaves expressing a view in our citizens' hands.

If this was meant to be a joke, I don't find it funny.

I don't agree. thankfully the BBC isn't yet.. like the American channels..They put forward the opposite views, unlike in the States, it doesn't mean they believe them.

As someone who has always and will maintain my support for the persecuted Palestinians, Hamas have made it difficult to voice support right now. They need taken out like Nazis were taken out and Abbas or more moderate back in. You cannot target ordinary people in this way. It's more than disgusting and im sure noone really needs moralising on that point. These actions from some of their group are evil and Israel had to respond. How they respond is a different manner. Israel will never de-occupy, probably persecute more, more radicalised islamists and on and on it will go. The only way it ends is if Israel de-occupy but Hamas have just ensured it won't happen any time soon. They are as bad as Israel. for my own health, I've tried to be less politically strident over the last ten years or so but this has affected me in a more profound way than I thought it would. while i understand i'm sitting thousands of miles away, it's hard to watch such needless death and horror.

The UN leader has said what needs to be said. A voice of reason.

This tweet is word for word correct in my opinion. Nothing sickening about it. This action has made supporting the legitimate aspirations of Palestine significantly harder though, because of these actions by Hamas. Nothing justifies it and people will lump it all together. Palestine is utterly and totally persecuted by Israel though affecting the life chances of Palestinians every day. I don't think that should be lost in the rhetoric or anger. This action has been totally counter productive as it's made it really difficult to express this view in the international community, now.

i take it your on 60% of the median income? "easy" is it?

Never heard of it being half, must be a new definition by some organisations- government use 60%. It's in the bbc link in my previous post - it's 500k in the worse cohort of 40% of median income. 1m in relative. Seem to use 60, 50 and 40 in the report. My point was it was legitimate headline as is the BBC's.

I know what you're saying but I disagree on this particular one. I think people can make up their own mind; I don't think people, on the whole, blame the Scottish government in particular any more than they should for that particular problem. I honestly thought the 500k on our levels of average pay had to be relative rather than deep poverty as it was so high. That 300k increase in a year is objectively worrying. When the opposite end of the story comes out.. the Daily Mail's "only 14k people pay a quarter of Scotland's tax" or some other gibberish, I agree with you. It's to make us look poor collectively in a different light.

Sure but the point was about a newspaper headline and its use of "Scots". Not an abstract from a dissertation on what relative poverty is, though. Just for awareness, I don't think it's half for relative poverty. It's two thirds. Half is extreme poverty or some other baromoter. Also I still think it's pretty crappy 1 in 10 are in this extreme poverty and more in relative. It's a legit story. In fact the 14k makes it worse as it's not Swiss levels of average pay we're talking about.. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66982168 edited in figures from BBC. It's 500,000 in "very deep" poverty.. a la the 14k..that's appalling by the way if that figure is correct.. it's a fifth in relative poverty (1m). And the 500k has gone up 300k in a year.

How else do you say 500,000 people are in relative poverty Scotland though?

I don't agree here, to be honest. They're a Scottish paper reporting on Scottish poverty. Some of our greatest political minds have highlighted Scots' poverty when they needn't be like Maxton, Lee, Hardie and Salmond. It's a legitimate story and if a Scottish paper isn't going to highlight it, who is?

For every GRR (not implemented), HPPA (not taken forward) or DRS (not implemented) the SNP have made a difference to people's lives with real policies. We never hear much about them as politics seems to have more in common with school playgrounds and who's "in" and who's "out"..(The SNP are now like the swotty, snobby know-it-all that needs taken down a peg)... than a measured assessment of situations. By golly I can't be bothered with the sure-footed, boring intolerants in the SNP either. It's largely this extra "twitter/wings/activist fluff" that's making their reputation now rather than the solid government work that's been done, it's a shame. Bar the huge elephant in the room which really does get into the real world...arrests of your CEO and former First Minister. Bus passes for many young folk (and kept for old ones!), rent price caps, trains in public ownership, more progressive taxation, child payment, and hugely important to people close to me, a huge increase in free childcare/nursery. Do we ever think some of the invective is a wee bit unwarranted in the cold light of day? There's been a lot of good stuff. in terms of problem issues, the main one I see: the ferries, how to fund council services, social care and the state of our town centres. Independence is largely the domain of our own people, I don't blame the SNP for not having achieved it. I do blame some SNP idiots with ill-advised, on-the-record comments about Defacto referendums which WILL cripple arguments around future majorities, but we don't have these majorities. The SNP can't just magic them up. Apologies for long post - dont really know where i'm going with the above but i believe it might be useful if some of the ire about certain binned policies (agreed, some of them loopy!) was diverted to Unionism rather than pro-indy politicians. See that Prism for example, they never talk about unionist opponents.. they only talk about the SNP. It's nae good!

Thanks that's a good summary actually. Although i'm still not totally clear about the SCR part of this equation. Setting up SCRs is not a criminal act or an action of the LA. It's a scottish government policy. Which is presumably governed by the Scotland Act.

Oh right thanks. to me, prosecuting the drug afflicted people and the Government setting up drug consumption rooms are related but quite different matters though? One is how the law is applied over the individual; the other is a government policy. Which i thought was reserved. taking this argument to its conclusion, the Lord Advocate could say anyone voting in an independence referendum would not be prosecuted. It doesn't mean the Scottish government are permitted to set up the referendum. Am i being daft? 😆

He's only been suspended for a week, I don't think it's the end of the world. I'm fifty fifty on it myself. I don't necessarily think voting against Slater was voting against the government per se. But equally he's voted against a government minister, he can't have expected no repercussions. otherwise Yousaf would look weak.

That's interesting, can you explain that further? I had the impression it was very clearly a reserved matter, drug policy (as much as because that's been the SNPs get out for many years on not doing this). Why couldn't the Lord Advocate do the same for the referendum? Not trying to trick you up here, genuinely interested in how this works. I assumed like scotlad they didn't because it enjoys some kind of support and they don't want to be seen to block absolutely everything, only when it suits. basically the government have said they'll do it anyway and hope London doesn't intervene because of that.

I have my doubts they would have blocked the DRS in say 2008. Looks like a power play to me. We don't know if it wouldn't work, we weren't even allowed to try it out and tweak it after all the consultations...like a bunch of children.

I don't agree with him by the way!

In fairness I don't think Salmond broached indiscipline either. For good reason. The SNP need to be united. If there was a referendum there would be unity but there's no path to it and without it goodwill is falling apart at the seams. I've a good friend who lives in Burnside near Glasgow, to my surprise he has said he's voting Labour in the by-election. Pro indy to the hilt but says Scotland needs a freshness. Indy is simply not on the agenda for many people,, even those who would vote Yes. which does mean there remains latent indy support who can't stomach the SNP anymore for various reasons. It's not over but will happen in a second wind, if at all. I hope i'm completely wrong though and Yousaf pulls it out the bag. Even a good leader would struggle given the cards he's been dealt with arrests, wedge issues, an openly hostile grassroots fringe and too long in "power". I can't remember the last time independence came up as a topic of conversation amongst my peers. People are more interested in cost of living in my view and just getting by. I always vigorously support it and will make my opinion known but I don't sense a burning desire for a referendum any time soon. The things is there really does exist indy support though out there but it's a sleeping rebellion.

Just based on from what I saw myself on the bbc website. granted i did not watch all four hours, but the smattering I did see, not impressed.