TDYER63
-
Posts
9,348 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
41
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by TDYER63
-
-
9 minutes ago, RanelaghScot said:
Another depressing idea is that the majority of the country / central belt still buys the "let's vote Labour and kick oot the Tories!" line..
In that article above, Starmer mentions at least 3 or 4 times ‘ my changed Labour Party’ . He seems over keen to emphasise this and he is absolutely right , Labour have changed . Labour ARE now the Tory party .
-
10 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:
From 2021
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-snp-manifesto-2021/
The most tedious question we ever get asked when we criticise the SNP – because we’ve explained it a hundred times already and none of the people asking have ever bothered to look – is “But what would YOU do to secure independence, clever-clogs?”
We’ve outlined that plan in detail repeatedly – you can read it again here if you want. But maybe we need something a bit simpler for the hard of thinking, so let’s have a go.
If we were in charge of the SNP, and nothing had materially changed by the time of next year’s election – which is to say that support for Yes was still in the majority and the UK government was still refusing to grant a second referendum – the text in bold just below this paragraph would be our entire manifesto.
It’s nice and short (barely over 200 words – in fact, amusingly we’ve just noticed that it’s exactly 1314 characters) and you could fit it on a postcard. Indeed, the core of it is all contained in the first paragraph alone, which is one tweet’s worth with 71 characters spare for a couple of hashtags and a link. The rest is just extra detail. So here it is:
We believe that the Scottish people are sovereign, and we hereby announce our intention to declare Scotland independent and submit that intention to the will of the people in this election for their approval.
Accordingly, if the Scottish National Party should secure more than 50% of the constituency votes in this election, we will consider that a clear mandate to withdraw from the Treaty Of Union, declare Scotland to once more be an independent state, and seek recognition from the international community on the basis of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of all peoples to self-determination, that self-determination having been expressed by this vote.
Should the UK Government wish, we are willing to confirm that mandate via a referendum, to be held no later than three months from the date of the election, on the same question as that used in 2014. If no such referendum is requested or conducted, the declaration of independence based on the election result will automatically be considered to stand.
Upon the secure establishment of independence, a new general election will be called immediately.
With regard to other policies, our current positions on all issues remain unchanged, and all future legislation will be brought before the Parliament, debated and voted on in the normal manner.
(The bit in italics is optional.)
And that’s it. You’re done. An absolutely clear, impeccably democratic mandate that the international community would have no reason to object to. Everyone knows clearly what they’re voting for, and you’re even offering the UK government a second bite at the democratic cherry as a courtesy. It requires no permission – parties can stand on whatever manifesto they want in a democracy and put their proposals to the people.
Basing it on the constituency vote alone makes it simpler (one person, one vote), and it also prevents the election being used as a Trojan horse to smuggle in unpopular policies that people don’t want to vote for. You can vote SNP for independence on the constituency vote, but then vote for whatever party you want on the list vote, because the list vote is the actual intended mechanism for ensuring proportional representation.
It’s also very easy to understand and explain – effectively the constituency vote is the referendum and the list vote the election.
(Getting >50% of the constituency vote would not guarantee the SNP a majority on its own, although of course it would make it more likely, but you’re holding a new election as soon as you’re independent so it doesn’t really matter.)
If the SNP/Yes failed to get over 50% of the constituency vote on those terms, we’d have a Parliament where they’d still almost certainly be the biggest party and form the government (because they’re 30+ points ahead in the polls as it stands), so they have nothing to lose. On current polling they’re going to get zero or very close to zero MSPs from the list anyway, so no harm done there.
And if you’re one of the weirdo 5-10% of SNP voters who don’t want independence, vote for someone else on the constituency and SNP on the list – under the D’Hondt system you should still theoretically end up with the same number of SNP seats so you lose nothing either.)
Pro-indy Labour (and Lib Dem and Tory) voters would also have nothing to lose – they could safely vote SNP on the constituency vote for independence and Labour on the list, and be confident of getting the number of MSPs they’re entitled to via the list system, exactly as they did in 2016.
Women and others uncomfortable with certain current SNP policies could do the same but voting for new list parties, giving them the best possible chance of blocking those policies without sacrificing independence.
And of course, diehard Unionists would simply vote as they’re going to anyway – the Unionist party of their preference on the constituency ballot, and Unionist on the list too. Indeed, it’s better for them as they don’t have to worry about “tactical” voting – any Unionist constituency vote effectively counts as a No.
All of the detail about the prospectus for independence, what currency we’d use and whether we’d still get Doctor Who, would be a matter for the campaign. If people were happy with the answers given they’d vote Yes (ie SNP on the constituency), and if they weren’t happy with the answers given they could vote No.
(If that process was good enough for the Brexit vote then it’s good enough for us. You can never have definitive answers everyone will agree on in advance – that approach was tried with the White Paper and it failed – so there’s no point worrying about it. People will either trust their fellow Scots to make it work like every other nation on Earth does and deal with problems as they arise, or they won’t. That’s the vote.)
Of course, there’s no guarantee that the UK government would accept the result of such an election just because they had no legitimate democratic grounds not to. They might try various diplomatic methods to pressure other countries into not recognising the new Scotland, but frankly the UK’s international stock and bargaining power is pretty tiny at the moment and we wouldn’t fret too much about that.
Or they might send in the tanks, though it’d be interesting to see what happened if, say, everyone went out and parked their cars on all the roads to Faslane. But since the alternative is to let them keep Scotland prisoner forever anyway, we don’t really have anything to lose there either.
It’s hard to understand why this isn’t already the SNP’s official public position. There’s no reason it should be a secret. It’d certainly have put a lot of people’s minds at rest and saved the party an awful lot of discontent and disharmony in the last year or two. There’s no reason to waste five more years begging for a Section 30 and then, maybe, propose something like this for 2026, by which time God knows what might have happened and there might not even be a Holyrood to have elections to any more.
If it continues not to be, people will be entitled to ask why.
What is the highest percentage the SNP have received on constituency votes ?
-
-
If ever any confirmation was needed that Tories and Labour have merged into the same person than it has to be the Mails front page the other day .
-
3 minutes ago, scotlad said:
It's good that polling in favour of independence is holding up (although after everything I'd have hoped it would be firmly in the 50s by now) but this polling, if accurate, looks horrendous:
Those numbers could see a Frankenstein's Monster of a coalition led by Labour and supported by the Greens and the Lib Dems as Scotland's government. All they would need then would be a Tory abstention on the vote for FM to enable the micro-brained Anas Sarwar to enter Bute House! Last week you could sense the yoon commentariat drooling over the now increasingly more feasible prospect of Scotland's political clock being turned back twenty years.
The thought of arrogant fuckwits like Dame Jackie Baillie and Alex Cole-Hamilton trying to run public services is quite funny, although I expect in that instance Starmer would send up a squad from London to make sure the dumplings at least had some inkling about what they should be doing.
😂 Frankenstein’s monster.
The polling is , as you say, horrendous. In a way, if the SNP were to lose control I would prefer it to be complete control as that is the only way people are going to see what the true alternative look likes. Wait till all the free stuff gets reversed.
Yes, its a big risk , but IMO Labour will not be able to improve Scotland without more money, and I cannot see a UK government , run by Labour , being any more successful than the other arse cheek thats on the way out.
My preference of course would be for the SNP to take notice of public opinion before its too late, and also grow a backbone. -
11 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:
But they have put them off the SNP, the vehicle for independence,, regarding getting WM to give a referendum, there could be various ways to do this, I don’t know why the government haven’t used the claim of right even if it’s just for a sound bite as not sure how legally binding it would be,, the current SNP are so timid when they tip toe around the subject. The SNP need to have the general public on board with their government before pushing for a referendum and they definitely don’t have that,, it’s a blessing WM haven’t “granted” one
Like what ( other than a sound bite ) ?
-
19 hours ago, Fairbairn said:
We thought about driving as were initially planning on stopping somewhere between New Orleans and Memphis for a couple of nights but when we sacked that off driving became a bit of a ball ache. We ended up getting the Amtrak train between the 2. 8 hours on the train but we booked a bedroom so had our own space and able to stretch out and private toilet etc. Train also had a viewing carriage so it was actually a quite enjoyable journey.
We then got the bus between Memphis and Nashville. Originally looked at the Greyhound but ended up booking with a company called Vonlane who run a “business class” coach between the 2 cities. 2 hours quicker than Greyhound and big comfy leather recliners with meal service, drinks etc and got us in about 5 hours earlier. A wee bit more expensive but still great value and a lot less hassle than driving.
Thats interesting thanks 👍
-
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:
😂😂 I love a bit of whataboutery.
no, it would never be a pushbike for me. My other modes of transport are Italian scooters ranging from vintage to modern which are sadly more suited to sunny side streets of Rome than schlepping along a windswept M8 in the pissing rain.
I never took you for a mod Malcolm, more a Bentley kinda guy.
-
1 hour ago, Big Ramy 1314 said:
Last April, and loving it pal....😊
Well blow me over with a feather Ramy, you kept that quiet 😏
Are you still making your bracelets or have you moved onto another project ?
-
2 hours ago, Big Ramy 1314 said:
Nice one. My wife and I are planning on doing more travelling now that I'm retired and New Orleans is one of the places that is top of our list....
When did you retire Ramy ?
-
2 hours ago, Fairbairn said:
This is more of past than current reason but just back from 2 weeks in New Orleans, Memphis and Nashville and had an absolute ball. 3 amazing cities that while have a lot of similarities with each other also have their own distinct personality. I'd been to Memphis before but it was 26 years ago and only for a couple of nights so it was good to be able to spend a bit more time there and really get to know the place. I'd recommend all 3 if anyone is thinking of heading over that way (although the jetlag has been kicking my arse since we got back!).
Err, stop gazumpimg my new suitcase , any holidays need to be inferior to Morocco 😁
Sounds great. I assume there was a lot of driving, thats the only thing that puts me off America as I get bad car sickness .
3 hours ago, ThistleWhistle said:I'm on a promise on a Wednesday!
Means she's broken something physically, fiscally or both but we'll deal with that Thursday.
I would say it means she has completely lost her mind .
The best Mr T can hope for on a Wednesday is a pair of shaved legs . Me, no him.
-
Well, this must be the most uncheery social media platform ever, and that includes Twitter. At least some of the folk on there are happy being miserable bassas.
Today I am expecting a DPD package between 2.17-3.17 . Delivery of an incredibly cheery purchase. A new suitcase making its maiden voyage to Morocco next week. Anyone been that can give me some tips ? I am going to an all inclusive in the middle of nowhere right enough , dont be thinking I have developed some culture .
Anyone on holiday just now? With it being the school holidays surely there must be someone on here belting out Agadoo at the kids club somewhere in Majorca.
-
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:
I always believe the science. Whether it’s biological science, or that the gravitational pull of the sun will eventually engulf the earth.People have to heat their homes - wood burners are excellent for that. Angus Robertson doesn’t need to fly to New York for a tartan day parade.
What irritates me are those people like the greens wanting to limit freedom of choice based on their political commie preferences. I get a lot of grief from people about my SUV as it’s seen as a relatively conspicuous “gas guzzler” as people would call it. I do a couple of thousand miles a year in it, producing about half the CO2 of one return Angus Robertson flight to New York. I have a couple of other modes of transport that are both highly environmentally friendly.
And don’t get me started on how futile every irritating little initiative that happens here is in contrast to what china, India and Russia are doing. I’m not going to stop driving my SUV, or not install a wood burner and live my life in relative comfort while that’s happening.
A magnificent piece of whataboutery Malcolm , you didn’t let me down.
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:
I have a couple of other modes of transport that are both highly environmentally friendly.Well, instead of moaning about the transport system at every Scotland game maybe you could dig out that pushbike Mr Tebbit.
-
8 hours ago, scotlad said:
From memory it was about 50/50, or 60/40 against the bill, which is significant for a board full of football fans. I might be wrong though but that's how I remember it.
Again, my recollection was that polling on the subject showed the public generally favoured the bill.
👍
-
56 minutes ago, Malcolm said:
the earth ultimately will burn to a cinder and be swallowed up by the sun.Aye. You choose to believe science when it suits 🙄
-
6 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:
Looking like a two horse race between forbes and flynn, the question is how does flynn work his way into holyrood,,i still have forbes everyday of the week
Is this a thing or is it just speculation?
5 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:my advice to members of the party on here is to try get across how much trouble we are in to their local branches and that change is needed and needed fast,, it seems the old heartlands of the party are the first to waken up to this
I tried but they all think he is great and blame the media for everything.
We send a bouquet of flowers to Nicola at the last meeting as she has had a hard time ..
-
6 hours ago, scotlad said:
The scope of the OFBFA was much narrower though. It also carried greater public support because it aimed to address something the wider public in this country had grown scunnered with, namely people acting like total arseholes before, during and after the football to such a degree that other people with no interest in the game often suffer the consequences of it.
(Much of that behaviour, of course, emanated from fans of two particular clubs, although per capita they were probably the least affected by the law)
Speaking of hypocrisy, Labour, the Greens and, I think, the Lib Dems were all in favour of repealing the OBFA, yet with a few notable exceptions all voted in favour of the HCA, most probably safe in the knowledge that there would be no comeback on them if it went to shit - which it looks like it will.
Going by a lot of posts on here atbthe time I thought the OFBFA was not popular at all. Were folk not complaining about football fans being treated different ? Did it have a higher support with the general public?
It was never a subject that came up much with folk I know so I wasnt too familiar with it. -
4 hours ago, Toepoke said:
By the same token, for many of those who grew up before the 1970s, the idea of Scottish independence was very much a fringe political concept.
Nobody under 30 is going to really be able to remember Scotland not having its own devolved parliament, that's a big generational shift.
It certainly is. Though I stiil think its another leap to move from having our own parliament to complete independence for a lot of people, even the young. They just seem to be generally more confident than older folk.
Not the older folk on here of course they are very bold and visionary 🙂 ( can I say ‘old folk’ ??? ..) -
2 hours ago, Orraloon said:
Peddling unionist propaganda. Divide and rule, oldest trick in the book but we continue to fall for it.
Taking to X, Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Government Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings said it was not accurate to say that he and colleagues had banned wood burning and biomass heating.
"This isn't true. I've seen people worried by these claims, thinking they'll be forced to rip out their wood burner! No, you won't," he said.
"What's changing is rules for new buildings and major conversions applying for a building warrant from this month. It has nothing to do with existing heating systems, or replacements that aren't part of a building conversion. There are exemptions for emergency heating systems too.
"This is because it's better, easier and cheaper to install clean heating systems from the outset, rather than go back and retrofit later."
In London, on the other hand, there is not a direct ban….. however there pretty much is.
Confused about London’s wood burning laws? You’re not alone.
In the capital, for instance, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, set stringent air pollution limits for new and refurbished buildings, which has impacted the use of traditional wood burners. However, this development has led to increased interest in eco-friendly wood stoves. These advanced stoves are designed to burn wood more efficiently and cleanly, significantly reducing pollution and emissions. They are becoming increasingly popular because they provide a more environmentally responsible way to enjoy the cosiness, character and warmth of a roaring fire while adhering to the new air quality standards set by regulations.
The policy doesn’t outright ban wood burners but introduces strict air pollution limits for new and refurbished buildings in London. These limits are set at levels that wood or other solid fuel burners cannot meet. As a result, while there isn’t a direct ban, the effect of the policy is to prevent the installation of conventional wood burners in these buildings due to their contribution to air pollution. This approach focuses on improving air quality and public health by indirectly limiting the use of high-pollution heating methods.
-
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:
It’s the SNPs own stupid fault for letting the Greens come up with ludicrous policy such as this.Said it years ago, this will be their downfall.
Tbf you would rather the earth burned to a cinder than support any green policy.
-
8 hours ago, Toepoke said:
Older voters got us Brexit so they're clearly not risk averse.
We joined the EU (EC) in 1973, anyone 50 yrs of age and over is old enough to have been alive then. To a lot of people there is absolutely nothing risky to go back to those halcyon days of blue passports, imperial measurements , a thriving NHS and none of those johnny foreigners. There is no risk. Neither is Brexit a risk to their pensions or currency, or ability to see Eastenders and Coronation St.
Lets not pretend that Brexit was sold on a modern robust economic argument.
-
2 hours ago, Orraloon said:
He didn't say it after the referendum, it was before the referendum. The point of saying it was to emphasise to voters that the Tories had sanctioned this one off opportunity, and we might not get another chance for a long time.
He wasn't specifying any timescale before we can have another one, just emphasising how important the referendum was. And it wasn't an emotional poor choice of words, after the event. It was written into the "Scotlands Future" document. He was basically saying to voters, not to expect to get a second chance at this as there is no guarantee that Westminster will allow us to have another go. So far he has been proved correct.
"557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?
The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent."
Apologies, I thought he mentioned it in his speech the day after the referendum. It might have been said for the right reasons but it hasnt helped much in the aftermath.
Either way, I doubt its something that can be forced if evidence shows there is a shift.
This guy from Cambridge University seems fairly highly qualified seems to think it’s unnecessary to wait a generation .‘The government under Prime Minister Boris Johnson asserts that, in the interest of stability, important decisions of this kind should only be taken once in a generation. The Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, counters that a section 30 order cannot be reasonably refused. Indeed, her governing Scottish National Party (SNP) has pledged to hold an independence referendum still this year, after the May elections in Scotland.
The assertion that referenda can only happen once in a generation is not backed up by practice elsewhere. For instance, only last year New Caledonia repeated its referendum on independence from France merely two years after the initial poll of 2018. Continued association with Paris won on both occasions.
In fact, holding a second referendum after some seven or, in actual fact perhaps more likely, eight years, seems quite reasonable in a democratic society. This would be two full electoral cycles for most states. In addition, Scotland can point to the fundamental change in circumstances brought about by Brexit.’
-
4 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:
My point is, he was not nearly as decisive as most folk portray,, had salmond stayed on after the referendum I have no doubt in my mind we would be independent..I am not blinkered on salmond, i se him for what he is, damaged by a total witch hunt that hopefully come out in the wash
there has been no one, and I mean no one, more decisive than sturgeon. She has torn the party into bits all over identity politics, it’s insane folk can’t see through this.
I also tend to think AS would have been more effective post indy , particularly in highlighting all the lies plus the Brexit situation. Regardless of how people voted on Brexit I think most can understand how aggrieved many will have felt about the EU being used as a tool to frighten people about voting YES only for England to take us out less than 2 yrs later . I think AS would have highlighted this but at the same time not sidelined those who voted to leave the EU , like NS did.
I am not however convinced there is some conspiracy going on. If I am proven to be an idiot then so be it. I am not naive enough to think the party hasnt been infiltrated but I am not jumping on that particular Sturgeon bandwagon without any actual evidence. It doesn’t mean I wont keep an open mind on it . -
3 hours ago, Hertsscot said:
I do wonder what future historians, say 100 years time, will make of Scotland's willingness to be held in a union that so obviously isn't working. Yes, you had all that oil and gas but you let your Southern neighbour take it and squander it , producing one of the most unequal societies in Europe in the process. No doubt those historians looking back will analyse the strategic mistakes of independence leaders but they'll still shake their heads at the lack of demand from ordinary Scots.
Well, we will certainly be ‘unique’ to future historians in as much as being almost the only country in the world , ever , to turn down the chance of being independent. Thats some achievement .
Independence is hardly venturing into untested territory , in any shape or form is fairly normal. For example most young adults will leave the family home even though many will take a backward step before going forward. Most will not have the same comfort as they had at home and have to take on many extra responsibilities , especially financial , so why do they do it . Mainly for independence.
Some will be desperate to get away from their parents, because they dont like them, but most probably like their parents they just dont want to be controlled by their parents rules under their parents roof.
So why the worry about your country becoming independent? It’s just a way to have more influence on decisions. Choosing independence doesn’t have to mean you hate what you have just now, but it absolutely does mean you will have more control of your future . And on most occasions it absolutely makes you stronger.
It maybe explains why so many young people voted YES and older voted NO . What happens to folk as they get older? Do they become less bold and more timid ? Do they lose the confidence they once had ?
Indyref 2 (2)
in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere
Posted
Why would the SNP push for another referendum when , at the very highest , the percentage was below the threshold required?
Wings really thinks supporters of other parties are just going to lend the SNP their vote in an election? ( yes , I get the bit about the list vote) What sort of research/polling has been done on the numbers surrounding this ? What sort of research has been done on how the public perceive this course of action? Yes, it’s attractive and gung ho to those strongly in favour of independence but I imagine a number of people could be put off by what they perceive to be an ‘ unconventional’ way of getting there.
Or does the hard of thinking ( or to quote him in his original piece’ the slow kids at the back’ ) only work one way with him?
For that suggestion to have any chance of succeeding, independence support and SNP support , would need to be a lot higher than it was then, never mind now. That is an entirely different conversation.