Indyref 2 (2) - Page 119 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Indyref 2 (2)


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

You're the one one that's being disingenuous here.   The commitment in the 2021 manifesto was to pass the GRR bill.

The GRR bill had been in progress since 2016 and all the basic principles - including self-id - were well known and understood before the election.

HPMA is currently in the consultation phase, the complaint seems to be there is no consultation, which makes no sense whatsoever.   That seems symptomatic of what Nicola Sturgeon was going on about yesterday when she spoke of people adopting fixed and immoveable positions on legislation before its even gotten going.  

The GRR bill was flown under the radar, deliberately iMHO.  The vast majority of the public were unaware of it, and the consultation process was designed to exclude as many people as possible.  There was no mention of self ID in the 2021 manifesto and if you think the electorate actually got as far a p33, you're deluded.  That's why there was so much outrage when people discovered what it was all about.

The HPMA, which does I think have support across several parties, is as you say at the consultation stage, but it's not looking good for it due to the resistance from the fishing communities.  Let's see how it develops, but I think there's going to be a stooshie over that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I had no issue with the GRR Bill but when it is going to cause voters to question the party and possibly vote elsewhere then that is a sign it should be sidelined for sometime in the future. There is already enough shite being thrown the SNP's way without ploughing on regardless with the GRR bill. Now is the time to batten down the hatches and tried to steady the ship and that does mean shelfing the GRR Bill in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alibi said:

The GRR bill was flown under the radar, deliberately iMHO.  The vast majority of the public were unaware of it, and the consultation process was designed to exclude as many people as possible.  There was no mention of self ID in the 2021 manifesto and if you think the electorate actually got as far a p33, you're deluded.  That's why there was so much outrage when people discovered what it was all about.

The HPMA, which does I think have support across several parties, is as you say at the consultation stage, but it's not looking good for it due to the resistance from the fishing communities.  Let's see how it develops, but I think there's going to be a stooshie over that one.

the HMPA is at the consultation phase in name only, they will steam roll this through if they can,, sturgeon and all her policies can get to fuck, she is poisonous and dangerous 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

the HMPA is at the consultation phase in name only, they will steam roll this through if they can,, sturgeon and all her policies can get to fuck, she is poisonous and dangerous 

Alisdair Allan MSP was saying recently they won't be foisted on any community that doesn't want them.

I don't understand how that commitment actually works.  As virtually nobody want them in these areas.  Is it lie? Is it something else?  I don't get it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Alisdair Allan MSP was saying recently they won't be foisted on any community that doesn't want them.

I don't understand how that commitment actually works.  As virtually nobody want them in these areas.  Is it lie? Is it something else?  I don't get it.

 

Here’s an example of a protected area which has wide public approval.

https://www.arrancoast.com/no-take-zone/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, aaid said:

Any coalition agreement is largely dependent upon the electoral arithmetic at the time, so if at the next election, the SNP has a absolute majority, there will be no need for any agreement, if they are in a minority position and with the Green’s support they don’t have a majority, then there also won’t be one.

That’s not the point though.  The specific policies that Salmond is talking about the SNP and Greens ditching, GRR, HPMA, judicial Reform were all in the SNP’s manifesto for 2021, the exception is DRS, which is implementing already passed legislation and which has been stymied by - surprise, surprise - Westminster.

So you have the ridiculous - some might say arrogant - suggestion that a party with no elected representatives - correction, no representatives elected under their banner - who are polling in the very low single digits, demanding that the SNP and Greens fall in behind them.

Maybe you need to think more closely at the reasons why the SNP sought out a co-operation agreement in the first place.  

If you look at the year before the election in 2021 - largely driven by the fallout of the Salmond case - although I think that was just a convenient political opportunity- the Tories started to call or threaten motions of confidence.  

That was the reason behind getting the Greens inside the tent, to stymie that.  If you look at the way politics has been conducted in Holyrood since the election, if there was no majority, then these would’ve become more and more frequent and it would’ve thrown Holyrood into a log jam.

Its pretty obvious that the opposition and the MSM are targeting the relationship with the Greens as they see that as a weak link, but pretty much all of it is nonsense, this latest stuff about Lorna Slater for example.

 

hmmm. Aye HPMAs were all the talk of the steamie during the last GE right enough.  I take the point it may have been in the manifesto but be real, who the hell knows, as nobody reads them.  And let's be even more real, the election was certainly not about HPMAs or GRR in any meaningful way.  To claim it was, it would be arrant nonsense.

A blind man can see the SNP were not voted in with allelujah levels of delight to deliver HPMAs or GRRs.  Rather, in much the same way to Labour having a manifesto allowing the delivery of tuition fees in England back in the day.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/jan/27/tuitionfees.students

 

It doesn't matter if it's Alba or the monster raving loony party, anyone here can tell the SNP are becoming less popular and these policies are not popular.  It's the electorate wagging the dog we should be concerned about..  

They can take the advice or dismiss it.  it's probably going to make bugger all difference either way and the time for creating a united independence convention to battle the next GE has passed.  Simply not enough time now to get the wheels in motion.  So we'll be left with a weak, listless SNP message which many Scots won't understand, let alone support. 

 

PS I don't actually mind the DRS scheme personally!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, aaid said:

Here’s an example of a protected area which has wide public approval.

https://www.arrancoast.com/no-take-zone/

This NTZ is the same scope and size as what's being proposed is it?  

Also not really an answer to what's going to happen in these areas that don't want it.  Seems a commitment has been made here so not sure how they'll go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

hmmm. Aye HPMAs were all the talk of the steamie during the last GE right enough.  I take the point it may have been in the manifesto but be real, who the hell knows, as nobody reads them.  And let's be even more real, the election was certainly not about HPMAs or GRR in any meaningful way.  To claim it was, it would be arrant nonsense.

A blind man can see the SNP were not voted in with allelujah levels of delight to deliver HPMAs or GRRs.  Rather, in much the same way to Labour having a manifesto allowing the delivery of tuition fees in England back in the day.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/jan/27/tuitionfees.students

 

It doesn't matter if it's Alba or the monster raving loony party, anyone here can tell the SNP are becoming less popular and these policies are not popular.  It's the electorate wagging the dog we should be concerned about..  

They can take the advice or dismiss it.  it's probably going to make bugger all difference either way and the time for creating a united independence convention to battle the next GE has passed.  Simply not enough time now to get the wheels in motion.  So we'll be left with a weak, listless SNP message which many Scots won't understand, let alone support. 

 

PS I don't actually mind the DRS scheme personally!  

That’s a nice bit of deflection, what you’re actually talking about is Labour U-turning on a manifesto commitment, which is the polar opposite to what I’m talking about.  Heaven forbid that a political party should actually do what they’ve been elected to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

This NTZ is the same scope and size as what's being proposed is it?  

Also not really an answer to what's going to happen in these areas that don't want it.  Seems a commitment has been made here so not sure how they'll go ahead.

It’s a consultation ffs, what will and won’t be in the bill and how it will be implemented is not yet decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, aaid said:

That’s a nice bit of deflection, what you’re actually talking about is Labour U-turning on a manifesto commitment, which is the polar opposite to what I’m talking about.  Heaven forbid that a political party should actually do what they’ve been elected to do.

Deflecting from what?  What position am I losing here, that these things were fully understood by the electorate?  I really don't think they were.. can't be more open than that.

Labour left it open deliberately in their manifesto whilst saying the opposite.  Merely pointing out a Phd dissertation and a political manifesto have something in common ...barely read haha.  Anyway it was just an example.. the truth of that commitment wasnt the point.

And the fact even politics nerds couldn't have told you what an HPMA was in '21 never mind the snp base seems fairly obvious to me.

They can do whats in their manifesto and they can reap the rewards.  It'll be the people that decide if they've met their expectations.  All good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, aaid said:

It’s a consultation ffs, what will and won’t be in the bill and how it will be implemented is not yet decided.

But Allan has said he's had a ministerial commitment already...  It was a genuine question, which hasn't been answered.  It's okay for you not to know eh...ffs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

 

And the fact even politics nerds couldn't have told you what an HPMA was in '21 never mind the snp base seems fairly obvious to me.

I’m pretty sure that the majority of people complaining about them don’t have a clue now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, aaid said:

I’m pretty sure that the majority of people complaining about them don’t have a clue now.

Don't disagree, could be right there.  Same about DRS.

I can assure you there are serious concerns though in the highlands about the HPMAs. Seen it, heard it .  That's coming from quite green people too.  Maybe it's not right but theres talk of no boating or any fishing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aaid said:

Here’s an example of a protected area which has wide public approval.

https://www.arrancoast.com/no-take-zone/

Looks like you haven’t a clue, trying to use a no take zone that is tiny, that is driven by divers(who wouldn’t be allowed in the HMPA’s) to justify cutting off massive swathes of the sea, what equates to a community? I fish lobster 6 miles from my village, if there A small village of holiday homes near where I fish, do they get the say if I can fish there, it’s an idiotic policy driven by idiots who haven’t a clue 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Looks like you haven’t a clue, trying to use a no take zone that is tiny, that is driven by divers(who wouldn’t be allowed in the HMPA’s) to justify cutting off massive swathes of the sea, what equates to a community? I fish lobster 6 miles from my village, if there A small village of holiday homes near where I fish, do they get the say if I can fish there, it’s an idiotic policy driven by idiots who haven’t a clue 

 

Just by the by, and at risk of being called a tofu-munching weirdy green, I'd ban all "fishing" of lobster and crab. Seeing how they are treated is an eye-opener. Hope a giant lobster mutates one day and takes its revenge on disgusting humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Don't disagree, could be right there.  Same about DRS.

I can assure you there are serious concerns though in the highlands about the HPMAs. Seen it, heard it .  That's coming from quite green people too.  Maybe it's not right but theres talk of no boating or any fishing. 

 

I’m not denying there are concerns although there does seem to be a tendency in Scotland, which tbf, I don’t see in England, to portray any change as being certain to be the absolute worst outcome that could happen.  In fact “could” is an over used word.

This is an interesting read from SPICE, it’s pretty clear that it’s very early days with this.

https://spice-spotlight.scot/2023/05/02/highly-protected-marine-areas-faqs/#:~:text=The Scottish Government's commitment to,be under “strict protection”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, duncan II said:

Just by the by, and at risk of being called a tofu-munching weirdy green, I'd ban all "fishing" of lobster and crab. Seeing how they are treated is an eye-opener. Hope a giant lobster mutates one day and takes its revenge on disgusting humanity.

how exactly are they treated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, aaid said:

Under the radar?  There was even a thread on it on here - you even commented on it.
 

We were discussing it on here, yes.  However in the real world, there was a consultation that really only consulted a small demographic that the wokeists wanted to consult.  The vast majority of the general public knew nothing about it. in my own case, it was Wings over Scotland that alerted me to it initially.  Had I relied on mainstream sources, I wouldn't have known anything about it until the real stooshie started by which time it was all stitched up.  It was clear that there was a degree of suppression of what was going on.  but hey, you just keep on defending the SNP even when it's clear they are in the wrong - which as a member I think they are with this one as far as the self ID bit is concerned - and the public seem to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Alibi said:

We were discussing it on here, yes.  However in the real world, there was a consultation that really only consulted a small demographic that the wokeists wanted to consult.  The vast majority of the general public knew nothing about it. in my own case, it was Wings over Scotland that alerted me to it initially.  Had I relied on mainstream sources, I wouldn't have known anything about it until the real stooshie started by which time it was all stitched up.  It was clear that there was a degree of suppression of what was going on.  but hey, you just keep on defending the SNP even when it's clear they are in the wrong - which as a member I think they are with this one as far as the self ID bit is concerned - and the public seem to agree.

Because you’ve swallowed the lies spread around about what the GRR Bill does and does not do, specifically around self-id - that Wings and others have been perpetuating.

Look at Isla Bryson, they’re self identifying as a women, they haven’t gone through any sort of surgical transition, they don’t have a GR certificate and yet they still ended up in a women’s prison.

That’s with the GRR bill not in law,  Any issues you have regarding the rights of single sex spaces are down to the Equality Act pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, aaid said:

Because you’ve swallowed the lies spread around about what the GRR Bill does and does not do, specifically around self-id - that Wings and others have been perpetuating.

Look at Isla Bryson, they’re self identifying as a women, they haven’t gone through any sort of surgical transition, they don’t have a GR certificate and yet they still ended up in a women’s prison.

That’s with the GRR bill not in law,  Any issues you have regarding the rights of single sex spaces are down to the Equality Act pure and simple.

oh thats tight alibi forgot whoever is on the other side of the argument from you is either stupid or wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2023 at 11:56 AM, aaid said:

Because you’ve swallowed the lies spread around about what the GRR Bill does and does not do, specifically around self-id - that Wings and others have been perpetuating.

Look at Isla Bryson, he is self identifying as a women, he hasn't gone through any sort of surgical transition, he doesn't have a GR certificate and yet he still ended up in a women’s prison. There you go, fixed that for you.  "They" is a plural pronoun. AFAIK, there's only 1 of him.

That’s with the GRR bill not in law,  Any issues you have regarding the rights of single sex spaces are down to the Equality Act pure and simple.

What about the big lie which is at the root of all this?  The lie that "transwomen ARE women"?  I capitalise the word "are" because that's the crucial point.  Transwomen may actually believe they are women, they may want to live as women and I see no problem with that, but in the real world they are NOT actually women.  That is no reason to wish any harm to them, nor to persecute them; of course they should be allowed to live as they wish, and I think most people would agree. Furthermore, sex is determined by biology right down to the level of chromosomes in every cell of your body, and you cannot change that. If you try to deny reality, you end up tying yourself in knots, as Sturgeon did over the "Isla Bryson" case.  There is a good case to have GRR if done sensibly, but account should still be taken of biological reality.  And self ID is a ludicrous concept - as I've said before, if I decided to live in a stable & self ID as a horse, I still wouldn't be allowed to run in the 2.30 at Ayr, and rightly so.

For clarity, do you personally believe that transwomen are actually women?  Yes or no? Can you bring yourself to disassociate yourself from the views of many of the SNP leadership on this one and abide by scientific reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...