Indyref 2 (2)

[scotlad]

24 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

I listened to Alex Salmond's podcast on the way into work this morning. He was interviewing Wings re the HCA.

I like Alex, and would have him back in charge of the SNP in a heartbeat, but it was quite something listening to the hypocrisy from him and Campbell, considering they both supported the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, which was essentially the same thing as the HCA.

In fact, comparing the response to both Acts from Yessers is quite informative. The unionist and media reaction was the same to both, as you'd expect, but the reaction from the indy movement very different. It really shows how divided and ruled we've become since the fateful Salmond/Sturgeon split.

The People's Front of Judea were well ahead of the Yes movement. I mean, they even had a trans debate, look....

 

 

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.

 

[Hertsscot]

15 minutes ago, scotlad said:

The annoying thing about the deal with the Greens is that it was unnecessary. Sturgeon virtually had a majority - she was only one seat short. She could have got things through parliament nine times out of ten and if negotiations were ever  necessary on certain issues the SNP has ample experience in that field, as they'd run minority administrations previously.

I don't really like the Greens (have they actually done any good for the environment?) but I do wonder even without the coalition how much of this legislation would have been on the table as much of it has received support from all parties (including the Tories, though they often forget that fact!). The Greens seem very naive and quite arrogant in dismissing genuine concerns, though SNP haven't been much better.

[hampden_loon2878]

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

[Toepoke]

3 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

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. 

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.

 

[hampden_loon2878]

the "log burner ban" will be the next shit storm 

Edited April 9 by hampden_loon2878

[Orraloon]

2 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

the "log burner ban" will be the next shit storm 

Peddling unionist propaganda. Divide and rule, oldest trick in the book but we continue to fall for it. 

[Malcolm]

51 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Peddling unionist propaganda. Divide and rule, oldest trick in the book but we continue to fall for it. 

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.

[TDYER63]

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. 

[TDYER63]

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.

 

 

[TDYER63]

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’  ??? ..) 

[TDYER63]

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. 

[TDYER63]

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 ..

[hampden_loon2878]

2 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Peddling unionist propaganda. Divide and rule, oldest trick in the book but we continue to fall for it. 

Give them ammunition and they will use it,, we are the snp and need our guard up instead of introducing week idiotic policies 

[hampden_loon2878]

12 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Is this a thing or is it just speculation? 

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 ..

Speculation by observation and what’s being spoken about by members who I know,, I would be gob smacked if those two  did not see what is away to happen and start planning to stand,, KF will not be caught on the back foot this time 

[hampden_loon2878]

The Politicians who I believe that can be trusted are the Ewing’s, KF, Gillian Martin, Jim fairlie, Alex Neil,  Christine Graham and cherry,, a few others I have missed,, listen to them and the party will find it’s way back 

[Malcolm]

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

Tbf you would rather the earth burned to a cinder than support any green policy. 

the earth ultimately will burn to a cinder and be swallowed up by the sun.  

[Toepoke]

38 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

the earth ultimately will burn to a cinder and be swallowed up by the sun.  

Probably just after we take a last minute lead against Germany.

 

[TDYER63]

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 🙄

[scotlad]

10 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

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm quite keen on the idea of Flynn as party leader and Forbes as FM - I think that set-up would play well to their respective strengths.

The problem there though is that the position of FM is voted for by parliament, and the "continuity wing" of the SNP might field their own candidate to scupper Forbes' chances, meaning we could end up with one of Humza's haddies as FM. 😕

So, in short, to play it safe, I'd probably also back Forbes again at this juncture.

9 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

I don't really like the Greens (have they actually done any good for the environment?) but I do wonder even without the coalition how much of this legislation would have been on the table as much of it has received support from all parties (including the Tories, though they often forget that fact!). The Greens seem very naive and quite arrogant in dismissing genuine concerns, though SNP haven't been much better.

They had the opportunity to introduce a deposit return scheme - a proper Green policy and something I don't think any reasonable person would be against, at least in principle - but they made a pig's ear of it.

I might be wrong but I don't think the Greens have any prior experience of running an administration at any level of government. That in itself shouldn't be a bar to being a coalition partner but boy, does it show with this lot!

[scotlad]

4 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

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. 

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.

[Malcolm]

9 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Probably just after we take a last minute lead against Germany.

 

😂😂 or just as we are about to get out the group stage for first time ever.

[Malcolm]

9 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Aye. You choose to believe science when it suits 🙄

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.

 

[TDYER63]

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.

👍

[TDYER63]

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. 

[Orraloon]

14 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

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.

 

 

Exactly. There is no ban, yet some folk just like to regurgitate unionist propaganda.