King Chucky's Big Corrie Do

[ParisInAKilt]

32 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Yes I said on the IndyRef2 thread there are, sadly, too many factions and no united front on independence. Nothing will be achieved as long as that state of affairs exist.

We have Salmond supporters slagging off another independence backing party in the SNP. You have SNP voters slagging off Alba who back independence. And you have many slagging off the Scottish Greens who also back independence.

Basically, the whole independence movement at present is a rabble.

 

But what % of voters does this apply to? Very small. And the vast majority would still vote yes if given the chance. Your average voter probably doesn’t care about these different fractions arguing or who said what on their blog or on twitter. 

[Grim Jim]

Jeez, I can't get the People's Front of Judea sketch out of my head now, but oanyhow...

I'd have hung around for the speeches, but was under pressure.   Wee dug was knackered.

Got a bus back as far as the Merchant City, but the rain came on so looked for shelter.   First pub had window filled with UJ bunting so didn't get my coin, but we saw no more of that nonsense.   Wet my thrapple elsewhere with a mix of folk.   Staff were smashin' though.

 

Wee dug's home and had a nap btw, and back to being his annoying self.

[Dave78]

2 hours ago, Freeedom said:

I don't know what political reality you live in but the monarchy is not popular in Scotland. Principles also matter.

Off your knees

 

Ahh, you're channeling your Granda. He used to divide Scottish nationalists over the EU question. Nice to see you've picked up the mantle. 😜

1 hour ago, duncan II said:

...as evidenced by the direction of this very thread just a few posts down! 😄 Two nationalists and republicans calling each other names for not being nationalist or republican enough. What are we like? Own worst enemies.

Amen.

47 minutes ago, Freeedom said:

If you want to win independence you need to be bold and this gradualist wishy washy, half in half out nonsense doesn't work. 

To be fair, you have a point. You do need someone to push the Overton window in your desired direction. As an example see how Farage's Brexit Party threatened the Tories and bounced them into supporting a hard brexit.

I see Alba in that role. But we shouldn't expect it from the SNP until the republican position has more popular support.

[Caledonian Craig]

38 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

But what % of voters does this apply to? Very small. And the vast majority would still vote yes if given the chance. Your average voter probably doesn’t care about these different fractions arguing or who said what on their blog or on twitter. 

I believe it happens higher up too as the independence-supporting parties do not present a united front either as they snipe at one and other. That certainly does not help matters. 

It is like the parties have jumped the gun ahead to a time after independence has been achieved. It is what I'd expect in an independent Scotland where parties fight for votes by putting down other parties. Independence must come first and angst directed at the union we are chained to not fellow independence backers.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Caledonian Craig

[Dave78]

6 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I believe it happens higher up too as the independence-supporting parties do not present a united front either as they snipe and one another. That certainly does not help matters. 

It is like the parties have jumped the gun ahead to a time after independence has been achieved. It is what I'd expect in an independent Scotland where parties fight for votes by putting down other parties. Independence must come first and angst directed at the union we are chained to not fellow independence backers.

My nephew came over to Dublin for the first time today. Spent the morning wandering round town, and i pointed out the Four Courts, and told him the building was the scene of a significant moment in the Irish civil war when Collins used British-made artillery to shell the anti-treaty IRA.

At least the Irish waited until they achieved (most of) their goal before they started (literally) sniping at each other 😄

Edited May 6, 2023 by Dave78

[Freeedom]

23 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

 

Ahh, you're channeling your Granda. He used to divide Scottish nationalists over the EU question. Nice to see you've picked up the mantle. 😜

I think it's fair to say he has had a pretty strong influence on my political upbringing. But there's certainly as much we disagree on as much as we agree. I'm less stubborn but just as uncompromising on certain issues, the monarchy is a red line for me.

[Hertsscot]

1 hour ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I believe it happens higher up too as the independence-supporting parties do not present a united front either as they snipe at one and other. That certainly does not help matters. 

It is like the parties have jumped the gun ahead to a time after independence has been achieved. It is what I'd expect in an independent Scotland where parties fight for votes by putting down other parties. Independence must come first and angst directed at the union we are chained to not fellow independence backers.

Absolutely, they'll be plenty of time for disagreements after indy. Eyes on the prize!

[exile]

I don't think the problem with the SNP or the indy movement is the stance of the monarchy.

The problem is the impasse on the next step forward which has no clear path hence the bickering.

For all that Alba seem stauncher on things like stones of destiny, or maybe getting rid of the monarchy, I don't honestly know what their preferred approach to independence is, on the spectrum from 'beg for a section 30' to UDI. Nor the Greens or SNP for that matter.

I wonder if at some time if the stock of SNP sinks low enough, there will be a point at which running under a fresh banner of Yes Alliance in a de facto referendum could come to pass. I am wondering if that could entice out all those who don't normally vote in elections, who came out in 2014, and again in 2015, but melted away again since 2017.

Obviously up till now the SNP don't fancy sharing the stage but as I say if their stock were to fall low enough, a tipping point could be reached. Yes alliance candidates could be put forward on a cross party basis of proportionate vote in the last election, so Alba and Greens would get a minority of seats to contest, but they'd at least get some MPs (maybe the odd ISP or socialist too). The SNP could agree to it if they felt they were going to lose that many seats anyway. A Yes Alliance (or 'Yes to Independence') label on the ballot would help cement the status as a a de facto referendum and the meaning being an unambiguous 'Yes' vote.

The unionist establishment, political parties and media love to attack and smear the SNP at every turn, and maybe have them on the ropes, but they might find it harder to handle a multi-headed Yes Alliance suddenly popping up on the ballot, representing half of Scotland, on an umambiguous 'Yes for Independence' ticket. 

Edited May 6, 2023 by exile

[duncan II]

24 minutes ago, exile said:

I don't think the problem with the SNP or the indy movement is the stance of the monarchy.

The problem is the impasse on the next step forward which has no clear path hence the bickering.

For all that Alba seem stauncher on things like stones of destiny, or maybe getting rid of the monarchy, I don't honestly know what their preferred approach to independence is, on the spectrum from 'beg for a section 30' to UDI. Nor the Greens or SNP for that matter.

I wonder if at some time if the stock of SNP sinks low enough, there will be a point at which running under a fresh banner of Yes Alliance in a de facto referendum could come to pass. I am wondering if that could entice out all those who don't normally vote in elections, who came out in 2014, and again in 2015, but melted away again since 2017.

Obviously up till now the SNP don't fancy sharing the stage but as I say if their stock were to fall low enough, a tipping point could be reached. Yes alliance candidates could be put forward on a cross party basis of proportionate vote in the last election, so Alba and Greens would get a minority of seats to contest, but they'd at least get some MPs (maybe the odd ISP or socialist too). The SNP could agree to it if they felt they were going to lose that many seats anyway. A Yes Alliance (or 'Yes to Independence') label on the ballot would help cement the status as a a de facto referendum and the meaning being an unambiguous 'Yes' vote.

The unionist establishment, political parties and media love to attack and smear the SNP at every turn, and maybe have them on the ropes, but they might find it harder to handle a multi-headed Yes Alliance suddenly popping up on the ballot, representing half of Scotland, on an umambiguous 'Yes for Independence' ticket. 

Problem is, I don't see evidence of the SNP softening their stance on this. Most distance themselves from associating with the other independence parties, with some openly ridiculing and abusing them. The presence of a small number of SNP reps at the AUOB may be a step in the right direction?

[bonzo]

Just hame, hud a few beers but today's march gave a wee bit of hope again..

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, exile said:

I don't think the problem with the SNP or the indy movement is the stance of the monarchy.

The problem is the impasse on the next step forward which has no clear path hence the bickering.

For all that Alba seem stauncher on things like stones of destiny, or maybe getting rid of the monarchy, I don't honestly know what their preferred approach to independence is, on the spectrum from 'beg for a section 30' to UDI. Nor the Greens or SNP for that matter.

I wonder if at some time if the stock of SNP sinks low enough, there will be a point at which running under a fresh banner of Yes Alliance in a de facto referendum could come to pass. I am wondering if that could entice out all those who don't normally vote in elections, who came out in 2014, and again in 2015, but melted away again since 2017.

Obviously up till now the SNP don't fancy sharing the stage but as I say if their stock were to fall low enough, a tipping point could be reached. Yes alliance candidates could be put forward on a cross party basis of proportionate vote in the last election, so Alba and Greens would get a minority of seats to contest, but they'd at least get some MPs (maybe the odd ISP or socialist too). The SNP could agree to it if they felt they were going to lose that many seats anyway. A Yes Alliance (or 'Yes to Independence') label on the ballot would help cement the status as a a de facto referendum and the meaning being an unambiguous 'Yes' vote.

The unionist establishment, political parties and media love to attack and smear the SNP at every turn, and maybe have them on the ropes, but they might find it harder to handle a multi-headed Yes Alliance suddenly popping up on the ballot, representing half of Scotland, on an umambiguous 'Yes for Independence' ticket. 

I saw Alex Salmond calling for this today i.e at the next General Election all Independence parties unite & stand under AUOB

If we had elected politicians that wanted Independence they would do it

Even if they had SNP/AUOB on the ballot paper or some sort of compromise

I have no idea if the electoral commission would wear it but there has to be some way it could happen

[PapofGlencoe]

I was bizarrely at a coronation event in an unnamed village supping John Smith's and eating sandwiches.  I ended up there by pure chance.  Slightly out my comfort zone but sometimes a day out is a day out and nothing more.

I don't think monarchy necessarily equated to unionism.  It factually does not judging by the commonwealth.

Bigger battles to draw.

I'll die a scot and supporting our country's right to self determination and also aware our land is complex in terms of heritage and ideals.  I liked the "social union" idea of the last vote and think the crown could play a part in that even though I don't personally support it.  Willing to keep some things that a substantial part of our people want in exchange for a more cohesive nation.  The UK didn't extinguish Scotland and I doubt an independent Scotland would want to extinguish Britishness either in all its senses.  Maybe I'm wrong.

[exile]

'If the Coronation was in Glasgow...'

[TDYER63]

12 hours ago, exile said:

I don't think the problem with the SNP or the indy movement is the stance of the monarchy.

The problem is the impasse on the next step forward which has no clear path hence the bickering.

For all that Alba seem stauncher on things like stones of destiny, or maybe getting rid of the monarchy, I don't honestly know what their preferred approach to independence is, on the spectrum from 'beg for a section 30' to UDI. Nor the Greens or SNP for that matter.

I wonder if at some time if the stock of SNP sinks low enough, there will be a point at which running under a fresh banner of Yes Alliance in a de facto referendum could come to pass. I am wondering if that could entice out all those who don't normally vote in elections, who came out in 2014, and again in 2015, but melted away again since 2017.

Obviously up till now the SNP don't fancy sharing the stage but as I say if their stock were to fall low enough, a tipping point could be reached. Yes alliance candidates could be put forward on a cross party basis of proportionate vote in the last election, so Alba and Greens would get a minority of seats to contest, but they'd at least get some MPs (maybe the odd ISP or socialist too). The SNP could agree to it if they felt they were going to lose that many seats anyway. A Yes Alliance (or 'Yes to Independence') label on the ballot would help cement the status as a a de facto referendum and the meaning being an unambiguous 'Yes' vote.

The unionist establishment, political parties and media love to attack and smear the SNP at every turn, and maybe have them on the ropes, but they might find it harder to handle a multi-headed Yes Alliance suddenly popping up on the ballot, representing half of Scotland, on an umambiguous 'Yes for Independence' ticket. 

Agree with your first paragraph. The monarchy is not a major block to independence. I am vehemently against it but I would be willing to compromise for an independent Scotland if it was what the majority wanted. People need to compromise. 
With regards to your 3rd paragraph, Alex Salmond said yesterday he wants all pro independence parties to join together and stand under the one banner at the next GE with independence at the forefront. This is in line with your take on things. I am not sure the SNP are at that stage yet, although Joanna Cherry hinted there may be a slight change of heart by some SNP MP’s on the route . She also said she was going nowhere which I was pleased to hear. 

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I was bizarrely at a coronation event in an unnamed village supping John Smith's and eating sandwiches.  I ended up there by pure chance.  Slightly out my comfort zone but sometimes a day out is a day out and nothing more.

I don't think monarchy necessarily equated to unionism.  It factually does not judging by the commonwealth.

Bigger battles to draw.

I'll die a scot and supporting our country's right to self determination and also aware our land is complex in terms of heritage and ideals.  I liked the "social union" idea of the last vote and think the crown could play a part in that even though I don't personally support it.  Willing to keep some things that a substantial part of our people want in exchange for a more cohesive nation.  The UK didn't extinguish Scotland and I doubt an independent Scotland would want to extinguish Britishness either in all its senses.  Maybe I'm wrong.

Sandwiches? Please do not tell me they were cucumber washed down with a glass of Pimms ? I hope you washed your mouth out afterwards young man 😁

Joking aside, if folk are fairly ambivalent about the monarchy then a day out is a day out.
Personally I would rather gouge my eyes out with a hot poker, attending a royal affair is akin to attending a Tory fundraiser in my eyes. Not because its only Tories that are royalists, its more the wealth and snobbery that is associated with both factions. 

I mentioned before on here that years ago I went to an Orange lodge, my husband’s boss attended invited us and the place was a stone’s throw from where we lived. I agreed as I thought a night was a night out. Fuck. It was the worst night I have spent in my entire life. Got chucked out at the end for not singing GSTQ which was the highlight of the night . Never again will I attend anything I disagree with just for a day or night out. 

[exile]

11 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

I saw Alex Salmond calling for this today i.e at the next General Election all Independence parties unite & stand under AUOB

 

30 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

With regards to your 3rd paragraph, Alex Salmond said yesterday he wants all pro independence parties to join together and stand under the one banner at the next GE with independence at the forefront. 

I didn't see that, didn't realise I was now channelling Alex Salmond 😅

Maybe it's about time I made a statement on gender identity  😵 

[Freeedom]

3 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

 

I don't think monarchy necessarily equated to unionism.  It factually does not judging by the commonwealth.

Bigger battles to draw.

I'll die a scot and supporting our country's right to self determination and also aware our land is complex in terms of heritage and ideals.  I liked the "social union" idea of the last vote and think the crown could play a part in that even though I don't personally support it.  Willing to keep some things that a substantial part of our people want in exchange for a more cohesive nation.  The UK didn't extinguish Scotland and I doubt an independent Scotland would want to extinguish Britishness either in all its senses.  Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't understand this blase attitude towards the monarchy from older generations. The monarchy may not be a symbol for unionism (although I would very much argue that it is) but is certainly a symbol of British empire, colonialism, theft and of slavery. Why do you think so many nations in the common wealth now want to leave?

Why is anyone here happy to compromise in sustaining a system with such a wretched history and one that continues to sustain a class system that funnels wealth from the working people in this country to an unelected, inbred, fascist hereditary lineage when the monarchy grows more deeply unpopular by the day?

Supporting the monarchy is not going to win us independence, it's madness.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Freeedom

[exile]

10 minutes ago, Freeedom said:

I don't understand this blase attitude towards the monarchy from older generations. The monarchy may not be a symbol for unionism (although I would very much argue that it is) but is certainly a symbol of British empire, colonialism, theft and of slavery. Why do you think so many nations in the common wealth now want to leave?

Why is anyone here happy to compromise in sustaining a system with such a wretched history and one that continues to sustain a class system that funnels wealth from the working people in this country to an unelected, inbred, fascist hereditary lineage when the monarchy grows more deeply unpopular by the day?

Supporting the monarchy is not going to win us independence, it's madness.

I get your support of a point of principle. It's like saying, "I want an independent Scotland that is inclusive not 'nativist'".

But if you had to choose between a United British Republic or a Kingdom of Scotland, which would you choose?

The surest quickest way of getting rid of the monarchy is to win independence.

Many would argue the surest quickest way of getting independence is to park the issue of monarchy. That's not 'supporting' it. It's getting rid of it by the most effective means, albeit in two stages.

[Freeedom]

31 minutes ago, exile said:

I get your support of a point of principle. It's like saying, "I want an independent Scotland that is inclusive not 'nativist'".

But if you had to choose between a United British Republic or a Kingdom of Scotland, which would you choose?

The surest quickest way of getting rid of the monarchy is to win independence.

Many would argue the surest quickest way of getting independence is to park the issue of monarchy. That's not 'supporting' it. It's getting rid of it by the most effective means, albeit in two stages.

The problem is that we have this delusion that we can just park all these issues until after indy. We can't, people want to know what they are voting for when they vote for independence and the monarchy is not an issue that can just be put to the side. 

The queen is dead, Charles is deeply unpopular, we have new leadership in the SNP (an alleged republican) and an overwhelming direction of travel amongst the general public against a system of monarchy. Now is the perfect time to follow the tide and do the right thing. 

Humza attending the coronation and arguing he was somehow obligated to go is bizarre. He's beholden to independence supporters that voted for him, not the monarchy. He's a gravy train, slurping careerist useless shitbag of a leader and with him in charge we'll never get independence.

[exile]

43 minutes ago, Freeedom said:

The problem is that we have this delusion that we can just park all these issues until after indy. We can't, people want to know what they are voting for when they vote for independence and the monarchy is not an issue that can just be put to the side. 

The queen is dead, Charles is deeply unpopular, we have new leadership in the SNP (an alleged republican) and an overwhelming direction of travel amongst the general public against a system of monarchy. Now is the perfect time to follow the tide and do the right thing. 

Humza attending the coronation and arguing he was somehow obligated to go is bizarre. He's beholden to independence supporters that voted for him, not the monarchy. He's a gravy train, slurping careerist useless shitbag of a leader and with him in charge we'll never get independence.

People would know what they are voting for, just like the last time. They would be voting for an independent Kingdom of Scotland that would not sever ties with the monarchy nor break that particular brand of Britishness that so many Scots seem beholden to. You or I may find it abhorrent or inexplicable, but it is part of the fabric of our country.

People would also know that in an independent Scotland they could later vote for turning into a Republic - rejoining the EU or reform land ownership or becoming a socialist utopia, or any other number of things. And I think the electorate, all those young people you are referring to who would like to abolish the monarchy would know that voting Yes was part of that direction of travel.

Do you think it more likely that young republican indy supporters would be put off voting Yes in the hope of getting a United British Republic, than soft No monarchists - and even indy supporting monarchists - would be put off voting Yes to a Republic of Scotland?

There are independence supporters on here who don't want the EU and don't want a socialist utopia, and maybe who don't want a republic. But if you make all those things part of Yes, you make it harder for them to vote Yes.

Edited May 7, 2023 by exile

[Freeedom]

Mate... You just suggested in your last post that we park the issue of monarchy, I was addressing that point don't change the subject. I'm out for lunch, I'll address the rest later.

[exile]

1 hour ago, Freeedom said:

Mate... You just suggested in your last post that we park the issue of monarchy, I was addressing that point don't change the subject. I'm out for lunch, I'll address the rest later.

Not sure where I changed the subject, as I was directly answering your bit in bold. Maybe that was a change of subject?

In any case there may not be much point in arguing the matter further, lest we become the peoples' fronts of Judea, as everyone already seems clear on where they stand.

Edited May 7, 2023 by exile

[Freeedom]

3 hours ago, exile said:

Many would argue the surest quickest way of getting independence is to park the issue of monarchy. That's not 'supporting' it. It's getting rid of it by the most effective means, albeit in two stages.

 

2 hours ago, Freeedom said:

The problem is that we have this delusion that we can just park all these issues until after indy. We can't, people want to know what they are voting for when they vote for independence and the monarchy is not an issue that can just be put to the side. 

 

1 hour ago, exile said:

People would know what they are voting for, just like the last time. They would be voting for an independent Kingdom of Scotland that would not sever ties with the monarchy nor break that particular brand of Britishness that so many Scots seem beholden to. You or I may find it abhorrent or inexplicable, but it is part of the fabric of our country.

 

You - we should park the issue of the monarchy until after indy.

Me - We can't do that, we should support an independent republic rather than a monarchy.

You - people will know what they're voting for like in 2014 and we should maintain the monarchy

Me - ...?

What are you actually advocating for because it's not clear to me?

The Scottish government need to have positions on certain issues going into a referendum because they are foundational to the formation of an independent state. We need to know what the currency will be, we need to know what is going to happen to people's pensions, we need to know what will happen with nuclear weapons, we need to know the governments position on NATO membership, on our relationship with the EU and of course the monarchy...

My argument is that it is not only right, but the political policy moving forward should be that Scotland become a republic upon independence. You cannot hide this one under the rug and I think that moving forward with a policy that grows more and more unpopular by the day is not a vote winner for independence. 

Whether Scotland will be a socialist utopia or not is neither here nor there, that will change depending on what party we vote into power. But we must have a position on the monarchy and that position should be to get rid of it.

I'm sick to death of the under 45s having to appease the selfish wants of stubborn baby boomers who don't want to see any sort of change whilst civilisation calmly walks over the precipice of the cliff edge we're sitting on. 

[exile]

4 hours ago, Freeedom said:

 

 

 

You - we should park the issue of the monarchy until after indy.

Me - We can't do that, we should support an independent republic rather than a monarchy.

You - people will know what they're voting for like in 2014 and we should maintain the monarchy

Me - ...?

What are you actually advocating for because it's not clear to me?

The Scottish government need to have positions on certain issues going into a referendum because they are foundational to the formation of an independent state. We need to know what the currency will be, we need to know what is going to happen to people's pensions, we need to know what will happen with nuclear weapons, we need to know the governments position on NATO membership, on our relationship with the EU and of course the monarchy...

My argument is that it is not only right, but the political policy moving forward should be that Scotland become a republic upon independence. You cannot hide this one under the rug and I think that moving forward with a policy that grows more and more unpopular by the day is not a vote winner for independence. 

Whether Scotland will be a socialist utopia or not is neither here nor there, that will change depending on what party we vote into power. But we must have a position on the monarchy and that position should be to get rid of it.

I'm sick to death of the under 45s having to appease the selfish wants of stubborn baby boomers who don't want to see any sort of change whilst civilisation calmly walks over the precipice of the cliff edge we're sitting on. 

I am saying that the monarchy is not the most important thing to be arguing about now. That's what I mean by parking the issue.

For achieving independence, I think the most important thing is finding a way to channel the possibly 50%+ will for  independence into political reality.

When the time comes for a vote, I agree that the position on the monarchy should be clear. At the moment the default is to retain the monarchy, but I accept that if the vote is some distance in the future, the position may have changed.

So nothing is being swept under the rug, and no one (not me anyway) is pro monarchy, so there is no need to insinuate it. 

I acknowledge your principled stance against the monarchy. But I asked, if you had the choice between a United British Republic (ie UK becoming a Republic) or the Kingdom of Scotland (i.e. as an independent country), which would you choose? 

[Freeedom]

9 minutes ago, exile said:

I am saying that the monarchy is not the most important thing to be arguing about now. That's what I mean by parking the issue.

For achieving independence, I think the most important thing is finding a way to channel the possibly 50%+ will for  independence into political reality.

When the time comes for a vote, I agree that the position on the monarchy should be clear. At the moment the default is to retain the monarchy, but I accept that if the vote is some distance in the future, the position may have changed.

So nothing is being swept under the rug, and no one (not me anyway) is pro monarchy, so there is no need to insinuate it. 

I acknowledge your principled stance against the monarchy. But I asked, if you had the choice between a United British Republic (ie UK becoming a Republic) or the Kingdom of Scotland (i.e. as an independent country), which would you choose? 

It's not the most important issue no, but now is the time to have the conversation about our policy position moving forward. To me, this is the right time for the SNP to make the necessary change and back republicanism so that we can achieve independence. The greens get it, Alex Salmond sees the writing on the wall but the SNP are reticent for any change because they are pretty cosy where they are. 

Is your question a serious one? There is no circumstance in which I would forgo Scotlands independence.