General Election 2024 - Page 39 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

General Election 2024


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 987
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Guardian gone pretty hard on Reform having make believe candidates in certain seats.  If it's true got to be election fraud surely and, for argument sake, if you lost your seat by a number less than the Reform vote could the losing MP seek damages?  

What a horrible omnishambles we've become.  

I would've thought people would've been required to have valid identification in order to register to be a candidate due to the citizenship restrictions:https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/

Also given you need an ID to vote now, it makes no sense to not require an ID to be a candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

A huge opportunity for the snp in the run up to holyrood elections, get their shit in order and get back to snp basics and we will not be far away from a majority with us running against sarwar and god knows what tory leader... 

Will the Scots Tories need to wait till the English Tories elect their new leader, to avoid their new Scottish 'leader' the embarrassment of backing the wrong horse, and having to do a U turn later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Already seeing the hypocrisy of Starmer on his visit to Scotland. Claiming that he will work for all Scots - even those that did not vote Labour. All independence supporters want to know then is when is the date of IndyRef2? So Starmer is doing nothing for around 45% of Scots then.

Stephen Flynn should ask if it's a voluntary union, how come we can't leave? at every opportunity, as it's a question they can never answer.

Well maybe not every time, as they only have one question now at PMQ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

Stephen Flynn should ask if it's a voluntary union, how come we can't leave? at every opportunity, as it's a question they can never answer.

Well maybe not every time, as they only have one question now at PMQ?

 

13 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

👍

Why not every time?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jailender said:

Due to the number of seats the SNP have now, he isn't guaranteed a question every week,. Has to try to get the Speaker's attention.  Probably won't get a lot of questions in.

I really don't think some of the folk on here have come to terms with the situation they are in now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, exile said:

Stephen Flynn should ask if it's a voluntary union, how come we can't leave? at every opportunity, as it's a question they can never answer.

Well maybe not every time, as they only have one question now at PMQ?

The polling is 50/50, we don't actually want to leave.

We had a referendum where we voted against independence so Flynn or any other SNP MP asking that question is probably a waste of time until we start polling over 60 percent consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

The polling is 50/50, we don't actually want to leave.

We had a referendum where we voted against independence so Flynn or any other SNP MP asking that question is probably a waste of time until we start polling over 60 percent consistently.

Support is so high though that also Westminster should not be shutting it down and giving no democratic hope for almost 50% of a nation part of what is supposed to be a 'Union of Equals'. We had a referendum in 2014 when polls were not at the same levels for Yes as they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Support is so high though that also Westminster should not be shutting it down and giving no democratic hope for almost 50% of a nation part of what is supposed to be a 'Union of Equals'. We had a referendum in 2014 when polls were not at the same levels for Yes as they are now.

Well Westminster doesn't want the union to split because of several different reasons so they are unlikely to encourage it or pander to it. 

In fact it's probably better for the indy movement if they treat them with disdain and disrespect. Probably helps push polling in favour of independence.

It's harsh reality that currently the Scottish ppl don't want independence and until that changes then I don't see why Westminster should be overly indulging a country who don't know wether they want to be independent or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Well Westminster doesn't want the union to split because of several different reasons so they are unlikely to encourage it or pander to it. 

In fact it's probably better for the indy movement if they treat them with disdain and disrespect. Probably helps push polling in favour of independence.

It's harsh reality that currently the Scottish ppl don't want independence and until that changes then I don't see why Westminster should be overly indulging a country who don't know wether they want to be independent or not.

And why don't they won't the union to split ask yourself that?

And around 51% do not want independence and 49% do so lets not make sweeping judgements.

I do agree on your other point though that when Labour openly come out with refusals to another indyref then hopefully the penny drops for more people and they turn from don'knows to yessers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

And why don't they won't the union to split ask yourself that?

And around 51% do not want independence and 49% do so lets not make sweeping judgements.

I do agree on your other point though that when Labour openly come out with refusals to another indyref then hopefully the penny drops for more people and they turn from don'knows to yessers

Wasn't there a bit of a swing in support for Indy after the Supreme Court decision. I don't think people take kindly to being told 'no'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jailender said:

Due to the number of seats the SNP have now, he isn't guaranteed a question every week,. Has to try to get the Speaker's attention.  Probably won't get a lot of questions in.

The SNP being the third largest party in Westminster was a historical anomaly that will probably never be repeated. 

Incredible that a party could achieve that with 3% of the UK vote share, but that's FPTP for you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

And why don't they won't the union to split ask yourself that?

And around 51% do not want independence and 49% do so lets not make sweeping judgements.

I do agree on your other point though that when Labour openly come out with refusals to another indyref then hopefully the penny drops for more people and they turn from don'knows to yessers.

Yes we all know they don't want the union to split because of selfish reasons but the fact is they can hold onto us as long as they like and us complaining about not being allowed leave is silly when half our population don't want to leave.

Whos making sweeping judgements. The polling shows roughly 50/50, that says to me that Scottish ppl are pretty undecided on independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

Wasn't there a bit of a swing in support for Indy after the Supreme Court decision. I don't think people take kindly to being told 'no'.

There was, but it wasn't hammered home. The SNP have basically accepted every attack on independence and devolution since 2014 from Westminster - the promises of the 'No' campaign not being delivered; the constant rejection of a referendum being approved by Westminster; the EU withdrawal act; the Supreme Court decision on a referendum being held by Holyrood; use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act; the implications on all of this to devolution; the implications on all of this to Scotland ever having an opportunity to become independent.

There's so much the SNP could've used to build up support for independence, especially among those who aren't necessarily independence supporters but do want devolution protected, but have instead decided to be passive. There's a possibility the UK government wouldn't have attacked devolution as much had the SNP been bolder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Clyde1998 said:

There was, but it wasn't hammered home. The SNP have basically accepted every attack on independence and devolution since 2014 from Westminster - the promises of the 'No' campaign not being delivered; the constant rejection of a referendum being approved by Westminster; the EU withdrawal act; the Supreme Court decision on a referendum being held by Holyrood; use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act; the implications on all of this to devolution; the implications on all of this to Scotland ever having an opportunity to become independent.

There's so much the SNP could've used to build up support for independence, especially among those who aren't necessarily independence supporters but do want devolution protected, but have instead decided to be passive. There's a possibility the UK government wouldn't have attacked devolution as much had the SNP been bolder.

A fair assessment and difficult to disagree with these points. My ongoing questions relate to how they respond to these attacks; what is the medium/vehicle for highlighting all this when the media are hostile and the BBC are compromised? Also who exactly can get that message across? Then how to respond by proactively going on the attack or giving a valid rebuttal rather than it sounding like whataboutery or just blaming WM for our issues?

I think previous comments here about trying to simplify the message around devolution limitations are accurate. However, the SNP or Scottish government are rarely afforded that luxury ie allowed to keep anything simple. Look at how Farage didn't get quizzed on Brexit detail and still doesn't on much. We are already aware of Sarwar's easy ride. Answers are demanded of every corner of what Scotland does or would like to do where the SNP are seen to be responsible.

This is why I am perhaps not as critical as others here - I'm not sure what on earth they're supposed to do at times. Are the strategists just rubbish and/or the leadership too jaded? What ideas are out there for addressing health, housing or cost of living within the remit of a fixed budget and limited governing powers of devolved administrations? These are supposedly top of everyone's concerns and yet no party has proposed much. 

Apologies for all the questions, not really aimed at anyone in particular! Just going round in circles hitting brick walls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, StirlingEgg said:

A fair assessment and difficult to disagree with these points. My ongoing questions relate to how they respond to these attacks; what is the medium/vehicle for highlighting all this when the media are hostile and the BBC are compromised? Also who exactly can get that message across? Then how to respond by proactively going on the attack or giving a valid rebuttal rather than it sounding like whataboutery or just blaming WM for our issues?

I think previous comments here about trying to simplify the message around devolution limitations are accurate. However, the SNP or Scottish government are rarely afforded that luxury ie allowed to keep anything simple. Look at how Farage didn't get quizzed on Brexit detail and still doesn't on much. We are already aware of Sarwar's easy ride. Answers are demanded of every corner of what Scotland does or would like to do where the SNP are seen to be responsible.

This is why I am perhaps not as critical as others here - I'm not sure what on earth they're supposed to do at times. Are the strategists just rubbish and/or the leadership too jaded? What ideas are out there for addressing health, housing or cost of living within the remit of a fixed budget and limited governing powers of devolved administrations? These are supposedly top of everyone's concerns and yet no party has proposed much. 

Apologies for all the questions, not really aimed at anyone in particular! Just going round in circles hitting brick walls. 

When the Yes campaign had all the momentum in 2014, it was when it started to put the unionists on the back foot - the unionists need to be challenged. It forced them into changing tack and make promises about further devolution they wouldn't have made otherwise (obviously they didn't keep those promises).

Before and since, we did little to make people actually question the union - other than around Brexit, which had some impact. The big thing that led to people not supporting independence - looking at those who could be won over, not the hardcore unionist bloc (maybe around 30-35% of the electorate) - was questions perceived to be unanswered. The same needs to be done with the union (or people need know they won't like the answers).

On the general issues, there should be the general SNP policy regarding day-to-day management of things like the cost of living on top of noting the limitations of devolution.

A good example here is that Scotland is a massive net exporter of energy, in part due to the Scottish Government's investment and direction on renewable energy. As part of the UK, anything Scotland generates in pooled in the UK's energy grid. That likely causes energy to be more expensive in Scotland than it would be under independence (as Scotland is subsidising the UK in energy terms) and independence means Scotland would be better compensated for energy production as there would be a charge to the UK for importing Scottish energy, which doesn't exist at this time (as far as I'm aware) - the export receipts could also be used to bring down prices or provide more resources for public services.

Would we have seen as sharp increases in the cost of living in Scotland had we been independent, with full control over energy? Would the public services be as bad a state had we been independent? Would the Scottish Government have had more revenue to work with had we been independent?

It's things like that we need to make arguments around: show how Scotland can be independent and how the UK, even with devolution, holds Scotland back whilst relating back to the key issues of the day.

There should be people better placed and more knowledgeable to make a clearer argument than me with more specific figures.

The media won't give the SNP, or any independence party/group, as easy a ride as any unionist party, but that was the case in 2014. The media will attempt to spin anything the SNP says against them. The only way this changes would be a sudden change in heart or enough time having passed so the younger people who are more independence inclined start to reach high positions within these organisations and soften their stance on Scotland. Realistically, it needs to be done in the trenches - leafleting, knocking doors, speaking to people. Any common themes that come up could be addressed and answers prepared when dealing with the media.

I don't believe we've seen a good SNP campaign since 2015 (IIRC, Angus Robertson ran the 2007, 2011 and 2015 campaigns). The party's strategy has been poor, so it could be a question of changing strategists - really just relying on their record in government (which is acceptable when things are going well) and hoping independence supporters just keep voting SNP no matter what. I think Alex Salmond made the point in 2014: people want to vote for something not against something. There's been no serious vision since 2015. Once there's a cogent strategy, then you can look at who's the best messenger - whether they are the First Minister or not.

Two words keep coming up in my thoughts about the SNP - mirage and virage. The SNP's success since 2014 has been based on the mirage of the party being close to delivering independence and requires a virage (French: turn/change) in order to actually come anywhere near delivering independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2024 at 7:28 AM, mccaughey85 said:

The polling is 50/50, we don't actually want to leave.

We had a referendum where we voted against independence so Flynn or any other SNP MP asking that question is probably a waste of time until we start polling over 60 percent consistently.

The point about the 'voluntary union' question is that the unionists insist UK is a voluntary, cuddly family of nations, so desirable that no-one is forced to stay, but in the next breath they deny the right to leave.

In a sense it doesn’t matter what the exact proportion wanting out is, it's the principle: just like there's a big difference being in a marriage you couldn't leave, and one you could. Even if right now you're OK with the marriage, if you realised your partner could and would prevent you leaving it might put you off staying.

The UK that Scots voted to remain in in 2014 was sold as a voluntary, 'equal' union. If they'd said 'Scotland, you are not a nation, vote to stay a region in a unitary state', it's more likely people would have voted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

The UK that Scots voted to remain in in 2014 was sold as a voluntary, 'equal' union. If they'd said 'Scotland, you are not a nation, vote to stay a region in a unitary state', it's more likely people would have voted out.

It feels a bit like Labour are edging us nearer to that though with talk of regional assemblies and mayors in the same breath/context as Scotland and the First Minister...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, StirlingEgg said:

It feels a bit like Labour are edging us nearer to that though with talk of regional assemblies and mayors in the same breath/context as Scotland and the First Minister...

Agreed

And it needs to be spelled / called out fkn loudly (One of many things)

Not to do so fuels mistrust / suspicion, and correctly so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2024 at 11:27 PM, exile said:

😅

I suppose, the media would just stop reporting it.

Though probably they'll stop reporting his one question anyway, since, like, Scottish parties are so over. 

Doesn't need to be in the HoC - In fact, preferably not, as it'll go under the radar as you say - Just start clapping there again, 'they' hated that! Take it to the extreme where we're asked to leave / get banned, too

Stick it on billboards, fkn busses even, start asking these sort of questions directly to the yoons in Holyrood during FMQ's, write open letters if the media fail to publish / cover these things

This is the level of 'disruption' I'd like to see to begin with

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Alibi said:

I see Starmer is already talking about incresaing defence expenditure to 3% from the previous targt of 2.5%.  why do politicians never suggest trying to work towards peace?  It's always about enabling wars.

Because doing that will get you killed. Just ask the Prime Minister of Slovakia, who recently stated that had he not been shot he would have been with the Prime Minister of Hungary on his peace mission to Russia recently. (What is the press like for the president of Hungary in the UK.)

Those are the only two in the EU I am aware of and they are Putin apologist Neville Chamberlain traitor scum apparently. 

You will notice how Farage dropped himself right in the shit with his honest remarks about Ukraine recently. That is just speaking a tiny sliver of truth out loud, never mind seeking peace.

We are in a bit of bother here. Starmer is really bad.

Edited by thplinth
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...