Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...May sees herself as the modern iron Lady, but on that showing, they'll have to call her the irony lady

I think the press is guilty of making that association, but it certainly does appear that MT may have been an inspiration for TM. However, MT had a vision of conservatism that she pursued relentlessly and changed the political scene in the UK almost irevocably. TM has no such vision, she's just stubbornly clinging to a train of consciousness that she believes will appease the difficult and extreme members of her party.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
May is pushing Scotland toward independence with her interfering with Scotland's referendum's.

More fuel to Scotland to leave the sinking ship that's the UK.

I'm fine with Scotland separating if they think its in their own interests but just not now, there's a lot to do right now.

If Scotland ever becomes part of the EU its going to be a headache. Wouldn't we need restricted border between Scotland and England?

I cant imagine that working.

There is no desire to have a hard border between both Irelands, so I see no reason why there would need to be a hard border between Scotland and England.

I've been puzzling over the hard soft border thing for a bit, certainly wrt to Ireland, and it seems to me that the simplest way to implement a soft border would be to push back border controls in Northern Ireland to England. Effectively Northern Ireland would have free movement, but it would be restricted in the the rest of the UK.
Similarly if Scotland left, then joined the EU, we could have agreements whereby anyone entering Britain would have differing controls applied depending on their intended destination. For example, someone arrives at Heathrow from Greece and they're wishing to fly to Edinburgh, they carry on with no impediment, however someone flying into Glasgow from Spain intending to head down to Newcastle would have to go through English border controls, at their point of arrival in Glasgow, perhaps setup as part of an agreed deal between England and Scotland during negotiations.
This would allow the Irish, Northern Irish, English and Scottish to meander about as they wish without having to worry about border controls.

Obviously it's all open to abuse, and it's never going to be perfect, but thats what happens when you hammer an egg into a square hole.

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...May sees herself as the modern iron Lady, but on that showing, they'll have to call her the irony lady

I think the press is guilty of making that association, but it certainly does appear that MT may have been an inspiration for TM. However, MT had a vision of conservatism that she pursued relentlessly and changed the political scene in the UK almost irevocably. TM has no such vision, she's just stubbornly clinging to a train of consciousness that she believes will appease the difficult and extreme members of her party.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
May is pushing Scotland toward independence with her interfering with Scotland's referendum's.

More fuel to Scotland to leave the sinking ship that's the UK.

I'm fine with Scotland separating if they think its in their own interests but just not now, there's a lot to do right now.

If Scotland ever becomes part of the EU its going to be a headache. Wouldn't we need restricted border between Scotland and England?

I cant imagine that working.

There is no desire to have a hard border between both Irelands, so I see no reason why there would need to be a hard border between Scotland and England.

I've been puzzling over the hard soft border thing for a bit, certainly wrt to Ireland, and it seems to me that the simplest way to implement a soft border would be to push back border controls in Northern Ireland to England. Effectively Northern Ireland would have free movement, but it would be restricted in the the rest of the UK.
Similarly if Scotland left, then joined the EU, we could have agreements whereby anyone entering Britain would have differing controls applied depending on their intended destination. For example, someone arrives at Heathrow from Greece and they're wishing to fly to Edinburgh, they carry on with no impediment, however someone flying into Glasgow from Spain intending to head down to Newcastle would have to go through English border controls, at their point of arrival in Glasgow, perhaps setup as part of an agreed deal between England and Scotland during negotiations.
This would allow the Irish, Northern Irish, English and Scottish to meander about as they wish without having to worry about border controls.

Obviously it's all open to abuse, and it's never going to be perfect, but thats what happens when you hammer an egg into a square hole.

Just have a Stiff penalty for breach of said system, illegal work or such.
if you make a mistake thats different, just have very tight rules on work permits etc.

99% of casual visitition would not even notice, only for those who are hell bent on breaking the important bits.

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

I think you're underestimating NS to be honest, yes opposition is "easier" than actual Govt, as Trump is finding out, but she is fighting the corner of Scotland in the only capacity she has available to her, and she's done it well enough to have her party united behind her, as well as a fair chunk of the population of her country. She is also leading her party to be the defacto, if somewhat ineffective, opposition to the Tories in Britain.

I think she will make a very capable Scottish Prime minister when that time comes.

In all seriousness, the SNP playbook is about as simple as it comes. Salmond wrote it, she just follows the recipe.

1. Ask for something slightly unreasonable. Not massively unreasonable, because then you'll look like a tool, but something you're unlikely to get. Then pen several articles about oppression and neglect when you don't get it. If you do get it, pen several articles about how great your party is for getting it.
2. Make a statement in Parliament about how something the government is doing is wrong and evil.
3. Make a public/constituency/Holyrood speech about how you're the only ones representing anyone in Scotland.
4. Complain about something bad that has happened in Scotland. Blame it on the current Government.
5. Discuss something good that has happened in Scotland. Claim all credit.
6. Do a week solid set of media interviews discussing all the above.
7. Repeat every two and a half months.

It's a fairly smooth, if basic formula. It really says virtually nothing about their ability to run a government, or even a decent opposition. Note:- I'm not saying that she would be bad at those things. For all we know, she'd be the greatest PM ever. I'm merely pointing out that she's actually in the easiest position it is possible to be in in mainstream politics, and it is impossible to judge whilst she stays there.

That formula is nothing new, and doesn't just apply to Scotland, but all opposition parties, except Labour, who appear to have lost the playbook down the back of the sofa.

However, the difference between the SNP and other opposition parties is that they actually are running something at the moment, their devolved parliament. So they do have provable experience of governance, subject to the tools allowed to them. It's not their fault that Westminster is reluctant to allow them further autonomy to rise or fall on their own.

Given that in the last few weeks the Tories have been dropping strong hints about clawing back farming and fishing powers from Edinburgh, who can blame Sturgeon for her latest move? Not I.

Edinburgh: Can we have VAT powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament?

London: No, because EU rules forbid this.

Edinburgh: We're leaving the EU? Can we have VAT powers now, please?

London: No, because, er, reasons....

And so it goes on....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...May sees herself as the modern iron Lady, but on that showing, they'll have to call her the irony lady

I think the press is guilty of making that association, but it certainly does appear that MT may have been an inspiration for TM. However, MT had a vision of conservatism that she pursued relentlessly and changed the political scene in the UK almost irevocably. TM has no such vision, she's just stubbornly clinging to a train of consciousness that she believes will appease the difficult and extreme members of her party.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
May is pushing Scotland toward independence with her interfering with Scotland's referendum's.

More fuel to Scotland to leave the sinking ship that's the UK.

I'm fine with Scotland separating if they think its in their own interests but just not now, there's a lot to do right now.

If Scotland ever becomes part of the EU its going to be a headache. Wouldn't we need restricted border between Scotland and England?

I cant imagine that working.

There is no desire to have a hard border between both Irelands, so I see no reason why there would need to be a hard border between Scotland and England.

I've been puzzling over the hard soft border thing for a bit, certainly wrt to Ireland, and it seems to me that the simplest way to implement a soft border would be to push back border controls in Northern Ireland to England. Effectively Northern Ireland would have free movement, but it would be restricted in the the rest of the UK.
Similarly if Scotland left, then joined the EU, we could have agreements whereby anyone entering Britain would have differing controls applied depending on their intended destination. For example, someone arrives at Heathrow from Greece and they're wishing to fly to Edinburgh, they carry on with no impediment, however someone flying into Glasgow from Spain intending to head down to Newcastle would have to go through English border controls, at their point of arrival in Glasgow, perhaps setup as part of an agreed deal between England and Scotland during negotiations.
This would allow the Irish, Northern Irish, English and Scottish to meander about as they wish without having to worry about border controls.

Obviously it's all open to abuse, and it's never going to be perfect, but thats what happens when you hammer an egg into a square hole.

The Unionists say one thing about an Irish border, and another thing about a border between Scotland and England, so anything they say is bullgak to me.

But yes, yours is a sensible point.

..it'll get good coverage in the Ev. Standard anyway eh ?

meanwhile :






Clegg there on maintenance posters in Las Vegas airport....?!

What is it with the Americans and British politicians?

Last year, Ed Miliband was accused of being a Mafia hitman out to get Clinton, and now Clegg?

 r_squared wrote:


That formula is nothing new, and doesn't just apply to Scotland, but all opposition parties, except Labour, who appear to have lost the playbook down the back of the sofa.

However, the difference between the SNP and other opposition parties is that they actually are running something at the moment, their devolved parliament. So they do have provable experience of governance, subject to the tools allowed to them. It's not their fault that Westminster is reluctant to allow them further autonomy to rise or fall on their own.

And the Lib Dems run many councils,regularly sit on many select committees, and have a lot of seats in the House of Lords. It still didn't mean that they were much good in Parliament/power. Different skill sets and levels of accountability.

The formula is new to a degree, because the SNP's variant relies heavily on nationalism, independence being the end goal. That in and of itself usually involves stoking up a lot more in the way of social divisiveness and persecution complexes. We haven't usually seen that outside of Ireland, where they had serious grievances with the British state.

I repeat, I am not saying she would be bad at ruling a country. I am just saying that she is an unknown, and attempts to paint her as some sort of extremely savvy political operator are highly premature given she's literally occupying the 'Free Easy Ride' seats in Parliament.

So, you're saying that Holyrood is just a wee pretendy parliament?

 Graphite wrote:
So, you're saying that Holyrood is just a wee pretendy parliament?

Tbh when the Scottish parliament votes down a proposal to congratulate all the Olympic medalists for their success and replaces it with a proposal to congratulate only the Scottish medalists it does kind of ruin its credibility as a mature organisation.

Cheers

Andrew

 Graphite wrote:
So, you're saying that Holyrood is just a wee pretendy parliament?

Are you saying that Holyrood has the full executive powers and responsibilities of a governing majority in Westminster? Or even close enough an approximation that the experience is directly transferable?

Because if so, there's clearly no need for further devolution.

 Ketara wrote:

Are you saying that Holyrood has the full executive powers and responsibilities of a governing majority in Westminster?

Not yet

However it is certainly a parliament, the clue is in the name.

tneva82 wrote:
May is pushing Scotland toward independence with her interfering with Scotland's referendum's.

More fuel to Scotland to leave the sinking ship that's the UK.

If the UK is a sinking ship, I think the EU must be a capsizing ship. :p

 AndrewC wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
So, you're saying that Holyrood is just a wee pretendy parliament?

Tbh when the Scottish parliament votes down a proposal to congratulate all the Olympic medalists for their success and replaces it with a proposal to congratulate only the Scottish medalists it does kind of ruin its credibility as a mature organisation.

Cheers

Andrew

Really?!!

Petty ers.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Are you saying that Holyrood has the full executive powers and responsibilities of a governing majority in Westminster?

Not yet

However it is certainly a parliament, the clue is in the name.

So is a large group of owls. The status of either really has very little to do with the point though; namely that we have no idea of Sturgeon would actually be any good as a PM, or even a regular Joe Minister in running an entire country. She hasn't made any feth ups so far, but she hasn't really had much to feth up. That's the joy of stepping into the Lib Dems recently vacated cooling office block/seating at Westminster.

A lot of people (myself included) rag on May, Cameron, Brown, Blair, and everyone else in government, to the extent that the jobs themselves are exceedingly difficult to do 'right'. Being an opposition these days largely consists of spending your time polishing insults to throw across the floor, it's a damn sight easier than actually running a Ministry (let alone a country). Whatever you do, a third of the country thinks you're an idiot, another third thinks you're an evil bastard, and the final third doesn't care. If you give with one hand, you take with the other, and you're constantly trying to balance the needs of the country long term against its short term needs and the needs of your own political party. You sleep four hours a night, get people drawing horrible cartoons of you all the time, and get precious little thanks.

To put up with all that and still somehow manage to have done more good than bad for your country by the time you step down is a task that most politicians, heck, most people, simply aren't up to. The timing also matters. Often the kind of person who would thrive in one scenario are ill suited to another (think Churchill in wartime vs peacetime).

Sturgeon is simply far too fresh faced and inexperienced to gauge one way or the other. When you say the phrase 'canny political operator', I think of Disraeli, Metternich, or Bismarck. Even just the more deceptive teflon variety encompasses people like Blair or Putin (love or hate 'em, they really know how to work other politicians, the press, and people). Sturgeon? Nah. Not right now. She's yet to prove she's capable of doing anything but following the well-tested formula Salmond wrote out a decade ago. Which isn't to say she won't. Just that she hasn't yet.

You say names like Churchill, and others but they wathered scandal, had dark times, times of defeat and victory.

They did not give up.
There steel was hardened. She ain't in that class. Not yet.

SNP has not faced many scandals, faced many tough times compared to some in Westminster. They now have a lovely easy majority, no real opposition bar there own in Scotland.

I just think they have yet to experience the full challenges of politics.

 Ketara wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
There are options. Shelters, housing available etc.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. The truth is that in some places there are options. In Kingston-upon-Thames, there's a single shelter which has capacity for a bare fraction of the number of people who need it, and which has draconian rules (you have to be in by about 5pm and not leave the building to get a place). The local church also lets homeless people snooze there during the coldest winter months.

That's it. And I doubt that Kingston is some amazing anomaly, when you consider how rich that area and their local council are.

Saying 'there are options' does not make them appear. Some places have them, sure. In others? They're non-existent or have nowhere near the capacity required.

Often, homeless people develop drug problems whilst out on the street as a way of escaping the rotten hell their life has become. But all the drugs and mental problems mean diddly squat with regards to access if the options to access housing and wash facilities simply aren't there.Local authority provisions for homelessness have been cut by 45% since 2009.

There are thousands of good people sleeping on the streets. And we do nothing about it.

To be fair, not all of us vote Tory.

 Ketara wrote:
Being an opposition these days largely consists of spending your time polishing insults to throw across the floor, it's a damn sight easier than actually running a Ministry (let alone a country). Whatever you do, a third of the country thinks you're an idiot, another third thinks you're an evil bastard, and the final third doesn't care. If you give with one hand, you take with the other, and you're constantly trying to balance the needs of the country long term against its short term needs and the needs of your own political party. You sleep four hours a night, get people drawing horrible cartoons of you all the time, and get precious little thanks.

That's the thing though, she does run a country. As of yet it doesn't have the full mechanisms that a sovereign country has but that doesn't mean that it is inconsequential. It has an elected parliament, opposition parties, many of the usual organs of government and it even has First Minsters Questions.

The SNP's undoubted popularity and political power in Scotland didn't get wished into being and as for experience she has been a MSP for 17 years.


In other news Enda Kenny has made an open Irish border a red line issue.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-17/irish-will-block-brexit-deal-that-involves-hard-border-pm-says

The UK has had a soft border with Ireland since 1922. There's no reason it has to change now, and after the independence of Scotland, the English/Scottish border can equally well be soft.

That's the thing though, she does run a country. As of yet it doesn't have the full mechanisms that a sovereign country has but that doesn't mean that it is inconsequential. It has an elected parliament, opposition parties, many of the usual organs of government and it even has First Minsters Questions.

The SNP's undoubted popularity and political power in Scotland didn't get wished into being and as for experience she has been a MSP for 17 years.

My friend, if you want to believe Sturgeon is a particularly slick and savvy political operator, that's entirely your right, I won't gainsay you. I think you have a much lower bar for such declarations of praise than I do though. Regardless, I think I've stated my point about seven times now, so I'll agree to disagree and leave that one there.

In the Scottish Elections the SNP gained about 43% of the vote with a turn out of 52% of the population.

When you compare that with people who bitch about the Tories running the country with only 37% of the vote, it doesn't make the SNP seem all that popular.

It isn't so much as undoubted popularity rather than a core group of voters who skew the results due to FPTP, which is a pretty awful system.

 obsidianaura wrote:
What are peoples thoughts about TM and denying the 2nd Scottish referendum.

I feel that it is the right thing to do to wait till after Brexit.

Scotland is leaving the EU in any result regardless and also, would it be a fair campaign if one side is busy with EU negotiations?

It seems best to wait and do it after the the dust has settled right?

Why? Scottish independence would likely invalidate a lot of the agreements, since England won't be able to offer any Scottish resources in the deal. She'd be best to call a referendum asap and negotiate both at the same time.

 welshhoppo wrote:
In the Scottish Elections the SNP gained about 43% of the vote with a turn out of 52% of the population.

45.5% constituency and 41.7% regional with a turn out of 55.6%.

50% with a turn out of 71.1% in the 2015 GE.

No other political party in the UK (Westminster or the other devolved parliaments) can get even close to the SNP's vote share.

 jhe90 wrote:

SNP has not faced many scandals, faced many tough times compared to some in Westminster. They now have a lovely easy majority, no real opposition bar there own in Scotland.

They haven't faced many scandals, and certainly no big ones, in recent memory but its wrong to claim that they have faced no "tough times". They have a longer history than the Lib Dems and they spent over 20 years in the political wilderness after the 'Tartan Tories' were instrumental in passing the no confidence vote in he Labour government that eventually brought Thatcher into power in 79. Their fortunes only really began to change with the Formation of the Scottish Parliament which saw steadily increasing SNP power.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK has had a soft border with Ireland since 1922. There's no reason it has to change now, and after the independence of Scotland, the English/Scottish border can equally well be soft.

Aye.. Tax could get odd given you have people who work over the border etc but we could just agree you pay taxes to your country, and simplify that headache. Earn in one, pay at home. Both sides. No special status or gimmicky complexity.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
In the Scottish Elections the SNP gained about 43% of the vote with a turn out of 52% of the population.

45.5% constituency and 41.7% regional with a turn out of 55.6%.

50% with a turn out of 71.1% in the 2015 GE.

No other political party in the UK (Westminster or the other devolved parliaments) can get even close to the SNP's vote share.

So...what you're saying is that the SNP got about just over a third of Scotland to vote for them? Whelp, they're as democratically legit as Brexit then.

 Ketara wrote:
Whelp, they're as democratically legit as Brexit then.

Just like Indryref2 is as democratically legit as Brexit

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Whelp, they're as democratically legit as Brexit then.

Just like Indryref2 is as democratically legit as Brexit

Sure. I have no issue with Scotland holding another referendum after Brexit (given all the reasoning for doing it during negotiations is naff as hell). I think it's a bit soon, but democracy, yadda yadda.

It just amuses me that the sorts of people (not necessarily you) who would likely scream about the democratic deficit of Brexit will happily nod and point to the 'overwhelming democratic mandate' that the SNP possesses, given that the figures are about the same (about two thirds turnout, just over 50% in one direction).

Herzlos wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
What are peoples thoughts about TM and denying the 2nd Scottish referendum.

I feel that it is the right thing to do to wait till after Brexit.

Scotland is leaving the EU in any result regardless and also, would it be a fair campaign if one side is busy with EU negotiations?

It seems best to wait and do it after the the dust has settled right?

Why? Scottish independence would likely invalidate a lot of the agreements, since England won't be able to offer any Scottish resources in the deal. She'd be best to call a referendum asap and negotiate both at the same time.

Sounds fair. It would be better to start the negotiations about Brexit and the Scots' non-Brexit at the same time.

 Ketara wrote:

It just amuses me that the sorts of people (not necessarily you) who would likely scream about the democratic deficit of Brexit will happily nod and point to the 'overwhelming democratic mandate' that the SNP possesses, given that the figures are about the same (about two thirds turnout, just over 50% in one direction).

They aren't really that comparable though, as Brexit was a binary choice but votes in elections are split between several candidates. The Brexit vote was democratic, although it highlighted some of the flaws of democracy, but I have severe doubts about the eventual Brexit settlement being democratic.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
What are peoples thoughts about TM and denying the 2nd Scottish referendum.

I feel that it is the right thing to do to wait till after Brexit.

Scotland is leaving the EU in any result regardless and also, would it be a fair campaign if one side is busy with EU negotiations?

It seems best to wait and do it after the the dust has settled right?

Why? Scottish independence would likely invalidate a lot of the agreements, since England won't be able to offer any Scottish resources in the deal. She'd be best to call a referendum asap and negotiate both at the same time.

Sounds fair. It would be better to start the negotiations about Brexit and the Scots' non-Brexit at the same time.

the issue is that Scotland won't know what basis to stake their claims on. For all we know, they could vote to leave on the premise of free trade with the EU (for example) proceed to win, and then the UK might also win free trade with the EU. So they ended up leaving for no reason at all.

Seeing as May is resolved to ditch the Single Market, the UK isn't going to have free trade with the EU. Not in a million years (or y'know, 20, when we end up rejoining the EU having shafted our economy at the behest of a handful of sociopathic racists)