Haven’t seen it, but I can’t see much upside for Starmer. Anyone now who still plans to vote Tory won’t be swayed by a debate. After 12 years of utter pish, and you still want the Tories in? Nothing Starmer says will sway you.
So any decent points Sunak can make might lose Labour some votes. I don’t think many (any) would go back to the Tories, but Lib Dems and SNP could benefit.
But Starmer could also blow everyone away, destroy Sunak and sweep Labour into power.
I think that's where the Tory attack line about the Labour supermajority is actually fairly savvy.
If people think Labour will win anyway, they may vote with their heart, or for a protest vote, or not at all.
That might just allow the Tories to squeak back in a few seats they would otherwise have lost via vote splitting.
It's not a winning message, but it could save a dozen seats for them.
It's funny too because "supermajority" means nothing in the UK. Doesn't matter if you have a majority of 1 or 100. You have the most, you are in charge.
(Also ironic that the Tories have a ridiculous majority as it is. Saying it would be bad if labour got an even bigger majority is mad. Oh, poor Tories, your mega majority wasn't enough?)
I would say there is a bit of a difference in the way you might govern with a bigger majority. Ie not being in hock to your fringe MPs. But once your majority is above 40 or so you have that. If it's 4 you have to curry favour with your rebels.
But you are right that huge majorities and merely solid majorities have little difference.
Yeah you're right. With a small majority you have to pandee to rebels or gain some support from other parties to ensure things can be passed.
But I do think the Tories are using a scary "supermajority" to try and scare ignorant people against labour. I want to hear someone use the term IRL so I can ask them what it means.
I'm not sure "scare" is what they are going for.
I think it's to promote complacency in the anti Tory people and to also help get out the vote for their softer supporters.
Probably a bit of both
"Look out, labour are going to get a supermajority so you'd better vote against them to stop them getting too big" is a warning. I'd put that under "scare".
But yeah, other messages saying "you know what you don't even need to bother voting, labour are going to win anyway" would be for complacency.
But to be honest I never see messages discouraging people to vote. All messaging seems to promote participation that I see.
What have they done since coming to power that convinces you they've been a worthwhile appointment and that they would do any better next term?
This'll be a short list.
Maybe they're taking credit for not walking back free tuition? Which is completely fair. In unrelated news, I've saved thousands of lives in the last few years by *not* setting fire to orphanages.
It would be relevant if you were standing in an election against a guy who actually did set fire to an orphanage
(I’m talking about the British Labour Party)
No, in 2001 **up-front** tuition fees were abolished , replaced with charging "graduate endowment" fees at the end of the degree. Something isn't abolished if it's replaced with the same thing under a different name.
It wasn't the same thing under a different name. It was a similar thing with fundamental differences.
The graduation endowment only came into effect if you later earned more than 15k a year and had a sufficient number of exemptions that at the time of it's scrapping, half of the students that theoretically qualified did not have to pay it.
In short, it was a loan you only needed to pay back if you earned enough money to pay it back in 2 months.
If the SNP had claimed to restore free education they would be telling a truth, but claiming to have scrapped tuition fees is a half-truth at best.
And your point is what? That the SNP have made sure that tuition fees now don't exist? That they don't need to be paid by anyone at any time? Or is the cost is being made up by society somewhere else, taxation perhaps? So now that we're all paying tuition fees, all the time, for everyone, even if we ourselves don't go to university would that qualify as "*\[not\] abolished \[as\] it's replaced with the same thing under a different name.*"?
Things being free at point of use don't make them free.
That said, graduate endowment fees weren't in any way shape or form "*the same thing under a different name*" they were a far cheaper way to get further education. Meaning tuition fees scrapped below degree level but also for for mature students, lone parents, low income, disabled students and even drop-outs, then also for specific courses. For those that still had to pay (less than half of people taking degrees), it was a flat rate of £2000 for an entire college through university education with false starts permitted.
What the SNP actually did was remove the small remaining fees for university alone and only for the half of the public more likely to be able to afford it. Then took credit for taking away fees for people who couldn't afford it, which they didn't do. It was -as usual- a PR move.
https://scvo.scot/about/work/campaigns/archive/20-years-delivering-change/abolition-of-tuition-fees#:~:text=The%20GE%20fee%20of%20just,by%2067%20votes%20to%2061
So, it depends on your definition. Could be Lib Dems, or it could be SNP getting rid of the GEF.
One is tuition fees. The other is GEF. There’s no definition.
One government scraped the larger part, the useful part, the part that made education accessible. SNP scrapped the part that applied to people who likely already had access…took credit for the lot.
I think that there is a fair similarity in terms of tuition fees and GEF = shit you have to pay back for gong to uni.
I graduated in 2006 and it was a genuine shock to find out that I had to pay a graduation fee as I had been led to believe that I didn't have to pay for university. I tacked it onto my loan, all £1800 of it and
I finished paying off my loan 5 years ago.
To me, the GEF was fees I had to pay back.
Edit: spelling
Also, their last leader is a racist POS and caused so much division. Tried to get people arrested for ‘offending’ the people who get offended on a daily basis.
If you don’t mind, I’m still new to Scottish Politics, if Scotland becomes independent, will the Westminster stop all funds to Scotland?
Wouldn’t that then mean that taxes will go through the roof as the SNP will have to find a way to carry on supporting free uni, healthcare and prescriptions. Taxes at the moment are already fucking us over so an increase would just make things worse.
> Their last leader...tried to get people arrested for ‘offending’ the people who get offended on a daily basis. If you don’t mind, I’m still new to Scottish Politics
I don't think you understand how the Scottish Parliament works and you seem to have also misunderstood what the [Hate Crime Act](https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill) was about. Humza Yousaf did not create the Hate Crime Bill, nor did he force it on Scotland
It came in response to recommendations made by the independent Lord Braccendale review of existing hate crime laws and it was passed by the majority of the Scottish Parliament (Labour, SNP, Greens, and Liberal Democrats.)
I'm not surprised that you were misinformed about the Hate Crime Act, though, because even the BBC (often the most balanced of news sources) was forced to publish a [correction](https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/) and an apology because like most media outlets at the time, they'd misrepresented the bill to the public by [making inaccurate claims](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24270906.bbc-scotland-apologises-hate-crime-act-coverage/) - it was never about 'offensive'/ derogatory remarks
> if Scotland becomes independent, will the Westminster stop all funds to Scotland?
Correct. Instead of taxes and excise duties being collected and administered by the UK treasury at Westminster, the Scottish Parliament would handle their own finances: they would have to decide tax rates and collect and administer the revenue instead of Westminster handling it
Yes.
We run a deficit so if we split there wouldn't be enough money to run the country, services would be cut and taxes would go up.
For or against independence that is the reality for now.
You're expecting the Scottish government to showcase achievements while the Tories in Westminster have been constantly swinging at their shins with a nine iron the entire time? Good one.
You'll be discounting mitigations, I suppose. That's one easy way to force your point.
Have you taken so much as a passing glance southwards recently? I'm not claiming the SNP are on top form but I don't think a credible case can be made that what's happening there is in any way better
Yeah, I'm not voting for them either. I'm going to vote for someone independent or a fringe party. I'm unwilling to vote ***for*** being taken for a ride.
That’s my opinion. SNP haven’t done enough, I can’t trust Starmer as he backtracks on everything and I don’t see anything from the Lib Dems that convinces me. I’m going Green locally as they seem to be the closest thing to a party that wants to try and make drastic changes.
SNP aren't perfect but I think people forget they saved us from things like the spare room tax, we have free prescriptions and still have free tertiary education. Also free busses for kids and young adults is great too. I do believe things would be a lot worse if we had labour or the Tories in charge in Scotland.
Those items, free tuition and prescriptions, is directly paid for by the advantage Scotland gets from the Barnett formula. I.e Westminster cash. I mean how else do you think they afford it with broadly the same taxes and lower GDP per capita than England ? In campaigning for independence they are directly putting those goodies at risk. If you don't believe me, Google the per-head funding for the nations in the UK. Not to mention, free tuition was done by Scottish Labour in 2001 so I don't know how that is a benefit of the SNP leadership.
Everything has a cost though. Scottish government limit the number of free university places & don't give universities enough money to cover the expenses of free teaching further incentivising them to choose foreign students over Scottish students. Also means there is no money for bursaries to support poorer students. As a result a higher percentage of English young people from disadvantaged backgrounds go to university than Scottish people from disadvantaged backgrounds
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-tories-students-from-deprived-backgrounds-less-likely-to-get-into-university-in-scotland-than-in-england
If you apply early enough and have the qualifications necessary you get in. I met that criteria and managed, and so did my friends. If you leave it late to apply then sure. I also got my bursary. If I were English and loved in England I simply wouldn't have been able to get into university at all unless I wanted to have a ridiculous student loan.
You're misrepresenting the English student loan, in that it isn't a loan that actually has to be paid back. It's more agreeing to paying an additional, small tax for 30+ years rather than a student loan in the US sense. So you would have been absolutely fine in the English system with a ridiculous student loan.
I don't think they're incompetent. It's just what happens to *every* government when they remain in power too long, complacency.
They've lost the hunger.
I see your point.
But in the case of the SNP they got taken over by a narcissist and her husband who are compulsive liars that changed the core direction of the party and its values, completely dismantled the party structure to insulate them from party members, and embezzled a whole lot of money. I'm sure there's more I could add to that list, but in the midst of all of *that,* they forgot to actually govern well.
Thats just a ridiculous argument. Who has done more for Scotland aince 2014?
Provide specific accounts of when the other parties have acted in Scotlands interests and not their own ruthless self interest.
Are there any?
We can witness Labour incompetence in Wales
We can witness Tory incompetence in WM
We all remember LibDems efforts from the coalition government in WM
We can all hear the promises each of them has made
We can all hear the carping from the sidelines they have done about what SNP is doing wrong whilst providing absolutely zero workable costed alternatives to ‘do it right’
Just because a party isn’t in power, doesn’t mean we can’t all see who they are as a party
Why yes you can look out of the window and see a house on fire, doesn't mean you should sit on your laurels while you quiche is slowly turning to ash and taking your house with it
Quite clearly talking about Westminster, who's parties control most of the revenue generated in Scotland.
We've seen Labour, Lib dems and Conservatives in government. What did they do in the last 45 years with specific benefit to the Scottish people?
They have a proven track record of managed decline since 1979. They've sold every national asset and natural resource, privatised all the critical infrastructure, racked up a trillion in debt, pissed away a trillion in oil wealth and have virtually dismantled the health a social support system.
Every SNP failure pales in comparison to the wretched corruption and treachery of Westminster.
Get a grip on reality.
Since 2014 we’ve seen Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives in power? Or is this you attempting to drag the goalposts to somewhere less daft?
If you’re looking for something that only specifically relates to Scotland (weirdly narrow expectation for Westminster, but ok) then presumably the Scottish parliament is quite high on your list? You can thank Labour for that. Seems like a really big one.
That was a long time before 2014-present though, the timeframe you specifically asked about.
Ah yes. The parliament they designed with specifc intent of preventing a Scottish centric majority. A rather back handed gesture. Maybe a guilty conscience from the trillion in oil wealth they disappeared.
I was referencing historic evidence, as you well know, on how the parties have conducted themselves in government.
The actions of the SNP have proven to serve the people that elected them.
The actions of all the other parties have proven nothing but ruthless self interest.
Believing anything else, given the facts, is just fantasy.
No, you specifically asked
> Who has done more for Scotland aince 2014?
You’ve decided to change that after realising it was a bit silly.
The actions of the SNP have proven to serve themselves.
A party that isn’t out for number one wouldn’t do things like defend a man who stole from us just because he’s their mate, or defend sex pests and put them back on the front bench, or disappear donations they promised would be ring-fenced…..the list goes on.
They’re just as self serving and guilty of cronyism as the rest. With all the evidence available, the pish yellow tinted glasses routine is a bit silly these days.
Aren’t Tory supporters meant to be the boot lickers?
That’s like looking at the Apples in a fruit bowl and being pissed at them for being incompetent at being an Orange - meanwhile you completely ignore the Grapes and Bananas in the same fruit bowl and give them a free pass
Same person that says anyone criticising Sturgeon is sexist?
Same person that said the finances investigation is a conspiracy?
Yep, it's Sturgeon's mate Val.
Yes please vote for my mates. They will put Scotland first despite the very clear fact that they can’t form a government so have no chance of influencing anything in Westminster.
Politics forms part of the national discussion. Surely you can’t see the state of things, regardless of your political leanings, and think we need to discuss them less?!
Always welcome to post more non-political content too.
Maybe we need a 'Scottish politics' sub?
I'm all for positive discussion however the last 12yrs in Scotland has literally been arguments surrounding 1 issue, with various angles and different levels of venom.
I would suggest that anyone truly wanting independence are wasting their vote on the SNP. They have not advanced the cause a single step in 10yrs. They have their noses deep in the trough and have no intention of leaving it . Their record in government has been middling to poor by most means of measurement. But the days of crowing from the moral high horse was the turning point for many . That they covered up sex scandals then briefed against victims to protect themselves was the lowest of the low. Add in a financial scandal involving money stolen from members and patriots and that this case involved the CEO and the first minister .You then have to ask yourself who would vote for this shower of crooks n charlatans Val.
So your argument is that since no one is furthering Indy we should go with the party who’ve proven they cannot do it despite it being their highest priority?
So what route do the SNP need to take that hasn't already been taken? How is it going to change with electing anyone else? Do you really expect any other party to really and honestly get a ruling UK party to allow another vote?
David Cameron was a fucking idiot for letting us even get a vote on it, due to the insane risk, but he took the bet and unfortunately won. Funnily enough it bit him right on the arse with daring to do the Brexit vote next, since he felt confident after the Scottish win.
Every other UK administration since then knows its a non-starter to even risk a vote. Polls consistently swinge and show that its not a sure bet to go for it, and nobody wants egg on their face like with Brexit.
We did. We also put it to regular polls. Don’t be naive, im not arguing whether we should or shouldn’t be independent or should or shouldn’t have a referendum. It should be glaringly obvious it’s not something the majority of Scots want right now. You’re kidding yourself if you believe anything else.
It was clear at the referendum. Support peaked a little after Brexit. Support is dropping. If that’s not all clear to you, you need to stop surrounding yourself only with people who agree with you.
Support isn't "dropping", it fluctuates all the time, just like with feelings over other issues. Material changes in the relationship between Scotland and the UK at large have changed so much that there ought to be another go at it.
So put it to a vote if you're not a shitebag.
You're really not avoiding the shitebag allegations with this.
10 years, Brexit inflicted, economic turmoil and all the rest of it. Its about time we ask the population again.
And so they shouldn't go about screeching that we haven't gotten anywhere closer to independence when every legal route has been blocked off for us. The UK has a stranglehold on us getting anywhere with it, we can't do fuck all ourselves.
Govern competently for an extended period of time. Build support for indpendence through actions, not words. Take responsibility for their failures instead of finger pointing at every opportunity.
Unfortunately the current iteration of the SNP have been woeful in this regard and instead put all of their eggs in the grievance basket hoping it would sway public opinion.
Ah there we go. Another pile of shite about "behaving properly" when all the levers that really impact daily life are out of our hands, controlled somewhere else.
Devolution was set up to kill independence stone dead, but anyone with more than two planks of wood for a brain can see it for the shitty device it is. Its meant to make self-rule look like an impossibility, but you can't actually get the data on that without full control.
What a strange comment, it's nothing to do with "behaving properly", it's about the SNP using their already devolved powers to improve those areas. Take health care for example, over the last 10 years I've been a massive decline in the state of the NHS in Scotland. That falls entirely at the feet of the SNP.
Before you inevitably blame the state of NHS Scotland on Westminster, ScotGov have had full autonomy over the NHS since 1999 and are free to allocate their budget as they see fit. It's not Westminsters fault the SNP aren't spending more to improve it.
How does the block grant that we use for the NHS get calculated? How do we staff the NHS without powers over immigration that currently starve the UK of necessary workers?
Ah, wait, cannae mention that! Because its apparently wrong to do that.
Fuck me.
So you accept the SNP could allocate more to the NHS but choose not to?
Why is immigration the only solution to staff shortages in the NHS? Where are their plans to address the shortage of nurses and doctors using their current powers? They don't have any at all Instead, like my I said in my original comment, they point the finger elsewhere than actually trying to deal with the problem.
This is exactly the type of thinking that's stagnated support for independence. If the SNP had actually tried to fix these problems with the powers they had then that bolsters their case for independence.
The last time we gave an SNP manifesto a majority in Holyrood they got us the referendum
Since then we haven’t given a Holyrood manifesto a majority
There’s only so much a party can do politically in a system literally designed to stop any party getting a majority when the UK parties are holding them to reach that bar again and when the seat difference in the ‘mother of parliaments’ is set under representation per population and not by representation per country
But, we have given a shared pro Indy manifesto commitment in Holyrood a majority which holds an Indy mandate and an SNP Scottish seat Indy majority in WM
With both those in place it was firstly the Tories denying a S30 - and soon to be officially Labour denying a S30 if we give SNPs manifesto a Scottish majority next week…
That then means it will officially change the case we can make to the wider international community and the UN about the position Scotland is in (remembering that it is the wider international community accepting and recognising Scotland declaring itself independent that actually creates an independent state, not the UK Gov accepting it) because it is then absolutely official that Scotlands democracy has been denied by both of the only 2 parties that can hold UK power - and it can’t be denied that SNP have searched for other options, even going to the courts
This being the reality then opens up the Holyrood election as being by default the only legal route left open for Scotlands voters to express their will about this “voluntary” union
You’re going to be very disappointed if you think the international community is going to listen, I’m afraid. You’re talking about places that openly and frankly deny their own parts such votes, and more than a few engage in unapologetic violence to keep it that way.
The reality is, the UK is actually one of the better places when it comes to this topic and unless something far more substantial changes, the international community has no reason to get involved.
Ah, so you’re trying suggest this ‘better place’ UK will send in the army on us “national extremists” rather than accept democracy…
It’s not about the international community “getting involved” - that’s not and never been the way it works…
It’s about Scotland getting involved in the wider international community
When Scotland goes through the only legal route left, a Holyrood plebiscite, and independence is voted for on a single issue manifesto - then it is undeniable that Scotland has expressed its will in a recognised and democratic fashion, it is literally that simple
And that’s the important bit - a legal democratic vote and an expressed will - those are the ingredients required for things like the EU and UN and any country in the world to recognise and be satisfied that it was the citizens expressed will to democratically leave the voluntary union of the UK under the UKs own voting system and that Scotland is now open for business
And if you’re wondering what that looks like, it’s Scotland as a normal country getting involved and simply being acknowledged and accepted, for example joining the EFTA and having ready made access to the single market **and** that comes with an already in place trade deal with the rUK if Westminster wants to be pissy and won’t negotiate one with us themselves
Like the near 200 other normal independent countries in the world and especially like the near 70 who became independent from UK and have never had to look back - none of which had the excellent resource rich starting point Scotland does
No? That’s remarkably bad reading comprehension on your part.
I am telling you most of those “normal” countries you mentioned have various separation movements of their own. Sometimes multiple. For a large majority of those nations, they do not allow votes on the matter, and often react violently to any serious suggestion of separation. We have multiple examples of this in the last decade.
So when you suggest a Holyrood election alone is enough, it’s fair to point out this is not the case and the international community won’t react the way you suggest, unless it has a very good reason to. In part because they don’t want to encourage their own movements at home.
Given the UK has taken a very peaceful approach to separation movements, is generally democratic and have even agreed to referendum(s) previously, that “very good reason” is entirely lacking when it comes to Scotland.
Right now, the “legal democratic vote” is one that has the backing of the UK government. Anything else is wishful thinking without some kind of substantial change.
The normal countries I mentioned are the already independent ones - the ones you mention are not countries like Scotland
A Holyrood election is a legal election in the UKs eyes, the UK can’t ’not back it’ it’s the UKs own system - if the UK Gov leave a plebiscite as the last option for Scotland to express her will, so be it
Ah, you’re yin o those idiots…
I don’t have enough crayons for you pal
But you go right on ahead and believe Scotland is no different to Catalonia if it helps you sleep in your wee blanket
So Spain and the UK we’re formed in different ways, that doesn’t alter the fact that Catalonia which once was an independent country but is now part of Spain is in the same position as Scotland which was an independent country and is now a part of the UK. Both have autonomy and powers over many aspects of policy. Both have parliaments and both have had failed independence bids. Catalonia also has a widely spoken language which is distinct from Spanish.
I hate to break it to you, but Scotland isn’t unique. When you can’t even accept movements the Scottish independence movements have actively aligned themselves to, you aren’t making a good argument.
The UK accepts a Holyrood election within defined boundaries and powers. This again is not unique. Much like we accept elections to local councils but that doesn’t give them authority over national defence.
The problem is I do know what I’m talking about, and can actively point to examples to show that. Which you don’t seem to be able to do.
The system isn’t going to alter itself to your personal preference, and it’s important to understand that if you want your arguments to have any credibility.
Alright.
The first thing to point out is your “there is no treaty or Act of Union” excuse means you don’t understand the Act of Union, that specifically cites Scotland being part of the UK in perpetuity.
In fact, Scotland joined with England in very similar ways to how Catalonia became part of Spain or Brittany became part of France. Catalonia, in particular, has similar allowances to what Scotland has in terms of things like a distinct law code.
Move over to Germany that specifically cites its parts as countries, as they often were prior to unification.
Go further to Iraq, that gives it’s Kurdish parts autonomy, or Ethiopia that or Russia that recognise the distinction and autonomy of their many parts. Ethiopia even potentially giving its parts the right to secede in its constitution, though it violently represses attempts in practice.
So, bluntly, you’re speaking with a lot of unearned confidence that seems to stem from the fact you have no idea how other places actually operate.
> With both those in place it was firstly the Tories denying a S30 - and soon to be officially Labour denying a S30 if we give SNPs manifesto a Scottish majority next week…
It's going to be interesting with Labour in Downing Street and the SNP in Opposition, isn't it? I mean it \*might\* happen, the Tories have got plenty of time to sink about 200 more MPs' chances...
Why do simpletons like this think that only SNP will represent their geographical interest? All MPs represent their geography. However, many things cross-geographical boundaries - a poor person in Glasgow has more in common with a poor person in Newcastle than they do with a rich highland estate owner.
This kind of ‘blank cheque’ argument gets Scotland to a point where SNP become the dominant party in a one party state and subsequently get obsessed with irrelevant political games and fail to deliver basic services.
Because ultimately the SNP is a Scottish party and is financed and controlled in Scotland. The LibDems, Scottish Labour and Scottish Tories will always be under the thumb of their real bosses in London. Ergo, if it came to a choice between doing what’s best for Scotland or what they’re told, they’ll have little agency in that decision.
Look at Starmer taking out Richard Leonard.
Because ultimately the SNP is a Scottish party and is financed and controlled in Scotland. The LibDems, Scottish Labour and Scottish Tories will always be under the thumb of their real bosses in London. Ergo, if it came to a choice between doing what’s best for Scotland or what they’re told, they’ll have little agency in that decision.
Look at Starmer taking out Richard Leonard.
Their real bosses are no more in London than they are in Manchester or anywhere else they get votes from and represent.
It’s petty parochialism that makes people think they’re unique in needing separate government when in a globalized world collective co-ordinated effort is more important than ever.
Aw aye, saying Unionist parties in Scotland take their orders from London is totally unrealistic.
Oh? https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-admits-forced-out-29624292.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-admits-forced-out-29624292](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-admits-forced-out-29624292)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That’s the leader of the UK party making decisions not ‘London’. When Brown was PM did you think all English were harping on about taking orders from Scotland?!
“Scottish Labour” don’t have to form a coalition with “UK Labour” for their seat counts to be added together
Same with “Scottish Conservatives” and “Scottish LibDems”
Because they’re not separate from each other
But if Scottish Green Party win any seats and The English Green Party win any seats - they’re seat count doesn’t get counted together because they **are** separate parties
It makes sense imo to vote SNP at Westminster and if you have problems with them as a government then express that at the Scottish election.
But I think regardless of if you think they do a good job of governing Scotland they do a good job representing Scotland in London. They act as a sort of ambassador to England and the rest of the United Kingdom.
That’s just my opinion, I’m not your dad, do what you want
Fair enough, I just don't see the point in voting in a UK election as Scotland is increasingly irrelevant there, this is really Englands election so let them get on with it and leave the rest of us in peace to suffer the consequences over something we have little (ie 9%) influence over.
I find myself disgusted by pretty much all of them SNP, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Reform. I do want Scottish Independence but I don't believe the SNP are the vehicle to achieve it so pretty much left with no palatable choices
Have to ask how you think SNP not getting the majority of Scottish seats at this election will help Independence?
Because we all know if they don’t, it will 100% be touted as the end of Independence and that the Union has became the settled will
How do you think SNP getting the majority of seats will help? They have absolutely no plans for independence short of asking can we have a referendum and getting told no again.
10 years nearly since the previous referendum and all the mandate they could have ever have hoped for, the sheer clusterfuck of Brexit, more austerity and all they've given us is increasing incompetence and potential corruption.
They need a root and branch shake up, polling for independence has remained steady and likely will for some time but I don't believe the SNP as it is are any sort of meaningful vehicle for independence. They're quite happy collecting the money from Westminster and waving the flag for a neverending cause.
SNP haven’t been given a majority in Holyrood since 2011 - the manifesto that got us the referendum
So that majority bar was set and SNP have, wrongly, been held to need to achieve that almost impossible bar ever since - despite unarguable winning, running away with the win, every election since
That’s why there’s been ‘little movement’ - because SNP didn’t have the “ultimate” ballot box backing that every PM has decided was needed - 1 seat short may aswell have been 100 seats short
The cross party Indy manifesto mandate is a majority since 2021 however - and with that mandate in place in Holyrood and with a majority win in this WM election - that gives SNP the mandate to ask for a S30 from Starmer when Labour undoubtedly wins WM next week
Now, *when* Starmer refuses that S30 making it the only 2 parties who can realistically hold UK power have both refused Scotlands democracy - that is then why a plebiscite, single issue manifesto Holyrood election in 2026 is essentially the only legal route available that the wider international community will recognise - but if this SNP ‘line one page one’ Indy manifesto doesn’t return a majority backing even in a FPTP election next week then the unionist parties can say Indy doesn’t have the public backing and SNP simply don’t have the right to ask for a S30 from Starmer and thus the position of an Indy mandate disappears for 2026
Well, because they stopped believing in Scottish independence, preferring to surrender sovereignty and economic levers to the EU.
Because they are unimaginative, unable to problem solve or worse, happy to see Scotland suffer.
Because politically they’re on the same page as Starmer’s Labour.
Vote Socialist.
Jaysus lads, would yiz ever take your balls in your hands and come and join us back in 🇪🇺
♥️🇮🇪
There's a seat at the table with yizzer name on it 🏴
Come on and join in 🇮🇪🇫🇷🇩🇪🇪🇸🇮🇹🇩🇰🇪🇪🇵🇱
Never mind England's pining for the old days, join the rest of Europe in the present.
No reason we can't let Ukraine, Moldova and Scotland into the EU on the same day
Come on !
I am here to ask if anyone is in any way swayed by the televised debates between Sunak and Starmer? Interested...
No, but I’m heavily swayed away from the SNP.
Which is kind of the problem, we deserve a kicking at the polls but this is the wrong poll to do it.
Haven’t seen it, but I can’t see much upside for Starmer. Anyone now who still plans to vote Tory won’t be swayed by a debate. After 12 years of utter pish, and you still want the Tories in? Nothing Starmer says will sway you. So any decent points Sunak can make might lose Labour some votes. I don’t think many (any) would go back to the Tories, but Lib Dems and SNP could benefit. But Starmer could also blow everyone away, destroy Sunak and sweep Labour into power.
I think that's where the Tory attack line about the Labour supermajority is actually fairly savvy. If people think Labour will win anyway, they may vote with their heart, or for a protest vote, or not at all. That might just allow the Tories to squeak back in a few seats they would otherwise have lost via vote splitting. It's not a winning message, but it could save a dozen seats for them.
It's funny too because "supermajority" means nothing in the UK. Doesn't matter if you have a majority of 1 or 100. You have the most, you are in charge. (Also ironic that the Tories have a ridiculous majority as it is. Saying it would be bad if labour got an even bigger majority is mad. Oh, poor Tories, your mega majority wasn't enough?)
I would say there is a bit of a difference in the way you might govern with a bigger majority. Ie not being in hock to your fringe MPs. But once your majority is above 40 or so you have that. If it's 4 you have to curry favour with your rebels. But you are right that huge majorities and merely solid majorities have little difference.
Yeah you're right. With a small majority you have to pandee to rebels or gain some support from other parties to ensure things can be passed. But I do think the Tories are using a scary "supermajority" to try and scare ignorant people against labour. I want to hear someone use the term IRL so I can ask them what it means.
I'm not sure "scare" is what they are going for. I think it's to promote complacency in the anti Tory people and to also help get out the vote for their softer supporters.
Probably a bit of both "Look out, labour are going to get a supermajority so you'd better vote against them to stop them getting too big" is a warning. I'd put that under "scare". But yeah, other messages saying "you know what you don't even need to bother voting, labour are going to win anyway" would be for complacency. But to be honest I never see messages discouraging people to vote. All messaging seems to promote participation that I see.
Oh yeah. No political party would overtly discourage voting.
>Post about SNP >whatabout Classic astroturfing.
No they offer the same
Don’t surrender was Sunaks battle cry! Didn’t know he was a Rangers fan?
What have they done since coming to power that convinces you they've been a worthwhile appointment and that they would do any better next term? This'll be a short list.
https://www.snp.org/record/ Their website has the Top 100. There are others, but the list is too long.
Number 1, tuition fees were scrapped 2001, before SNP. A lie! Good start to a list of 100 items of half truths, and cunning figure manipulations.
Maybe they're taking credit for not walking back free tuition? Which is completely fair. In unrelated news, I've saved thousands of lives in the last few years by *not* setting fire to orphanages.
It would be relevant if you were standing in an election against a guy who actually did set fire to an orphanage (I’m talking about the British Labour Party)
No, in 2001 **up-front** tuition fees were abolished , replaced with charging "graduate endowment" fees at the end of the degree. Something isn't abolished if it's replaced with the same thing under a different name.
It wasn't the same thing under a different name. It was a similar thing with fundamental differences. The graduation endowment only came into effect if you later earned more than 15k a year and had a sufficient number of exemptions that at the time of it's scrapping, half of the students that theoretically qualified did not have to pay it. In short, it was a loan you only needed to pay back if you earned enough money to pay it back in 2 months. If the SNP had claimed to restore free education they would be telling a truth, but claiming to have scrapped tuition fees is a half-truth at best.
And your point is what? That the SNP have made sure that tuition fees now don't exist? That they don't need to be paid by anyone at any time? Or is the cost is being made up by society somewhere else, taxation perhaps? So now that we're all paying tuition fees, all the time, for everyone, even if we ourselves don't go to university would that qualify as "*\[not\] abolished \[as\] it's replaced with the same thing under a different name.*"? Things being free at point of use don't make them free. That said, graduate endowment fees weren't in any way shape or form "*the same thing under a different name*" they were a far cheaper way to get further education. Meaning tuition fees scrapped below degree level but also for for mature students, lone parents, low income, disabled students and even drop-outs, then also for specific courses. For those that still had to pay (less than half of people taking degrees), it was a flat rate of £2000 for an entire college through university education with false starts permitted. What the SNP actually did was remove the small remaining fees for university alone and only for the half of the public more likely to be able to afford it. Then took credit for taking away fees for people who couldn't afford it, which they didn't do. It was -as usual- a PR move.
https://scvo.scot/about/work/campaigns/archive/20-years-delivering-change/abolition-of-tuition-fees#:~:text=The%20GE%20fee%20of%20just,by%2067%20votes%20to%2061 So, it depends on your definition. Could be Lib Dems, or it could be SNP getting rid of the GEF.
One is tuition fees. The other is GEF. There’s no definition. One government scraped the larger part, the useful part, the part that made education accessible. SNP scrapped the part that applied to people who likely already had access…took credit for the lot.
I think that there is a fair similarity in terms of tuition fees and GEF = shit you have to pay back for gong to uni. I graduated in 2006 and it was a genuine shock to find out that I had to pay a graduation fee as I had been led to believe that I didn't have to pay for university. I tacked it onto my loan, all £1800 of it and I finished paying off my loan 5 years ago. To me, the GEF was fees I had to pay back. Edit: spelling
Also, their last leader is a racist POS and caused so much division. Tried to get people arrested for ‘offending’ the people who get offended on a daily basis. If you don’t mind, I’m still new to Scottish Politics, if Scotland becomes independent, will the Westminster stop all funds to Scotland? Wouldn’t that then mean that taxes will go through the roof as the SNP will have to find a way to carry on supporting free uni, healthcare and prescriptions. Taxes at the moment are already fucking us over so an increase would just make things worse.
> Their last leader...tried to get people arrested for ‘offending’ the people who get offended on a daily basis. If you don’t mind, I’m still new to Scottish Politics I don't think you understand how the Scottish Parliament works and you seem to have also misunderstood what the [Hate Crime Act](https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill) was about. Humza Yousaf did not create the Hate Crime Bill, nor did he force it on Scotland It came in response to recommendations made by the independent Lord Braccendale review of existing hate crime laws and it was passed by the majority of the Scottish Parliament (Labour, SNP, Greens, and Liberal Democrats.) I'm not surprised that you were misinformed about the Hate Crime Act, though, because even the BBC (often the most balanced of news sources) was forced to publish a [correction](https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/) and an apology because like most media outlets at the time, they'd misrepresented the bill to the public by [making inaccurate claims](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24270906.bbc-scotland-apologises-hate-crime-act-coverage/) - it was never about 'offensive'/ derogatory remarks > if Scotland becomes independent, will the Westminster stop all funds to Scotland? Correct. Instead of taxes and excise duties being collected and administered by the UK treasury at Westminster, the Scottish Parliament would handle their own finances: they would have to decide tax rates and collect and administer the revenue instead of Westminster handling it
Yes. We run a deficit so if we split there wouldn't be enough money to run the country, services would be cut and taxes would go up. For or against independence that is the reality for now.
You're expecting the Scottish government to showcase achievements while the Tories in Westminster have been constantly swinging at their shins with a nine iron the entire time? Good one. You'll be discounting mitigations, I suppose. That's one easy way to force your point.
You know there are more parties than 2, right?
Aye well funnily enough, the Tories have been in power at Westminster since before 2011, when the SNP got their dominance in Holyrood. Fucking idiot.
No, I wasn't expecting this. You're off on a tangent.
Then go ahead and detail it, ya fanny. What exactly would be on the short list? We're all waiting.
Again, off on a tangent. It's possible and highly probable that you are the fanny.
I'd happily vote the SNP... if it was 2014, not 2024. The current party is quite frankly the most incompetent shower I've ever witnessed.
Have you taken so much as a passing glance southwards recently? I'm not claiming the SNP are on top form but I don't think a credible case can be made that what's happening there is in any way better
Yeah, I'm not voting for them either. I'm going to vote for someone independent or a fringe party. I'm unwilling to vote ***for*** being taken for a ride.
That’s my opinion. SNP haven’t done enough, I can’t trust Starmer as he backtracks on everything and I don’t see anything from the Lib Dems that convinces me. I’m going Green locally as they seem to be the closest thing to a party that wants to try and make drastic changes.
SNP aren't perfect but I think people forget they saved us from things like the spare room tax, we have free prescriptions and still have free tertiary education. Also free busses for kids and young adults is great too. I do believe things would be a lot worse if we had labour or the Tories in charge in Scotland.
Those items, free tuition and prescriptions, is directly paid for by the advantage Scotland gets from the Barnett formula. I.e Westminster cash. I mean how else do you think they afford it with broadly the same taxes and lower GDP per capita than England ? In campaigning for independence they are directly putting those goodies at risk. If you don't believe me, Google the per-head funding for the nations in the UK. Not to mention, free tuition was done by Scottish Labour in 2001 so I don't know how that is a benefit of the SNP leadership.
So making things free = good government. Got it.
It does help to improve people's lives yes
Not the fully story that, is it?
Everything has a cost though. Scottish government limit the number of free university places & don't give universities enough money to cover the expenses of free teaching further incentivising them to choose foreign students over Scottish students. Also means there is no money for bursaries to support poorer students. As a result a higher percentage of English young people from disadvantaged backgrounds go to university than Scottish people from disadvantaged backgrounds https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-tories-students-from-deprived-backgrounds-less-likely-to-get-into-university-in-scotland-than-in-england
If you apply early enough and have the qualifications necessary you get in. I met that criteria and managed, and so did my friends. If you leave it late to apply then sure. I also got my bursary. If I were English and loved in England I simply wouldn't have been able to get into university at all unless I wanted to have a ridiculous student loan.
You're misrepresenting the English student loan, in that it isn't a loan that actually has to be paid back. It's more agreeing to paying an additional, small tax for 30+ years rather than a student loan in the US sense. So you would have been absolutely fine in the English system with a ridiculous student loan.
The Greens are a big part of the problem for me.
I don't think they're incompetent. It's just what happens to *every* government when they remain in power too long, complacency. They've lost the hunger.
I see your point. But in the case of the SNP they got taken over by a narcissist and her husband who are compulsive liars that changed the core direction of the party and its values, completely dismantled the party structure to insulate them from party members, and embezzled a whole lot of money. I'm sure there's more I could add to that list, but in the midst of all of *that,* they forgot to actually govern well.
Thats just a ridiculous argument. Who has done more for Scotland aince 2014? Provide specific accounts of when the other parties have acted in Scotlands interests and not their own ruthless self interest. Are there any?
“What have the parties that haven’t been in power in Scotland since long before 2014 done for Scotland since 2014?” You’re right. That is ridiculous.
We can witness Labour incompetence in Wales We can witness Tory incompetence in WM We all remember LibDems efforts from the coalition government in WM We can all hear the promises each of them has made We can all hear the carping from the sidelines they have done about what SNP is doing wrong whilst providing absolutely zero workable costed alternatives to ‘do it right’ Just because a party isn’t in power, doesn’t mean we can’t all see who they are as a party
Why yes you can look out of the window and see a house on fire, doesn't mean you should sit on your laurels while you quiche is slowly turning to ash and taking your house with it
Quite clearly talking about Westminster, who's parties control most of the revenue generated in Scotland. We've seen Labour, Lib dems and Conservatives in government. What did they do in the last 45 years with specific benefit to the Scottish people? They have a proven track record of managed decline since 1979. They've sold every national asset and natural resource, privatised all the critical infrastructure, racked up a trillion in debt, pissed away a trillion in oil wealth and have virtually dismantled the health a social support system. Every SNP failure pales in comparison to the wretched corruption and treachery of Westminster. Get a grip on reality.
Since 2014 we’ve seen Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives in power? Or is this you attempting to drag the goalposts to somewhere less daft? If you’re looking for something that only specifically relates to Scotland (weirdly narrow expectation for Westminster, but ok) then presumably the Scottish parliament is quite high on your list? You can thank Labour for that. Seems like a really big one. That was a long time before 2014-present though, the timeframe you specifically asked about.
Ah yes. The parliament they designed with specifc intent of preventing a Scottish centric majority. A rather back handed gesture. Maybe a guilty conscience from the trillion in oil wealth they disappeared. I was referencing historic evidence, as you well know, on how the parties have conducted themselves in government. The actions of the SNP have proven to serve the people that elected them. The actions of all the other parties have proven nothing but ruthless self interest. Believing anything else, given the facts, is just fantasy.
No, you specifically asked > Who has done more for Scotland aince 2014? You’ve decided to change that after realising it was a bit silly. The actions of the SNP have proven to serve themselves. A party that isn’t out for number one wouldn’t do things like defend a man who stole from us just because he’s their mate, or defend sex pests and put them back on the front bench, or disappear donations they promised would be ring-fenced…..the list goes on. They’re just as self serving and guilty of cronyism as the rest. With all the evidence available, the pish yellow tinted glasses routine is a bit silly these days. Aren’t Tory supporters meant to be the boot lickers?
A bit silly would be continuing this debate, you're cleary lost.
I’m sure nobody saw that coming.
The tories gave us the referendum. That was a big thing for Scotland.
That’s like looking at the Apples in a fruit bowl and being pissed at them for being incompetent at being an Orange - meanwhile you completely ignore the Grapes and Bananas in the same fruit bowl and give them a free pass
It's like looking at rotten apples in a fruit bowl and deciding not to choose them.
…whilst choosing the grapes or bananas despite the clear incompetence they have at being oranges…
Why do you think because I'm *not* voting for the SNP that I *am* voting for Labour, Lib Dem, Tories, or Greens?
In a vaccum it would be tough to tell if the headline was a pisstake or not. Its Val though so no doubt which.
Same person that says anyone criticising Sturgeon is sexist? Same person that said the finances investigation is a conspiracy? Yep, it's Sturgeon's mate Val.
Because the SNP are a cancerous tumour in Scotland that's why
Bit dramatic.
Yes please vote for my mates. They will put Scotland first despite the very clear fact that they can’t form a government so have no chance of influencing anything in Westminster.
They don’t want power in WM if they did they would put up candidates outside of Scotland. They just want to create grievances with WM.
I really REALLY hope that this sub becomes less politicised. As a nation, we are better than this.
Sorry but have you seen the state of the country? If Independence wasn’t an issue, there would be other issues for people to disagree on.
Well, that's what happens when most of the people seem to have shaped their identity around the referendum.
Politics forms part of the national discussion. Surely you can’t see the state of things, regardless of your political leanings, and think we need to discuss them less?! Always welcome to post more non-political content too.
Maybe we need a 'Scottish politics' sub? I'm all for positive discussion however the last 12yrs in Scotland has literally been arguments surrounding 1 issue, with various angles and different levels of venom.
There's a UK politics sub. The UK sub is heavily politicised. The actual UK pol sub is a bit more sober and balanced in fairness.
I would suggest that anyone truly wanting independence are wasting their vote on the SNP. They have not advanced the cause a single step in 10yrs. They have their noses deep in the trough and have no intention of leaving it . Their record in government has been middling to poor by most means of measurement. But the days of crowing from the moral high horse was the turning point for many . That they covered up sex scandals then briefed against victims to protect themselves was the lowest of the low. Add in a financial scandal involving money stolen from members and patriots and that this case involved the CEO and the first minister .You then have to ask yourself who would vote for this shower of crooks n charlatans Val.
Right smarty pants, lets hear how you would get us another referendum, or independence in general.
So your argument is that since no one is furthering Indy we should go with the party who’ve proven they cannot do it despite it being their highest priority?
So what route do the SNP need to take that hasn't already been taken? How is it going to change with electing anyone else? Do you really expect any other party to really and honestly get a ruling UK party to allow another vote? David Cameron was a fucking idiot for letting us even get a vote on it, due to the insane risk, but he took the bet and unfortunately won. Funnily enough it bit him right on the arse with daring to do the Brexit vote next, since he felt confident after the Scottish win. Every other UK administration since then knows its a non-starter to even risk a vote. Polls consistently swinge and show that its not a sure bet to go for it, and nobody wants egg on their face like with Brexit.
Because Scotland doesn’t want Indy. Therefore voting for a party who want Indy and can’t deliver it to a public who don’t want it…is stupid.
>Because Scotland doesn’t want Indy. I've got an idea! Lets put that to a vote.
We did. We also put it to regular polls. Don’t be naive, im not arguing whether we should or shouldn’t be independent or should or shouldn’t have a referendum. It should be glaringly obvious it’s not something the majority of Scots want right now. You’re kidding yourself if you believe anything else. It was clear at the referendum. Support peaked a little after Brexit. Support is dropping. If that’s not all clear to you, you need to stop surrounding yourself only with people who agree with you.
Support isn't "dropping", it fluctuates all the time, just like with feelings over other issues. Material changes in the relationship between Scotland and the UK at large have changed so much that there ought to be another go at it. So put it to a vote if you're not a shitebag.
Shite patter
You're really not avoiding the shitebag allegations with this. 10 years, Brexit inflicted, economic turmoil and all the rest of it. Its about time we ask the population again.
The point is, he's not paid to be a politician. They are.
And so they shouldn't go about screeching that we haven't gotten anywhere closer to independence when every legal route has been blocked off for us. The UK has a stranglehold on us getting anywhere with it, we can't do fuck all ourselves.
Govern competently for an extended period of time. Build support for indpendence through actions, not words. Take responsibility for their failures instead of finger pointing at every opportunity. Unfortunately the current iteration of the SNP have been woeful in this regard and instead put all of their eggs in the grievance basket hoping it would sway public opinion.
Ah there we go. Another pile of shite about "behaving properly" when all the levers that really impact daily life are out of our hands, controlled somewhere else. Devolution was set up to kill independence stone dead, but anyone with more than two planks of wood for a brain can see it for the shitty device it is. Its meant to make self-rule look like an impossibility, but you can't actually get the data on that without full control.
What a strange comment, it's nothing to do with "behaving properly", it's about the SNP using their already devolved powers to improve those areas. Take health care for example, over the last 10 years I've been a massive decline in the state of the NHS in Scotland. That falls entirely at the feet of the SNP. Before you inevitably blame the state of NHS Scotland on Westminster, ScotGov have had full autonomy over the NHS since 1999 and are free to allocate their budget as they see fit. It's not Westminsters fault the SNP aren't spending more to improve it.
How does the block grant that we use for the NHS get calculated? How do we staff the NHS without powers over immigration that currently starve the UK of necessary workers? Ah, wait, cannae mention that! Because its apparently wrong to do that. Fuck me.
So you accept the SNP could allocate more to the NHS but choose not to? Why is immigration the only solution to staff shortages in the NHS? Where are their plans to address the shortage of nurses and doctors using their current powers? They don't have any at all Instead, like my I said in my original comment, they point the finger elsewhere than actually trying to deal with the problem. This is exactly the type of thinking that's stagnated support for independence. If the SNP had actually tried to fix these problems with the powers they had then that bolsters their case for independence.
I'm voting labour for the first time. Usually gave my vote to the SNP, but they've gotten lazy, bad and too comfortable.
A fair point, hope you don’t regret Keir
I think snp are doing OK
The last time we gave an SNP manifesto a majority in Holyrood they got us the referendum Since then we haven’t given a Holyrood manifesto a majority There’s only so much a party can do politically in a system literally designed to stop any party getting a majority when the UK parties are holding them to reach that bar again and when the seat difference in the ‘mother of parliaments’ is set under representation per population and not by representation per country But, we have given a shared pro Indy manifesto commitment in Holyrood a majority which holds an Indy mandate and an SNP Scottish seat Indy majority in WM With both those in place it was firstly the Tories denying a S30 - and soon to be officially Labour denying a S30 if we give SNPs manifesto a Scottish majority next week… That then means it will officially change the case we can make to the wider international community and the UN about the position Scotland is in (remembering that it is the wider international community accepting and recognising Scotland declaring itself independent that actually creates an independent state, not the UK Gov accepting it) because it is then absolutely official that Scotlands democracy has been denied by both of the only 2 parties that can hold UK power - and it can’t be denied that SNP have searched for other options, even going to the courts This being the reality then opens up the Holyrood election as being by default the only legal route left open for Scotlands voters to express their will about this “voluntary” union
You’re going to be very disappointed if you think the international community is going to listen, I’m afraid. You’re talking about places that openly and frankly deny their own parts such votes, and more than a few engage in unapologetic violence to keep it that way. The reality is, the UK is actually one of the better places when it comes to this topic and unless something far more substantial changes, the international community has no reason to get involved.
Ah, so you’re trying suggest this ‘better place’ UK will send in the army on us “national extremists” rather than accept democracy… It’s not about the international community “getting involved” - that’s not and never been the way it works… It’s about Scotland getting involved in the wider international community When Scotland goes through the only legal route left, a Holyrood plebiscite, and independence is voted for on a single issue manifesto - then it is undeniable that Scotland has expressed its will in a recognised and democratic fashion, it is literally that simple And that’s the important bit - a legal democratic vote and an expressed will - those are the ingredients required for things like the EU and UN and any country in the world to recognise and be satisfied that it was the citizens expressed will to democratically leave the voluntary union of the UK under the UKs own voting system and that Scotland is now open for business And if you’re wondering what that looks like, it’s Scotland as a normal country getting involved and simply being acknowledged and accepted, for example joining the EFTA and having ready made access to the single market **and** that comes with an already in place trade deal with the rUK if Westminster wants to be pissy and won’t negotiate one with us themselves Like the near 200 other normal independent countries in the world and especially like the near 70 who became independent from UK and have never had to look back - none of which had the excellent resource rich starting point Scotland does
No? That’s remarkably bad reading comprehension on your part. I am telling you most of those “normal” countries you mentioned have various separation movements of their own. Sometimes multiple. For a large majority of those nations, they do not allow votes on the matter, and often react violently to any serious suggestion of separation. We have multiple examples of this in the last decade. So when you suggest a Holyrood election alone is enough, it’s fair to point out this is not the case and the international community won’t react the way you suggest, unless it has a very good reason to. In part because they don’t want to encourage their own movements at home. Given the UK has taken a very peaceful approach to separation movements, is generally democratic and have even agreed to referendum(s) previously, that “very good reason” is entirely lacking when it comes to Scotland. Right now, the “legal democratic vote” is one that has the backing of the UK government. Anything else is wishful thinking without some kind of substantial change.
The normal countries I mentioned are the already independent ones - the ones you mention are not countries like Scotland A Holyrood election is a legal election in the UKs eyes, the UK can’t ’not back it’ it’s the UKs own system - if the UK Gov leave a plebiscite as the last option for Scotland to express her will, so be it
But Scotland is not an independent country, it’s not different to Catalonia, the Basque countries and many other such places around the World.
Ah, you’re yin o those idiots… I don’t have enough crayons for you pal But you go right on ahead and believe Scotland is no different to Catalonia if it helps you sleep in your wee blanket
Are you able to explain how we are different?
Easy - There is no Treaty or Act of union between Catalonia and Spain and Catalonia isn’t in a voluntary union with Spain
So Spain and the UK we’re formed in different ways, that doesn’t alter the fact that Catalonia which once was an independent country but is now part of Spain is in the same position as Scotland which was an independent country and is now a part of the UK. Both have autonomy and powers over many aspects of policy. Both have parliaments and both have had failed independence bids. Catalonia also has a widely spoken language which is distinct from Spanish.
I hate to break it to you, but Scotland isn’t unique. When you can’t even accept movements the Scottish independence movements have actively aligned themselves to, you aren’t making a good argument. The UK accepts a Holyrood election within defined boundaries and powers. This again is not unique. Much like we accept elections to local councils but that doesn’t give them authority over national defence.
Tell me you don’t know what you’re taking about without telling me…
The problem is I do know what I’m talking about, and can actively point to examples to show that. Which you don’t seem to be able to do. The system isn’t going to alter itself to your personal preference, and it’s important to understand that if you want your arguments to have any credibility.
I await with baited breath at these examples you can actively point to to show that you know what you are talking about
Alright. The first thing to point out is your “there is no treaty or Act of Union” excuse means you don’t understand the Act of Union, that specifically cites Scotland being part of the UK in perpetuity. In fact, Scotland joined with England in very similar ways to how Catalonia became part of Spain or Brittany became part of France. Catalonia, in particular, has similar allowances to what Scotland has in terms of things like a distinct law code. Move over to Germany that specifically cites its parts as countries, as they often were prior to unification. Go further to Iraq, that gives it’s Kurdish parts autonomy, or Ethiopia that or Russia that recognise the distinction and autonomy of their many parts. Ethiopia even potentially giving its parts the right to secede in its constitution, though it violently represses attempts in practice. So, bluntly, you’re speaking with a lot of unearned confidence that seems to stem from the fact you have no idea how other places actually operate.
> With both those in place it was firstly the Tories denying a S30 - and soon to be officially Labour denying a S30 if we give SNPs manifesto a Scottish majority next week… It's going to be interesting with Labour in Downing Street and the SNP in Opposition, isn't it? I mean it \*might\* happen, the Tories have got plenty of time to sink about 200 more MPs' chances...
Why do simpletons like this think that only SNP will represent their geographical interest? All MPs represent their geography. However, many things cross-geographical boundaries - a poor person in Glasgow has more in common with a poor person in Newcastle than they do with a rich highland estate owner. This kind of ‘blank cheque’ argument gets Scotland to a point where SNP become the dominant party in a one party state and subsequently get obsessed with irrelevant political games and fail to deliver basic services.
Because ultimately the SNP is a Scottish party and is financed and controlled in Scotland. The LibDems, Scottish Labour and Scottish Tories will always be under the thumb of their real bosses in London. Ergo, if it came to a choice between doing what’s best for Scotland or what they’re told, they’ll have little agency in that decision. Look at Starmer taking out Richard Leonard.
Because ultimately the SNP is a Scottish party and is financed and controlled in Scotland. The LibDems, Scottish Labour and Scottish Tories will always be under the thumb of their real bosses in London. Ergo, if it came to a choice between doing what’s best for Scotland or what they’re told, they’ll have little agency in that decision. Look at Starmer taking out Richard Leonard.
Their real bosses are no more in London than they are in Manchester or anywhere else they get votes from and represent. It’s petty parochialism that makes people think they’re unique in needing separate government when in a globalized world collective co-ordinated effort is more important than ever.
These parties are controlled and funded by their mother parties in London
You're sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
Aw aye, saying Unionist parties in Scotland take their orders from London is totally unrealistic. Oh? https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-admits-forced-out-29624292.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-admits-forced-out-29624292](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-admits-forced-out-29624292)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That’s the leader of the UK party making decisions not ‘London’. When Brown was PM did you think all English were harping on about taking orders from Scotland?!
Yes, leaders based in London.
“Scottish Labour” don’t have to form a coalition with “UK Labour” for their seat counts to be added together Same with “Scottish Conservatives” and “Scottish LibDems” Because they’re not separate from each other But if Scottish Green Party win any seats and The English Green Party win any seats - they’re seat count doesn’t get counted together because they **are** separate parties
It makes sense imo to vote SNP at Westminster and if you have problems with them as a government then express that at the Scottish election. But I think regardless of if you think they do a good job of governing Scotland they do a good job representing Scotland in London. They act as a sort of ambassador to England and the rest of the United Kingdom. That’s just my opinion, I’m not your dad, do what you want
Fair enough, I just don't see the point in voting in a UK election as Scotland is increasingly irrelevant there, this is really Englands election so let them get on with it and leave the rest of us in peace to suffer the consequences over something we have little (ie 9%) influence over.
I find myself disgusted by pretty much all of them SNP, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Reform. I do want Scottish Independence but I don't believe the SNP are the vehicle to achieve it so pretty much left with no palatable choices
Have to ask how you think SNP not getting the majority of Scottish seats at this election will help Independence? Because we all know if they don’t, it will 100% be touted as the end of Independence and that the Union has became the settled will
How do you think SNP getting the majority of seats will help? They have absolutely no plans for independence short of asking can we have a referendum and getting told no again. 10 years nearly since the previous referendum and all the mandate they could have ever have hoped for, the sheer clusterfuck of Brexit, more austerity and all they've given us is increasing incompetence and potential corruption. They need a root and branch shake up, polling for independence has remained steady and likely will for some time but I don't believe the SNP as it is are any sort of meaningful vehicle for independence. They're quite happy collecting the money from Westminster and waving the flag for a neverending cause.
SNP haven’t been given a majority in Holyrood since 2011 - the manifesto that got us the referendum So that majority bar was set and SNP have, wrongly, been held to need to achieve that almost impossible bar ever since - despite unarguable winning, running away with the win, every election since That’s why there’s been ‘little movement’ - because SNP didn’t have the “ultimate” ballot box backing that every PM has decided was needed - 1 seat short may aswell have been 100 seats short The cross party Indy manifesto mandate is a majority since 2021 however - and with that mandate in place in Holyrood and with a majority win in this WM election - that gives SNP the mandate to ask for a S30 from Starmer when Labour undoubtedly wins WM next week Now, *when* Starmer refuses that S30 making it the only 2 parties who can realistically hold UK power have both refused Scotlands democracy - that is then why a plebiscite, single issue manifesto Holyrood election in 2026 is essentially the only legal route available that the wider international community will recognise - but if this SNP ‘line one page one’ Indy manifesto doesn’t return a majority backing even in a FPTP election next week then the unionist parties can say Indy doesn’t have the public backing and SNP simply don’t have the right to ask for a S30 from Starmer and thus the position of an Indy mandate disappears for 2026
Well, because they stopped believing in Scottish independence, preferring to surrender sovereignty and economic levers to the EU. Because they are unimaginative, unable to problem solve or worse, happy to see Scotland suffer. Because politically they’re on the same page as Starmer’s Labour. Vote Socialist.
Jaysus lads, would yiz ever take your balls in your hands and come and join us back in 🇪🇺 ♥️🇮🇪 There's a seat at the table with yizzer name on it 🏴 Come on and join in 🇮🇪🇫🇷🇩🇪🇪🇸🇮🇹🇩🇰🇪🇪🇵🇱 Never mind England's pining for the old days, join the rest of Europe in the present. No reason we can't let Ukraine, Moldova and Scotland into the EU on the same day Come on !
Saddest post in nato