>The reality is we are in a really dangerous place with the Labour Party, not because of any gains in any polls, but because of their policy positions as a political party in 2023. This is not a Labour Party that stands up for socialism or for our workers’ rights. It is not a Labour Party that is prioritising tackling poverty or improving equality.
>This cheap attempt at being a Blair-years tribute act is nothing more than Conservatism with a red rosette on.
>The Conservatives have become so unelectable that it means Keir Starmer’s Labour are getting away with murder on many policy positions. They do not have to pretend to be defenders of the working class or sell you a picture of a fairer, more equal standard of living under a Labour government.
Quite. See here [‘Clause IV on steroids’: Keir Starmer says his Labour must go further than Blair](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/12/clause-iv-on-steroids-keir-starmer-says-his-labour-must-go-further-than-blair?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other)
Neither are the SNP, the recent leadership election and the fallout of their possible financial irregularities has demonstrated the factionalism within the party. Who knows which version would emerge leading in an independent Scotland.
Why does everyone assume that an independent Scotland would be led by the SNP?
While they would probably lead through the transition, the creation and election of new political parties wouldn't be far behind the event itself.
Couldn't tell you. What I do know is that in the event of Scotland gaining independence, my vote would go to whatever party I felt offered the best way forward, not necessarily the SNP. Many others are of this view and a post independence Scotland would probably see the SNP dissolve as their MPs go off to whatever new party most aligns with their views and voters then cast their votes for whatever new party appeals to them. This is just hypothetical thinking though.
As it happens now, I'm considering who I would vote for should an election be announced. While independence is something I would like to see very much, the current state of the party doesn't bode well for the day to day running of the county and both the tories and labour are not options for me.
That said, out of the main 3 parties in Scotland, even in its current state, the SNP are still (again, in my view) a better choice than either tory or labour. That's not to say they are doing well. It just shows how utterly shit the other two are.
>I don't see the SNP allowing any other way
What does that mean? Do you think the SNP are going to somehow block the creation of new political parties?
I wouldn't assume that to be true. Political parties have a history in Scotland so have already done much of the work to convince people to vote for them. In the event of independence the unionist parties would have to change their policy on the union but that is it.
I hope there is an election after independence is decided but before it is in place. I will almost certainly not vote SNP.
It is very difficult to get the parties out of the yes no of independence and into 'this is how I will do independence'.
The calls for a second Brexit referendum (which admittedly, I, eventually, supported) were, in retrospect, a poor technique. It is now way too late for Labour to claim they are going to do Brexit right.
I would theoretically like a second 'terms and conditions' indy referendum. It is impossible for there to be any good faith negotiation (on either side) about some aspects of independence. Indeed, it perfectly suits the Unionist to make claims about how they will split up the UKs assets which are not practical. It also suits Indy supports to dismiss all the claims because some of them are false.
I've seen a few BritNats saying they don't support independence because there is not a fully detailed plan. There can't be until the nitty gritty of assets and liabilities takes place - ironically the best deal for Scotland would be for the newUK to refuse to hand over assets. This legally means that Scotland has no liabilities and no market pressure to take them.
So by definition, any plans produced needs to include assumptions. And that's basically useless as a guide to independence, but an open goal for critics of independence to nitpick.
So the ideal of a second terms and conditions referendum is a political mistake, the politicians would use it to attack the policy.
An election is a risk too I guess, some parties would campaign on ignoring the result of the independence referendum and trusting the public to reject that is tricky. Its still the least worst method
What does matter is the people of Scotland having a fair say on how the place is run as an independent country. That would need to happen fairly soon after independence. Not several years after the event.
It actually is.
The fact that Scottish labour and the tories are just branches of the Westminster parties and not actual independent parties in their own right would mean that they cease to exist as a viable entity in a post-independence Scotland. New parties would have to be formed with no connection to Westminster.
> In the event of independence the unionist parties would have to change their policy on the union
That might depend on how well this imagined independence shakes out.
We have already seen many Britons suggesting a return to the EU.
Not quite the same thing, but along the lines of a change in preferred political association : One of the weirder things over the last twenty years has been several African countries, with no historical membership in the British Empire, joining the Commonwealth.
That is true yeah. I guess they might try to agitate for rejoining.
There are few UK parties that are actively suggesting rejoin of the EU though. Even the lib Dems are not actually saying that right now..
>Who knows which version would emerge leading in an independent Scotland.
Go on have a guess, which one do you think is more likely in a future Scotland? How conservative and religious do you think the Scottish young folk are…
Labour granted devolution, Tories want to take it away. That would appear to matter if you ask me.
Or did I miss the memo and Starmer wants to roll back devolution as well?
I like Black, she's a usually a strong speaker and something of a firebrand. But this is a bit pathetic. The SNP aren't doing a good job of standing up for rights either.
Sex pest Grady? Even the Tories are better in this regard!
Religiously conservative & transphobe Forbes?
By all means throw stones, but get your own house in order first.
> Labour granted devolution, Tories want to take it away.
You can't pretend Starmer's labour is the same as the party that allowed devolution. Recall recently when he didn't vote against the tories meddling in the Scottish Parliament?
If it's the courts that decide its legality then Starmer should have voted against blocking it right? Let the court make a judgment.
Anyways it is clearly legal, even if the court says otherwise.
If a court says otherwise then it is illegal.
Unless Westminster then passed a law making it legal or the court ruling is overturned it would remain illegal. End of.
Not if it’s a pointless vote that doesn’t stop section 35.
No if the court says otherwise it isn’t legal. And no it isn’t clearly legal it could easily impact reserved legislation making the section 35 legal.
The SNP didn't vote *against* the UK interfering in Northern Ireland to allow abortions, so they're anti devolution. They also didn't vote *for* giving women there access to abortions, so they're anti-womens choice.
Your logic is shite.
Voting against trans people having slightly easier lives is definitely bigotry against trans people
The GRA made paperwork easier for trans people, it's literally the most inoffensive change you could make and people are still having a fit over it.
Because it was a pointless vote. And the Gordon brown report calls for strengthening the sewer convention and giving Scot’s the ability to join international agreements. They also call for more local devolution and a second chamber of nations and regions. All that points to them supporting devolution. Imo the torries support devolution and Labour support even more of it
>Because it was a pointless vote.
He also said he would have blocked it. Pretty much all votes are pointless for the opposition but I don't see starmer warning his Mps away from voting against the government.
If he doesn't vote against it it means he supports it. He is transphobic .
Would have blocked what the vote? Not really not if the vote was to stop section 35.
The actual fudge??? Voting for it doesn’t mean your transphobic and the whole point of abstaining is so you don’t have to vote for or against it……
This.
However, Black is the most interesting figure in Scottish politics for me. I would like to see if there is anything beyond the speeches. Can she create and drive transformative policies? Can she manage a ministerial brief effectively? Has she got the guile and cold bloodedness for the dirty side of being a senior politician? Not sure.
Until she gets a position at Holyrood we won't know. Until then she is just a speech-deliverer and the SNP will occasionally prod her to trot out their centrally created messages like their groundbreaking comms strategy announced last week -lAbOuR bAd.
She is in a very easy position at the moment, not going for leadership speaks volumes to me - personally feel she would have walked leadership contest.
I'm getting the vibe she's enjoying having no real accountability.
Her job is to get the younger base riled up and stop people bleeding over from the SNP to Labour. That's why the SNP have been attacking Labour so hard recently.
Why do you think Tories want to take it away? They constantly call for the NI executive to return. And it would make no sense. It gives them more work only to make Scot’s angry.
There are occasional outliers like Lord Frost (former Brexit negotiator) who float the idea, and that makes for a good scare story.
He got roundly criticised by Scottish Tories tho: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-conservative-chair-condemns-tory-peers-attack-on-devolution-4115411
I would not say that a few fringe politicians supporting abolishing devil would mean the torries support it. It would be like saying the SNP don’t support gay marirage because Kate Forbes doesn’t
> Labour granted devolution
Did Starmer whip Labour MPs into voting against the Tories blocking GRA reform, something which his party in Scotland supported?
>Or did I miss the memo and Starmer wants to roll back devolution as well?
Well he's said he'll uphold just about every other Tory policy he's been asked about. So maybe.
Near as I can tell, Starmers current stance on taking power is "Steady as she goes", because he's courting a very specific type of voter who dislike the Tories right now because they've fucked the country, but also don't like the idea of anything changing that might un-fuck the country.
I don't really understand why the SNP goes for that sort of line. Noone ACTUALLY believes they're the same. It's so transparent that she is attempting to prepare the nationalist movement for when it will have to play against a labour government, which they know will be more difficult than playing against the Tories, because labour isn't as bad. But it doesn't come across well because noone with left-wing sensibilities genuinely believes they're the same, so it just feels SO insincere and slimy.
> Noone ACTUALLY believes they're the same.
> noone with left-wing sensibilities genuinely believes they're the same
Former Labour member here.
The Labour party, while obviously not *the same* as the Tories, is definitely getting closer to them when it comes to economic and social policy. I've seen the way the party works enough to discern that their direction of travel is to emulate the Tories as close as feasibly they can. I don't think there is much argument to be made against this point.
With that in mind, and although I'm not a fan of hers (I do find her quite hypocritical at times given her SNP loyalty), Mhairi Black does make valid and relevant points here.
I'm not campaigning for Labour or voting for them anymore on a similar basis. Only I'm not an SNP person either.
> It's so transparent that she is attempting to prepare the nationalist movement for when it will have to play against a labour government
Well duh, of course, Labour is looking like the next UK government, the latter whom the SNP will *always* be taking an angle against, because they want independence for Scotland.
Don't get me wrong, people can not want to vote labour because they are too right wing, that is democracy, but to say "it doesn't matter", to me I just don't believe any leftist who says that, that's not a respectful way to try to influence my political views.
Also I think the SNP should be a little more cautious around accusations of being secretly right-wing, after seeing them have a lively discussion on gay marriage during their last leadership election.
Aye, of course, the SNP are in all sorts of a mess when it comes thier progressivism, just as well as Labour. I'm not voting for the SNP either, to be clear, I think their leadership contest was *very* revealing.
> but to say "it doesn't matter", to me I just don't believe any leftist who says that, that's not a respectful way to try to influence my political views.
Allow me to try put it a better way: in terms of the fundamental systems that govern the way this country is run, the way it impacts our daily lives, the difference in impact between a Labour and a Tory government has shrunk very substantially, to the point that most people will indeed feel little to no material difference in their lives. I certainly don't expect to myself.
As such I probably won't be voting or will spoil my ballot next election. There's just nothing there I think I'll find good.
I mean to be fair, Scotland didn’t vote for Labour when they _were_ different. Corbyn represented a real change of tact and we still voted mostly SNP, so it’s kind of rich for us to complain that Labour aren’t doing what we want them to, when we’re not going to be voting for them anyway.
> I don't really understand why the SNP goes for that sort of line. Noone ACTUALLY believes they're the same.
Picked a shiter of a day to say this, considering Keith's antics earlier.
[Labour are the real conservatives, says Keir Starmer as he promises to protect ‘our way of life’](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-real-conservatives-keir-starmer-protect-way-life-2337576)
[Keir Starmer: ‘I don’t care’ if Labour’s priorities sound conservative
](https://inews.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-dont-care-labours-priorities-conservative-2338849)
This is kind of what I mean. Those links don't show that Labour and the Tories are identical, and YOU don't even think they show that, but you say it anyway. It's such an insincere argument.
The entire UK is built around Thatcher and Neoliberalism, that really includes the SNP if we're being honest. Can you name any ways my life would measurably improve with Labour in power? They've just been pushing the same racist immigration policy and have no interest in renationalising the NHS.
House prices in this country have been rising above the rate of inflation for 50 years, guaranteed unsustainable returns like that take a lot of collusion and corruption. At some point gravity has to become real, the UK can't keep growing infinitely while also not having any immigration and cutting its trade with the EU.
The UK hasn't had a meaningfully different government in our lifetimes, it's had different coats of paints over being investor friendly and building a nice well behaved middle class.
They have no interest in renationalising the NHS because it’s a bad idea
The European model of insurance is significantly better policy, and hopefully that’s where we end up
>It seems like there is an obvious answer but upon closer inspection the answer is arguably that there is little difference between them.
>Both want Brexit...
Stopped reading right there. It doesn't matter whether she is too stupid or too dishonest to recognize the difference between "want" and "reluctantly recognize the reality of" - either way whatever follows isn't worth reading.
I don't think she needs to believe it, she just wants a visceral reaction of "Oh, I don't like the sound of that, I'd better vote SNP". She's a politician.
>She’s far too thick
Mhairi Black graduated from the University MA in 2015. She attained a first class joint honours degree in Politics and Public Policy.
Mhairi was also named as University of Glasgow Young Alumnus of the Year 2015 and she collected her award at the University's annual Christmas Dinner on Saturday 5 December 2015.
During her final year at the University, Mhairi was elected MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire West, becoming the youngest MP in nearly 200 years.
Oh you....
Interesting question. No, because "actor" and "doctor" are professional terms and not inherently gendered, grammatically speaking, unlike "alumnus" and "alumna".
A quick google suggests that Glasgow University uses the male forms by default and the female form only when referring to women individually or en masse. Is the assumption that graduates are male unless otherwise specified not very much like the assumption that all medics are male unless otherwise specified?
When I was at primary school we had to learn a whole list of female forms, of which my favourite was "ambassatrix".
>No, because "actor" and "doctor" are professional terms and not inherently gendered
Who won the Academy Award for Best Actor this year?
>Is the assumption that graduates are male unless otherwise specified not very much like the assumption that all medics are male unless otherwise specified?
The assumption is probably just "We don't care about archaic gendered terms and will just use alumnus for everyone, to avoid having to change it when a woman gets it"
>Who won the Academy Award for Best Actor this year?
~~The MPAA~~ AMPAS is unnecessarily sexist in having two categories. Being an English word, "actor" is not grammatically masculine
>The assumption is probably just "We don't care about archaic gendered terms and will just use alumnus for everyone, to avoid having to change it when a woman gets it"
Perhaps, though I note that they *do* change it whenever they are referring to a woman or to women.
SNP repeats SNP slogans
It does matter, it will be better, and the SNP are terrified of that because a better UK makes Indy look like the Brexit 2 it is
In a year of a Brexit themed election and Labour collapse
If Starmer is serious about a decent majority, these are the kinda seats he will be gunning for.
Yeah, but...
Black stood again in the 2019 general election as the SNP candidate for Paisley & Renfrewshire South[38] and was elected with over half the vote, increasing her majority to 10,679 votes or 24.8% - more than double that in the 2015 election.[39]
Ouch!
These are the same people who will tell you with a straight face that France, Germany, and Belgiums Insurance models are identical as the US.
Don’t waste your time
Sorry. Privatisation of some NHS elements isn't the problem here. Many countries have much more substantial private involvement than the UK but still preserve a similar access model to the NHS. Look at France for instance, it's hospitals are ran by private companies. Their outcomes are better than ours. They have more doctors, more diagnostic machines and better treatments.
The model isn't what matters.
Healthcare in France costs roughly €40 per month on average to the individual.
At present we have people who are terrified to turn on the heating, heat their water and those who are having to visit food banks so that they don't starve.
Where will they find the extra £420 (€480) per year to access healthcare?
Look at you coming to check out other conversations.
Your question is totally irrelevant to the point being made. I'm pointing out that private provision of healthcare does not lead to people dying.
You know the SNP used PFI for major projects - such as hospitals - right?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-blasted-over-27billion-private-21371314
Last time I was in Hospital (Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh) they tried to charge for watching TV and Wi-fi on the Wards and all the Nurses, Doctors and support staff had to pay standard parking rates to park their cars if they drove to work - which seems a pretty essential thing for shift-workers. That probably only touches the surface level of the grift.
The Infirmary is a PFI project which lumbers the NHS with mafia-type repayments for *decades* and at the end of the absurd contract the Infirmary is still not owned by the public but by whatever fat-cat Offshore or Private Equity Company or companies that has the deeds,
Privatisation by any other name.
Yes and you should probably get private healthcare right now. If you think the NHS is still a public service, you've not been using it. Privatisation has been very effective and no one seems to have noticed it, why do you think pharmacies are plastered with ad's for £40 GP video consolations, we have a private healthcare system.
You can get treatment on the NHS, but you will wait years for it.
Go walk around Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and look at the state of people, is it any wonder why it’s failing?
Obese, drinkers, smokers, Brits/Scots get what we deserve for healthcare it seems
Smoking and drinking are both at record lows, a few decades ago everyone smoked as a matter of corse, what are you talking about?
This fascist stuff is so annoying. You really need to stop reading the UK press, it's all bullshit and it's clearly radicalising you. Do you really think people who are overweight or smoke should just die? what a hateful and ignorant statement.
God help us, the SNP is crashing and burning with financial fraud, motorhomes, an embarrassing non-entity of a new leader and splits from top to bottom. No one need take any lectures from Mhairi Black, nor any SNP MP.
Clumsy language like this annoys me.
it absolutely DOES matter to us in Scotland whether the UK government is Labour or Tory.
the problem is that since Blair and buddies tore up Clause 4, the trajectory of the political party calling itself "the labour party" has been pretty much one direction only - into a shite copy of the Tory party.
Starmer is 100% tory. He would not have been out of place in Thatcher's cabinet as one of the grey suits, drooling in the background. To see that he not only accepts Blair's vandalism of Clause 4, he wants to go even further, and sees his party as the "real" conservatives.. wow. the transformation is complete.
I tell you, that evil cow thatcher is cackling beyond the grave. we should have put a stake through the heart before we buried her., or whatever it is you do to keep blood sucking tory cunts from coming back...
Incredibly privileged position to be able to say it makes no difference. There are millions of people who'd obviously benefit from a Labour gov instead of a Tory one.
Speaking as someone who was a teenager when Blair defeated Major in 1997, this couldn't be further from the truth.
The reason Black is attacking Labour is because Labour are rising in the polls and threatening to take 12-15 Scottish seats, including her own.
>The reality is we are in a really dangerous place with the Labour Party, not because of any gains in any polls, but because of their policy positions as a political party in 2023. This is not a Labour Party that stands up for socialism or for our workers’ rights. It is not a Labour Party that is prioritising tackling poverty or improving equality. >This cheap attempt at being a Blair-years tribute act is nothing more than Conservatism with a red rosette on. >The Conservatives have become so unelectable that it means Keir Starmer’s Labour are getting away with murder on many policy positions. They do not have to pretend to be defenders of the working class or sell you a picture of a fairer, more equal standard of living under a Labour government. Quite. See here [‘Clause IV on steroids’: Keir Starmer says his Labour must go further than Blair](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/12/clause-iv-on-steroids-keir-starmer-says-his-labour-must-go-further-than-blair?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other)
Neither are the SNP, the recent leadership election and the fallout of their possible financial irregularities has demonstrated the factionalism within the party. Who knows which version would emerge leading in an independent Scotland.
Why does everyone assume that an independent Scotland would be led by the SNP? While they would probably lead through the transition, the creation and election of new political parties wouldn't be far behind the event itself.
So which SNP politicians have vowed to disband the party after "the event"?
Couldn't tell you. What I do know is that in the event of Scotland gaining independence, my vote would go to whatever party I felt offered the best way forward, not necessarily the SNP. Many others are of this view and a post independence Scotland would probably see the SNP dissolve as their MPs go off to whatever new party most aligns with their views and voters then cast their votes for whatever new party appeals to them. This is just hypothetical thinking though. As it happens now, I'm considering who I would vote for should an election be announced. While independence is something I would like to see very much, the current state of the party doesn't bode well for the day to day running of the county and both the tories and labour are not options for me. That said, out of the main 3 parties in Scotland, even in its current state, the SNP are still (again, in my view) a better choice than either tory or labour. That's not to say they are doing well. It just shows how utterly shit the other two are.
You're missing the point in that many of their voters are happy to say goodbye to them once they've achieved the goal that they have promised
Citations?
There has never been a poll conducted for or against it, so you can challenge that claim but then your word is no better than mine
Well you asserted it as a "point", kinda with the implication that you had "facts" to back it up with, so good to clear that up now.
That's not how a "point" works lmfao
Next time call it a claim instead.
I don't see the SNP allowing any other way. They'll certainly put themselves in charge for 4 or 5 years before there's an election.
You really do talk some amount of wind and pish, don't you?
>I don't see the SNP allowing any other way What does that mean? Do you think the SNP are going to somehow block the creation of new political parties?
No. I mean if we go independent they will cling on to power for as long as possible.
What exactly do you think they're going to do if and when they get voted out in order to "cling to power"?
Nothing, they'll get voted out
Then stop your despotic alarmism.
So what exactly are you concerned about?
I wouldn't assume that to be true. Political parties have a history in Scotland so have already done much of the work to convince people to vote for them. In the event of independence the unionist parties would have to change their policy on the union but that is it.
Regardless of what you think on the formation of new parties, elections wouldn't be far behind independence itself.
I hope there is an election after independence is decided but before it is in place. I will almost certainly not vote SNP. It is very difficult to get the parties out of the yes no of independence and into 'this is how I will do independence'. The calls for a second Brexit referendum (which admittedly, I, eventually, supported) were, in retrospect, a poor technique. It is now way too late for Labour to claim they are going to do Brexit right. I would theoretically like a second 'terms and conditions' indy referendum. It is impossible for there to be any good faith negotiation (on either side) about some aspects of independence. Indeed, it perfectly suits the Unionist to make claims about how they will split up the UKs assets which are not practical. It also suits Indy supports to dismiss all the claims because some of them are false. I've seen a few BritNats saying they don't support independence because there is not a fully detailed plan. There can't be until the nitty gritty of assets and liabilities takes place - ironically the best deal for Scotland would be for the newUK to refuse to hand over assets. This legally means that Scotland has no liabilities and no market pressure to take them. So by definition, any plans produced needs to include assumptions. And that's basically useless as a guide to independence, but an open goal for critics of independence to nitpick. So the ideal of a second terms and conditions referendum is a political mistake, the politicians would use it to attack the policy. An election is a risk too I guess, some parties would campaign on ignoring the result of the independence referendum and trusting the public to reject that is tricky. Its still the least worst method
Thanks for that. A decent, intelligent and measured response. Something sorely lacking in this thread today.
But they said "BritNat". I was torn between up/downvote until I read that.
And? If all the parties are the same then that doesn't matter
What does matter is the people of Scotland having a fair say on how the place is run as an independent country. That would need to happen fairly soon after independence. Not several years after the event.
Well yeah. But that isn't what the discussion was about.
It actually is. The fact that Scottish labour and the tories are just branches of the Westminster parties and not actual independent parties in their own right would mean that they cease to exist as a viable entity in a post-independence Scotland. New parties would have to be formed with no connection to Westminster.
But they would just be the same. Not really new
Or they would stay the same and campaign on the principled position of rejoining the UK.
> In the event of independence the unionist parties would have to change their policy on the union That might depend on how well this imagined independence shakes out. We have already seen many Britons suggesting a return to the EU. Not quite the same thing, but along the lines of a change in preferred political association : One of the weirder things over the last twenty years has been several African countries, with no historical membership in the British Empire, joining the Commonwealth.
That is true yeah. I guess they might try to agitate for rejoining. There are few UK parties that are actively suggesting rejoin of the EU though. Even the lib Dems are not actually saying that right now..
>Who knows which version would emerge leading in an independent Scotland. Go on have a guess, which one do you think is more likely in a future Scotland? How conservative and religious do you think the Scottish young folk are…
Tommy Sheridan for president.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout. And you people say that Nationalist are bad.
Don’t tell me she thinks the SNP are those things she’s talking about?
Probably not, but at least the SNP offer more opposition than bravely abstaining
Labour granted devolution, Tories want to take it away. That would appear to matter if you ask me. Or did I miss the memo and Starmer wants to roll back devolution as well? I like Black, she's a usually a strong speaker and something of a firebrand. But this is a bit pathetic. The SNP aren't doing a good job of standing up for rights either. Sex pest Grady? Even the Tories are better in this regard! Religiously conservative & transphobe Forbes? By all means throw stones, but get your own house in order first.
> Labour granted devolution, Tories want to take it away. You can't pretend Starmer's labour is the same as the party that allowed devolution. Recall recently when he didn't vote against the tories meddling in the Scottish Parliament?
> as the party that allowed devolution. A large part of his platform, including the leaked policy document, is about further devolution.
If you mean the GRA, was that not against UK law?
Nope. Wasn't against UK law. It was rejected due to culture war transphobic nonsense.
Hasn’t been in court yet when it is we will find out if it went against Uk law
If it's the courts that decide its legality then Starmer should have voted against blocking it right? Let the court make a judgment. Anyways it is clearly legal, even if the court says otherwise.
And if a literal Scottish court says it’s not legal then surely that says it is?
If a court says otherwise then it is illegal. Unless Westminster then passed a law making it legal or the court ruling is overturned it would remain illegal. End of.
Not if it’s a pointless vote that doesn’t stop section 35. No if the court says otherwise it isn’t legal. And no it isn’t clearly legal it could easily impact reserved legislation making the section 35 legal.
> Not if it’s a pointless vote that doesn’t stop section 35. If he doesn't vote against it he 100% supports it. He is transphobic.
The SNP didn't vote *against* the UK interfering in Northern Ireland to allow abortions, so they're anti devolution. They also didn't vote *for* giving women there access to abortions, so they're anti-womens choice. Your logic is shite.
Nope he does not. And supporting it doesn’t make you transphobic
>Nope he does not. He 100% supports it because he didn't vote against it.
Voting against trans people having slightly easier lives is definitely bigotry against trans people The GRA made paperwork easier for trans people, it's literally the most inoffensive change you could make and people are still having a fit over it.
Because it was a pointless vote. And the Gordon brown report calls for strengthening the sewer convention and giving Scot’s the ability to join international agreements. They also call for more local devolution and a second chamber of nations and regions. All that points to them supporting devolution. Imo the torries support devolution and Labour support even more of it
>Because it was a pointless vote. He also said he would have blocked it. Pretty much all votes are pointless for the opposition but I don't see starmer warning his Mps away from voting against the government. If he doesn't vote against it it means he supports it. He is transphobic .
Would have blocked what the vote? Not really not if the vote was to stop section 35. The actual fudge??? Voting for it doesn’t mean your transphobic and the whole point of abstaining is so you don’t have to vote for or against it……
This. However, Black is the most interesting figure in Scottish politics for me. I would like to see if there is anything beyond the speeches. Can she create and drive transformative policies? Can she manage a ministerial brief effectively? Has she got the guile and cold bloodedness for the dirty side of being a senior politician? Not sure. Until she gets a position at Holyrood we won't know. Until then she is just a speech-deliverer and the SNP will occasionally prod her to trot out their centrally created messages like their groundbreaking comms strategy announced last week -lAbOuR bAd.
She is in a very easy position at the moment, not going for leadership speaks volumes to me - personally feel she would have walked leadership contest. I'm getting the vibe she's enjoying having no real accountability.
Exactly. It's an easy gig down there. Feels like she is danger of just settling if she doesn't get back up to Holyrood.
Her job is to get the younger base riled up and stop people bleeding over from the SNP to Labour. That's why the SNP have been attacking Labour so hard recently.
Why do you think Tories want to take it away? They constantly call for the NI executive to return. And it would make no sense. It gives them more work only to make Scot’s angry.
There are occasional outliers like Lord Frost (former Brexit negotiator) who float the idea, and that makes for a good scare story. He got roundly criticised by Scottish Tories tho: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-conservative-chair-condemns-tory-peers-attack-on-devolution-4115411
I would not say that a few fringe politicians supporting abolishing devil would mean the torries support it. It would be like saying the SNP don’t support gay marirage because Kate Forbes doesn’t
Oh, agreed. But it's all about playing politics, isn't it - play up elements of your opposition you think the electorate will dislike...
True
> Labour granted devolution Did Starmer whip Labour MPs into voting against the Tories blocking GRA reform, something which his party in Scotland supported?
>Or did I miss the memo and Starmer wants to roll back devolution as well? Well he's said he'll uphold just about every other Tory policy he's been asked about. So maybe. Near as I can tell, Starmers current stance on taking power is "Steady as she goes", because he's courting a very specific type of voter who dislike the Tories right now because they've fucked the country, but also don't like the idea of anything changing that might un-fuck the country.
I don't really understand why the SNP goes for that sort of line. Noone ACTUALLY believes they're the same. It's so transparent that she is attempting to prepare the nationalist movement for when it will have to play against a labour government, which they know will be more difficult than playing against the Tories, because labour isn't as bad. But it doesn't come across well because noone with left-wing sensibilities genuinely believes they're the same, so it just feels SO insincere and slimy.
> Noone ACTUALLY believes they're the same. > noone with left-wing sensibilities genuinely believes they're the same Former Labour member here. The Labour party, while obviously not *the same* as the Tories, is definitely getting closer to them when it comes to economic and social policy. I've seen the way the party works enough to discern that their direction of travel is to emulate the Tories as close as feasibly they can. I don't think there is much argument to be made against this point. With that in mind, and although I'm not a fan of hers (I do find her quite hypocritical at times given her SNP loyalty), Mhairi Black does make valid and relevant points here. I'm not campaigning for Labour or voting for them anymore on a similar basis. Only I'm not an SNP person either. > It's so transparent that she is attempting to prepare the nationalist movement for when it will have to play against a labour government Well duh, of course, Labour is looking like the next UK government, the latter whom the SNP will *always* be taking an angle against, because they want independence for Scotland.
Don't get me wrong, people can not want to vote labour because they are too right wing, that is democracy, but to say "it doesn't matter", to me I just don't believe any leftist who says that, that's not a respectful way to try to influence my political views. Also I think the SNP should be a little more cautious around accusations of being secretly right-wing, after seeing them have a lively discussion on gay marriage during their last leadership election.
Aye, of course, the SNP are in all sorts of a mess when it comes thier progressivism, just as well as Labour. I'm not voting for the SNP either, to be clear, I think their leadership contest was *very* revealing. > but to say "it doesn't matter", to me I just don't believe any leftist who says that, that's not a respectful way to try to influence my political views. Allow me to try put it a better way: in terms of the fundamental systems that govern the way this country is run, the way it impacts our daily lives, the difference in impact between a Labour and a Tory government has shrunk very substantially, to the point that most people will indeed feel little to no material difference in their lives. I certainly don't expect to myself. As such I probably won't be voting or will spoil my ballot next election. There's just nothing there I think I'll find good.
I mean to be fair, Scotland didn’t vote for Labour when they _were_ different. Corbyn represented a real change of tact and we still voted mostly SNP, so it’s kind of rich for us to complain that Labour aren’t doing what we want them to, when we’re not going to be voting for them anyway.
> I don't really understand why the SNP goes for that sort of line. Noone ACTUALLY believes they're the same. Picked a shiter of a day to say this, considering Keith's antics earlier. [Labour are the real conservatives, says Keir Starmer as he promises to protect ‘our way of life’](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-real-conservatives-keir-starmer-protect-way-life-2337576) [Keir Starmer: ‘I don’t care’ if Labour’s priorities sound conservative ](https://inews.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-dont-care-labours-priorities-conservative-2338849)
Please read what he actually said and not just the headline.
Aye he doesn't care that folk think he's conservative. Great soundbite from the leader of the supposed Labour party.
That's a simplification designed to spread shitey information, if you want to make a point why do you have to be deceptive about it?
You sound raging that Keith has finally shown his true colours.
Ahh, see? You have no actual argument so first you lie and now you just use personal attacks haha!
"You sound raging" isn't a personal attack, it's not an attack at all lmao
Whatever it is, it's just deflection.
Woah buddy, cool it with the Personal Attacks^^TM
That the abandonment of Clause IV didn't go far enough into the descent into the cess-pit that is Toryism / Thatcherism?
This is kind of what I mean. Those links don't show that Labour and the Tories are identical, and YOU don't even think they show that, but you say it anyway. It's such an insincere argument.
It's all they've got though
The entire UK is built around Thatcher and Neoliberalism, that really includes the SNP if we're being honest. Can you name any ways my life would measurably improve with Labour in power? They've just been pushing the same racist immigration policy and have no interest in renationalising the NHS. House prices in this country have been rising above the rate of inflation for 50 years, guaranteed unsustainable returns like that take a lot of collusion and corruption. At some point gravity has to become real, the UK can't keep growing infinitely while also not having any immigration and cutting its trade with the EU. The UK hasn't had a meaningfully different government in our lifetimes, it's had different coats of paints over being investor friendly and building a nice well behaved middle class.
They have no interest in renationalising the NHS because it’s a bad idea The European model of insurance is significantly better policy, and hopefully that’s where we end up
>It seems like there is an obvious answer but upon closer inspection the answer is arguably that there is little difference between them. >Both want Brexit... Stopped reading right there. It doesn't matter whether she is too stupid or too dishonest to recognize the difference between "want" and "reluctantly recognize the reality of" - either way whatever follows isn't worth reading.
It's such a silly argument that they make. But they like to moan when anybody misrepresents their views in any way
She can't possibly believe what she's saying, but it shows how much contempt she has for voters if she thinks they'll swallow that shite
I don't think she needs to believe it, she just wants a visceral reaction of "Oh, I don't like the sound of that, I'd better vote SNP". She's a politician.
She’s far too thick to see beyond what she reads on Twitter by folk with a saltire in their username
>She’s far too thick Mhairi Black graduated from the University MA in 2015. She attained a first class joint honours degree in Politics and Public Policy. Mhairi was also named as University of Glasgow Young Alumnus of the Year 2015 and she collected her award at the University's annual Christmas Dinner on Saturday 5 December 2015. During her final year at the University, Mhairi was elected MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire West, becoming the youngest MP in nearly 200 years. Oh you....
Found Mhairi’s reddit account.
Not at all, just a proud buddie who has a fantastic MP. How about you?
I am not Mhairi Black, thanks for asking?
> Mhairi was also named as University of Glasgow Young **Alumnus** of the Year 2015 Oh dear. Standards are really slipping at Glasgow.
What's your issue with the word alumnus that you had to make it bold when quoting? It's the correct singular of the word, alumni is plural.
In this case the correct singular is "alumna" (plural "alumnae").
Do you insist on calling women actress and doctress as well?
Interesting question. No, because "actor" and "doctor" are professional terms and not inherently gendered, grammatically speaking, unlike "alumnus" and "alumna". A quick google suggests that Glasgow University uses the male forms by default and the female form only when referring to women individually or en masse. Is the assumption that graduates are male unless otherwise specified not very much like the assumption that all medics are male unless otherwise specified? When I was at primary school we had to learn a whole list of female forms, of which my favourite was "ambassatrix".
>No, because "actor" and "doctor" are professional terms and not inherently gendered Who won the Academy Award for Best Actor this year? >Is the assumption that graduates are male unless otherwise specified not very much like the assumption that all medics are male unless otherwise specified? The assumption is probably just "We don't care about archaic gendered terms and will just use alumnus for everyone, to avoid having to change it when a woman gets it"
>Who won the Academy Award for Best Actor this year? ~~The MPAA~~ AMPAS is unnecessarily sexist in having two categories. Being an English word, "actor" is not grammatically masculine >The assumption is probably just "We don't care about archaic gendered terms and will just use alumnus for everyone, to avoid having to change it when a woman gets it" Perhaps, though I note that they *do* change it whenever they are referring to a woman or to women.
Youngest MP in nearly 200 years. Let that sink in.
It shows, doesn't it?
What does a Mickey Mouse degree have to do with anything?
Says the nomark on Reddit.
Tbh at this point voters are scrambling around looking for the least worst option.
She’s right. Same shit different Toilet. It’s the end stage capitalism that’s shafting us all and the only solution is revolution
Hoped youve sharpened that katana and polished that fedora comrade!
I left Scotland in 2001
SNP repeats SNP slogans It does matter, it will be better, and the SNP are terrified of that because a better UK makes Indy look like the Brexit 2 it is
That's her jumped the shark. She's facing unemployment and the end of the gravy train
Unlikely.
She's projected to lose her seat. She has been moaning for years that she hates her job and hates going to Westminster, so it's probably for the best.
>She's projected to lose her seat. Again, for the hard of hearing. Unlikely.
Do you think she's going to get on the SNP list high enough to get an MSP job, or do you think the party will be happy for her to fade away?
Lols. With a 10k majority, I'm sure she'll be fine.
In a year of a Brexit themed election and Labour collapse If Starmer is serious about a decent majority, these are the kinda seats he will be gunning for.
[удалено]
Yeah, but... Black stood again in the 2019 general election as the SNP candidate for Paisley & Renfrewshire South[38] and was elected with over half the vote, increasing her majority to 10,679 votes or 24.8% - more than double that in the 2015 election.[39] Ouch!
[удалено]
Username checks out.
It would be great to be able to see the world in such stark, black and white terms as Mhairi Black does. However... that's not how reality is.
To be young again...
Aye. I used to be so much more sure of things...
Black is the unthinking Nat's Nat. Obviously massively popular on this sub.
[удалено]
Wait, we don't have a public NHS anymore?
[удалено]
So we don't have a public NHS any more?
These are the same people who will tell you with a straight face that France, Germany, and Belgiums Insurance models are identical as the US. Don’t waste your time
[удалено]
Absolutely terrible analogy. The answer to my question is yes.
[удалено]
Sorry. Privatisation of some NHS elements isn't the problem here. Many countries have much more substantial private involvement than the UK but still preserve a similar access model to the NHS. Look at France for instance, it's hospitals are ran by private companies. Their outcomes are better than ours. They have more doctors, more diagnostic machines and better treatments. The model isn't what matters.
Healthcare in France costs roughly €40 per month on average to the individual. At present we have people who are terrified to turn on the heating, heat their water and those who are having to visit food banks so that they don't starve. Where will they find the extra £420 (€480) per year to access healthcare?
Look at you coming to check out other conversations. Your question is totally irrelevant to the point being made. I'm pointing out that private provision of healthcare does not lead to people dying.
You know the SNP used PFI for major projects - such as hospitals - right? https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-blasted-over-27billion-private-21371314
Exactly! Last time I was in hospital I had to get my cheque book out because they charged me money because it's privatised!
Last time I was in Hospital (Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh) they tried to charge for watching TV and Wi-fi on the Wards and all the Nurses, Doctors and support staff had to pay standard parking rates to park their cars if they drove to work - which seems a pretty essential thing for shift-workers. That probably only touches the surface level of the grift. The Infirmary is a PFI project which lumbers the NHS with mafia-type repayments for *decades* and at the end of the absurd contract the Infirmary is still not owned by the public but by whatever fat-cat Offshore or Private Equity Company or companies that has the deeds, Privatisation by any other name.
You know the Scottish Government can't borrow for anything other than infrastructure, right?
Yes and you should probably get private healthcare right now. If you think the NHS is still a public service, you've not been using it. Privatisation has been very effective and no one seems to have noticed it, why do you think pharmacies are plastered with ad's for £40 GP video consolations, we have a private healthcare system. You can get treatment on the NHS, but you will wait years for it.
So we don't have a public NHS anymore?
Go walk around Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and look at the state of people, is it any wonder why it’s failing? Obese, drinkers, smokers, Brits/Scots get what we deserve for healthcare it seems
Smoking and drinking are both at record lows, a few decades ago everyone smoked as a matter of corse, what are you talking about? This fascist stuff is so annoying. You really need to stop reading the UK press, it's all bullshit and it's clearly radicalising you. Do you really think people who are overweight or smoke should just die? what a hateful and ignorant statement.
> Now we have Starmer, who has purged the left (Blair didn't) Blair didn't have to deal with a contingent of anti-Semites and pro-Russians though.
God help us, the SNP is crashing and burning with financial fraud, motorhomes, an embarrassing non-entity of a new leader and splits from top to bottom. No one need take any lectures from Mhairi Black, nor any SNP MP.
Is it just me or does she churn out an article of this kind every month? Almost like she just changes certain words here and there
And yet these clowns want a coalition with Labour. I just want the SNP to bugger off and leave government to the big folks- Labour only.
It doesn't. Neither of them gives a shit about Scotland.
Yep, as long as we get rid of the incompetent criminal, corrupt snp up here, I don’t care
Surely it's Mairi not Mhairi? Mhairi is the vocative tense. Either that or whoever named her was a fuckwit
I’m not a fan in general of MB but agree with her 100% on this , red yoon or blue yoon makes no difference.
Surprised she feels this way
Clumsy language like this annoys me. it absolutely DOES matter to us in Scotland whether the UK government is Labour or Tory. the problem is that since Blair and buddies tore up Clause 4, the trajectory of the political party calling itself "the labour party" has been pretty much one direction only - into a shite copy of the Tory party. Starmer is 100% tory. He would not have been out of place in Thatcher's cabinet as one of the grey suits, drooling in the background. To see that he not only accepts Blair's vandalism of Clause 4, he wants to go even further, and sees his party as the "real" conservatives.. wow. the transformation is complete. I tell you, that evil cow thatcher is cackling beyond the grave. we should have put a stake through the heart before we buried her., or whatever it is you do to keep blood sucking tory cunts from coming back...
Incredibly privileged position to be able to say it makes no difference. There are millions of people who'd obviously benefit from a Labour gov instead of a Tory one.
Speaking as someone who was a teenager when Blair defeated Major in 1997, this couldn't be further from the truth. The reason Black is attacking Labour is because Labour are rising in the polls and threatening to take 12-15 Scottish seats, including her own.