#393

the whole interview is a fucking car crash! wow.

i like the Colin MacKay guy. pretty good.

2 Likes
#394

The vote could be uncomfortable for Scottish Labour which has close ties to the 50 unions who make up the STUC.

Anas Sarwar, who leads the party, has repeatedly stressed that he is “unequivocal in terms of my position on not supporting a referendum on independence”.

The last time I checked, the SNP trade union sub-group had more members than the entire Scottish Labour Party. What benefit are these ‘close ties’ actually bringing to the unions and their members?

Delgates at the STUC also rejected the so-called “supermajority” for independence being pursued by Alex Salmond’s Alba.

:+1: The supermajority non-concept is bollox that only serves to create an opportunity for the legitimacy of an actual majority to be questioned.

#395

agreed. there is already a fucking majority for indy, so why adding the word “super” to it, with a bunch of TERFs, i do not understand.

1 Like
#396

Just plucking an arbitrary 60% out of thin air as well, right? Not even 67% so it’s more than 2:1.

Silly games were played in 1979 with random arbitrary rules. Let’s not go down that route again.

Other than the ego trip thing, it’s difficult to see why Salmond’s putting it out there.

Without checking, I assume one explanation floating about will be a conspiracy theory that ‘they’ve got to him and he’s now working for the other side’. :grinning:

1 Like
#397

wow blimey didn’t know that. when was that out of interest?

#398

~three years ago, maybe. Just had a quick gander but couldn’t verify current numbers.

#399

Scottish labour numbers appear to be quite a lot lower now than in 2018. down from perhaps ~22k to perhaps ~16k

#400

This is such a bad position to be in.

Frankly, I cannot understand any party no wanting to do another referendum, in the face of a majority for it in the ScotParl. I mean, Labour aren’t usually on the wrong side of these things, but this is one they are consitently on the wrong side; i don’t mean the “No” side, i mean the side that suggests that even if they ScotParl vote for parties for it, that they wouldn’t support a referendum.

It’s frankly a bit absurd to void the question based on that fact you don’t want to answer it, when you already know your answer.

4 Likes
#401

But he just said Hello to me, Nicola Sturgeon has never said Hello to me.

#402

ive met nicola sturgeon and i think she might say hello to you

1 Like
#403

oh yes vote SNP/Green

6 Likes
#404

“…some sort of lease arrangement allowing for Trident submarines to have “uninterrupted and continuously permissioned” access to Scottish territorial waters…”

Pffft. Wheelclamp it on day 1, then shut it down and confiscate it if it hasn’t been taken away within six months. £1bn/day fine if it’s collected after that.

“There would also be implications for Scotland’s future membership of Nato…”

Does my face look bothered?

:peace_symbol: :v: :dove:

2 Likes
#405

The subs could be moored next to all those 90%-of-the-time-empty “holiday homes” in Cornwall.

1 Like
#406

They could be holiday homes.

1 Like
#407

I suspect that following a successful Yes vote, Nicola Sturgeon is canny and “pragmatic” enough to keep the option of leasing the site back to the UK on the table. It’s the biggest negotiating chip they’d hold by a very long way, particularly with the current UK govt.

1 Like
#408

SNP have never managed to nab that SP constituency due to Jackie Baillie’s support for Faslane (part of the reason Scottish Labour are never too vocal on the issue). The employment it provides is a huge issue for that area, even if it is a tiny number of jobs for the billions spent on it. I obviously want it closed down on day one, but I hope some specific investment can be offered to the constituency to offset it. It would be a shame to see it become a single issue plaything that shits on an area that already ranks quite high on the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

EDIT: Wasn’t meant to be a direct response to eems, but you’re right - The rent payments would be huge! The UK Government won’t want the hassle of trying to shift them elsewhere as it will suddenly make them an issue of wider national discussion.

1 Like
#409

I more meant that, as per the article Sheeldz linked explains, there isn’t another option for a sub base in the UK. So it’s not about hassle, it’s about retaining the nuclear status full stop. Which is a pretty humongous bargaining chip for the Scottish Government to use in the wider negotiations that will have to happen on the post-independence settlement.

Speaking of which, I’ve been kind of blithely assuming that such negotiations will be a complete nightmare, based largely on the experience of Brexit. Does anyone have any links to articles or anything that addresses this question?

1 Like
#410

Not yet. In the original Indy Doc, Scotland’s Future, there was a suggestion that the negotiations would be in good faith, but Brexit shit on that. I think that Scotland’s position was “We’ll consult on it, and then negotiate” but frankly it’s the biggest black hole in the current strategy, and one that the Tories really could be exploiting - but instead they’re going down the Stop Something that Won’t Happen Under Boris™ route that’s “worked” before.

It’s a substantial issue and one that is difficult to foresee won’t be a bit of a ballache. However, seeing as Scotland’s got a bunch of stuff of theirs already (law, health, education) it’s more the transfer of funds, debt per head on the UK’s obligations, pensions, defence and the border that’ll be the big ones - which already were the big ones, but the argument’s a hard one for the Tories.

For example, the Indy strategy would be “Well, the EU was more democratic than the UK Westminster current set up, so if you voted and pushed through a really damaging Brexit based on that, how can you aruge against a well planned and fair Scottish Indy?” which, I’ll admit, is easily arguable back, but it’s the starting point I reckon…

1 Like
#411

But it’s not going to be a debate what’s fair, it’ll be a power struggle. And much like the EU’s position in the Brexit negotiations, I suspect the UK government will be able to just sit back and point at their red lines because the default - independence not going ahead - is their preferred end point anyway.

#412

That’s not going to be up to them, though, is it? The UK gov might have been able to happily red line itself into a hard Brexit, but it can’t feasibly do anything to stop independence.

Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?