Nicola Sturgeon

[Saddleworth2]

Good point. He very much strikes me as a man of his word.

Absolutely. 100% down the middle kind of guy.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Good strong political figure, I have some admiration for her - but, I don’t want the United Kingdom to break up , so I strongly disagree with her independence policy.

 

[Coatigan]

I guess she doesn’t really care what the English think of her. Her job is to further the cause of Scottish nationalism, and she’s doing a pretty good job of that judging by the opinion polls. Admittedly she’s been dealt a fairly decent hand by facing the worst Conservative and Labour leaders in living memory.

What makes her more successful, and likeable than the other leaders, isnt that she promotes Scottish nationalism. in many ways, that doesnt need promoted much. It is that she promotes Scottish social and progressive values, ones based on inclusivity, humanity and an ambition for growth. Something claimed scotland have never had the chance to pursue under Westminster. With nationalism and independence portrayed as the method/vehicle of achieving them.

Unlike the inward-looking, exclusive, 'everyone is below us', conservative, and largely xenophobic drive behind brexit as an end result to enable a 'return to a better time when we could just be ourselves'.

Sure, neither apply to all, there are moderates and the extreme in both. but as underlying ideologies, they are certainly pursued and promoted completely differently.

 

[Coatigan]

Well the Scottish Unionists I’ve met hate her with a passion and were at pains to point out that she doesn’t speak for the whole of Scotland. I just have a feeling the election in Scotland isn’t going to be the walk in the park some seem to think. The Unionist voice isn’t being heard at the moment and that’s a hell of a lot of people who are frustrated at the way their country is being portrayed.

Don't disagree with that. The SNP, even before blackford, at Westminster, do come across as a group of clowns, with a one string banjo. But then, so does the entire parliament in the last 3 years, there has hardly been any other discussion than on brexit. And even then, it was the snp that put forward the cross party talks and indicative votes, that may and corbyn couldnt agree on, so it isnt pure cock blocking they do.

The issue is, no other uk-wide party really seems to try to speak or care for scotland, or have the ability to convince the public they do, unionist or otherwise.

Which is why there are many unionists that happily vote snp, will say no to in
independence, and have no issue with being asked again, and again and again (as being asked again isnt undrmocratic). They know where they stand, they trust the public, they agree with snp policies beyond the one main one.

 

[Coatigan]

What will swing it imo is 5 more years of Boris. That will do it.

And that is what i think she is banking on. Brexit, and the single minded pursuit of it (where a reported 70% leavers, both in public and parliament, have shown that achieving brexit is worth breaking up the precious unionh) has already done the heavy lifting, that may be the final push needed. Add to that 5 years of a changing voting demographic, and who could call it?

I personally still don't see an overall desire for it, nor enough of a swing myself. But, she certainly does absolutely have the mandate, if not the public numbers yet.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Don't disagree with that. The SNP, even before blackford, at Westminster, do come across as a group of clowns, with a one string banjo. But then, so does the entire parliament in the last 3 years, there has hardly been any other discussion than on brexit. And even then, it was the snp that put forward the cross party talks and indicative votes, that may and corbyn couldnt agree on, so it isnt pure cock blocking they do.

The issue is, no other uk-wide party really seems to try to speak or care for scotland, or have the ability to convince the public they do, unionist or otherwise.

Which is why there are many unionists that happily vote snp, will say no to in
independence, and have no issue with being asked again, and again and again (as being asked again isnt undrmocratic). They know where they stand, they trust the public, they agree with snp policies beyond the one main one.

Not sure I agree with that mate. Blackford and Cherry have been strong parliamentarians over the last couple of years and shown good examples of cross party cooperation and in Cherry's case a strong defence of parliament. It was her that went to the Scottish courts to stop the illegal prorogation of parliament. Of course there have been examples of childish behaviour as well but in the main I think they have represented Scotland pretty well. I would ask you to flip it - if say LD or Labour politicians were to take the SNP MP's places do you think they would have done a better or worse job at representing Scottish interests?

 

[Coatigan]

Not sure I agree with that mate. Blackford and Cherry have been strong parliamentarians over the last couple of years and shown good examples of cross party cooperation and in Cherry's case a strong defence of parliament. It was her that went to the Scottish courts to stop the illegal prorogation of parliament. Of course there have been examples of childish behaviour as well but in the main I think they have represented Scotland pretty well. I would ask you to flip it - if say LD or Labour politicians were to take the SNP MP's places do you think they would have done a better or worse job at representing Scottish interests?

Oh 100%, you are right, LD or labour representing scotland, it would be pure party preservation, any meaningful national interest would be lost, it would be like having multiple wet dishchloths like Mundell.

I find the Snp at westminster annoying. But, in the context of the entire parliament, what can realisticly be different? other parties, just making up numbers, is that any better? the 13 Scottish torries have shown not. At the end of the day, the snp lot have been elected there and are sticking to the script that got them there, so theres hardly an arguement they don't speak for their constituents or nationals.

 

[LeeJay]

Don't disagree with that. The SNP, even before blackford, at Westminster, do come across as a group of clowns, with a one string banjo. But then, so does the entire parliament in the last 3 years, there has hardly been any other discussion than on brexit. And even then, it was the snp that put forward the cross party talks and indicative votes, that may and corbyn couldnt agree on, so it isnt pure cock blocking they do.

The issue is, no other uk-wide party really seems to try to speak or care for scotland, or have the ability to convince the public they do, unionist or otherwise.

Which is why there are many unionists that happily vote snp, will say no to in
independence, and have no issue with being asked again, and again and again (as being asked again isnt undrmocratic). They know where they stand, they trust the public, they agree with snp policies beyond the one main one.

While Sturgeon talks about the 'future of our country' and 'a vote for the SNP is to escape Brexit, a vote for the SNP is a vote to take Scotland's future out of the hands of Boris Johnson and a broken Westminster system, a vote for the SNP is a vote to put the future of Scotland firmly in Scotland's hands.'

She also speaks of an 'NHS protection bill to protect the NHS in all four countries of the UK.' which is, tbf, a great bill.

But, with the vote on Scotland's independence from the uk, does Scotland have the right to access the NHS - something Scotts people have paid into their whole lives? A National Health Service is for national use, it can't be applied to none national states, surely?

I'm confused about this, obviously.

The Scottish people have invested in the NHS, but by definition within the Bill it would need Westminster's explicit consent for Scotland to access the NHS if it chooses independence?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50332391

 

[blueinsa]

While Sturgeon talks about the 'future of our country' and 'a vote for the SNP is to escape Brexit, a vote for the SNP is a vote to take Scotland's future out of the hands of Boris Johnson and a broken Westminster system, a vote for the SNP is a vote to put the future of Scotland firmly in Scotland's hands.'

She also speaks of an 'NHS protection bill to protect the NHS in all four countries of the UK.' which is, tbf, a great bill.

But, with the vote on Scotland's independence from the uk, does Scotland have the right to access the NHS - something Scotts people have paid into their whole lives? A National Health Service is for national use, it can't be applied to none national states, surely?

I'm confused about this, obviously.

The Scottish people have invested in the NHS, but by definition within the Bill it would need Westminster's explicit consent for Scotland to access the NHS if it chooses independence?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50332391

Wait for the arguments about Scottish Army regiments and bases north of the wall and what happens to them.

Independence isn't happening anytime soon and she knows it.

Threat, threat, threat and a bit more devolution is handed to them and they get what they wanted all along.....rinse and repeat.

 

[hgblue]

Wait for the arguments about Scottish Army regiments and bases north of the wall and what happens to them.

Independence isn't happening anytime soon and she knows it.

Threat, threat, threat and a bot more devolution is handed to them and they get what they wanted all along.....rinse and repeat.

Blackford was asked this morning what happens if they fail to agree a deal regarding Scotland leaving the UK. The fat fool failed to even understand the question.