Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The simple truth is that as things stand, the opposition parties occupy more seats than the SNP, ergo the SNP do not hold a majority. A fact that you seem unable to acknowledge.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, cause as far as I can see, SNP have been in charge for the last 14 years. Call it minority or whatever you like, but they're running things. Not that long ago, the Tories had only 1 Scottish MP.
 
That's only your opinion, SNP voters in the main think they do a better job than any of the opposition parties. They are not swayed by the propaganda and false information that you appear to believe, so win the most seats in any election.
Tell us some of the successes that the SNP have delivered, maybe by posting the positives of the SNP government you might sway more support your way.
 
That’s the Elephant in the room.
Whenever media coverage is given to a SNP MP or MSP or they’re given a soapbox to spout on all you get is Indy Indy Indy, thus they try and give the impression that it’s all of Scotland who want a referendum. Yet the only voice the rest of Scotland has is through the ballot box i.e. the vote in 2014 ( although that seems to getting ignored).
Perhaps a very vocal anti-referendum party that also doesn’t give a toss about how Scotland is ran is the answer
Well, given that Scotland has a population of about 5.5 million of which let‘s say 4.5 million are eligible to vote.
About 50% turn out to vote (on a good day) and about 50% of them vote SNP. That’s about 1 million voters that overtly support independence for Scotland.

So that’s 1 million people out of a population of 67 million trying to break up the UK, where 62 million don’t even get to vote on the issue. Seems fair to me...
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, cause as far as I can see, SNP have been in charge for the last 14 years. Call it minority or whatever you like, but they're running things. Not that long ago, the Tories had only 1 Scottish MP.
What makes you think I give a stuff how many seats the Tories have?
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, cause as far as I can see, SNP have been in charge for the last 14 years. Call it minority or whatever you like, but they're running things. Not that long ago, the Tories had only 1 Scottish MP.
But the Conservatives have 30 msp's now and the SNP only "run things" because the Greens and LibDems let them.
 
On a different topic:

the statistics that really matter, IMO, are numbers of people in hospital, and deaths. Both these have been steadily declining .. even as cases have plateaued.

truth is, with over 99% of the most vulnerable vaccinated, it is time to end lockdown .. the main risk has been addressed. Against this background, trying to eliminate CV19 altogether or to keep cases low is not justified on social, economic or moral grounds.
 
Perhaps a very vocal anti-referendum party that also doesn’t give a toss about how Scotland is ran is the answer

The Conservatives in Scotland are bit confused as to who and what they are.

The Labour Party in general seems a bit bewildered. Though Maybe Mr Sarwar will inject some energy and focus in Scotland..

If here was another Indyref then I think it might get a bit more emotional - even a bit nastier - than the 2014 edition. In 2014 the No side was a bit quieter and passive and while there were some nutters on the Yes side the majority on each side were reasonably respectful and civil. If there is another edition soon I think there will be a bit more anger and resentment involved on the No side and that will probably cause a bit more reaction on the Yes side in reaction. On that basis no matter the actual outcome it would leave Scotland in a worse place.
 
On a different topic:

the statistics that really matter, IMO, are numbers of people in hospital, and deaths. Both these have been steadily declining .. even as cases have plateaued.

truth is, with over 99% of the most vulnerable vaccinated, it is time to end lockdown .. the main risk has been addressed. Against this background, trying to eliminate CV19 altogether or to keep cases low is not justified on social, economic or moral grounds.
Inclined to agree with you on this. If the downward trend in hospital cases and deaths continues, it’s hard to see justification for significant restrictions after Easter.

Seems to me that the main risk to the UK going forward is likely to be new strains (that may be resistant to the vaccines) arriving from other nations that have not yet made enough progress in their vaccine rollout programmes.
 
truth is, with over 99% of the most vulnerable vaccinated, it is time to end lockdown .. the main risk has been addressed. Against this background, trying to eliminate CV19 altogether or to keep cases low is not justified on social, economic or moral grounds.

I don't think we are there yet. Not quite.

But the point is relevant. But it's complicated by four factors:

- the need for priority groups to receive their second dose
- the delay in weeks from first or second dose to reasonable protection
- the appropriate level of retention of restrictions such as numbers, distancing and masks
- strict border controls

We may see the gap between first and second doses being extebded if there are shortages. And we have the risk of new strains.

Even with the priority groups partially or fully immunised there is still a big risk of substantial number of infections among those not immunised - or those who do not have effective protection.

Soas an example - if we had rampant covid among the unimmunised (or unprotected) then how many kids might die? Even if the risk to them is tiny - a tiny risk with large numbers is a large number.
 
A leaked report says ministers will make vaccination mandatory for workers in adult social care amid concerns over low vaccination take up.

 
A leaked report says ministers will make vaccination mandatory for workers in adult social care amid concerns over low vaccination take up.

Hmmm... hard to be happy about forcing people to have something injected into their bodies, even though I agree that workers in social care should be vaccinated.

Strongly encouraged? Yes absolutely.
Forced? Nope, not comfortable with that.
 
Soas an example - if we had rampant covid among the unimmunised (or unprotected) then how many kids might die? Even if the risk to them is tiny - a tiny risk with large numbers is a large number.

risk to kids is tiny

50 and above is where the risk is .. and most of them will have had their jabs by month end

20BB8BED-6369-4C91-8DB3-DBED03058ACE.png
 
risk to kids is tiny

50 and above is where the risk is .. and most of them will have had their jabs by month end
Yes ... the risk is small.

Now let Covid run rampant - then take that small and apply against a population of several million.

We end up with the story of the pandemc changing - with pictures of kids in hospital. Tiny % - but large enough numbers.

So far amongst all the misery of this pandemic we have been spared the horror of large numbers of kids in hospital - in part because the risk is small - in part due to the lockdown rediucing their exposure.

Any release of the lockdown *owes a duty of care* to those who are unprotected even if the risk to them is small.
 
Hmmm... hard to be happy about forcing people to have something injected into their bodies, even though I agree that workers in social care should be vaccinated.

Strongly encouraged? Yes absolutely.
Forced? Nope, not comfortable with that.
It is a difficult one - to my mind given the risks involved i'm happy with people being forced. I see it as no different to someone working in a high risk environment having to undergo training to protect themselves and those around them. Or more similarly having to prove you have been vaccinated against say Yellow Fever if you want to enter Country X. I know i've experienced this before - i can't remember where, Angola maybe. If people don't like it they still have the choice to work in a different industry, so in that sense they are not trapped completely.
 
My theory - based on the way this looks like it is so artificially nuanced - is that this story was covered up a decade ago. And threre in lies the problem for both parties. If that were the case then it's a bit unfortunate probably for Ms Sturgeon that she would have got caught up in some back room decision making taht leaves her technically exposed - when the source of the problem would have been Mr Salmond.

So my guess is that the 4 day discrepancy is a skirmish involving conventinal weapons. Both sides can't afford to go nuclear - particularly because they would drag in other people who would be forced to admit they were part of the story. So both sides had a bit of a fight and Mr Salmond attempted to entrap Ms Sturgeon while not actually pushing the mutual self destruct button.

As for disclosure - the SNP - with the prize of independence - is arguably operating a bit like a church - with a couple of cliques fighting. Neither wants to undermine the church. So much more closed than the likes of the Conservatives or Labour if a similar skirmish had occured in the Westminster parties.
I doubt that this goes back ten years. Simply, Sturgeon until recently had a great deal of respect for Salmond and I don't believe she is so lacking in principle that she could have held him in such high regard knowing he was sexually abusive.

More likely in my mind the information was leaked to her when the allegations first surfaced in the form of ''don't tell anyone I told you but.....''

Only my perception though. Exactly what happened is still a mystery. No motivation (ie to usurp) for pursuing a prosecution against Salmond and no evidence sufficient to gain a conviction. Everything else seems to be a bare knuckle fight about procedures.
 
What I was told by the woman who vaccinated me this afternoon is that the evidence isn't as yet conclusive as to the efficacy of vaccines in preventing transmission of the virus and therefore despite (maybe even because of) wide spread vaccination the virus is still free to roam and possibly mutate into strains that there currently are no vaccines to resist.
 
I doubt that this goes back ten years. Simply, Sturgeon until recently had a great deal of respect for Salmond and I don't believe she is so lacking in principle that she could have held him in such high regard knowing he was sexually abusive.

Detaching from the actual situation - I think that large organisations and institutions in general have problems dealing with the kind of situation which arises where a senior officer is subject to accusation.

With hindsight where there was a pattern we all think it was obvious. But if you are part of that institution then the pattern may not be visible because of the way matters emerge. It can take time to establish truth.

And if it's a situation that involves somebody who is a close and respected colleague and threatens reputation - that's quite a thing to deal with.

And with a political party there this a lot at stake - we can see how the polls have been affected by the situation.
 
I see the Scottish Tory vote of no confidence was defeated, just like the last one a couple of weeks ago. What a pathetic bunch of hypocrits.
 
I am thinking of starting a campaign for a referendum in the rest of the union as to whether Scotland should be allowed to remain.
I know exactly where my vote would go.
 
I am thinking of starting a campaign for a referendum in the rest of the union as to whether Scotland should be allowed to remain.
I know exactly where my vote would go.
Best news I've heard all day, go for it, I'll vote for it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom