Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I love that the EU is getting poked in the eye by HMG on diplomatic status .. hit the Eurocrats where it hurts. For once, they can't hit back šŸ˜‚
 
I would prefer that all sides be constructive and avoid poking anybody in the eye.
Ultimately that's where it will (or at least should) end up.

But at the moment the EU (who are masters of petty bureaucracy) through French and Dutch Customs are engaging in their usual pettiness - searching lorry cabs for illegal sandwiches, demanding touring musicians apply for dozens of visas, confiscating bottles of Nando's sauce, checking every fish in a shipment for diseases, etc. - so it does no harm to remind them that we can make their lives awkward if we wish to, and that it's not a one-way street.
 
I don't know if NS is engaging in muscle-flexing, rattling the cage, rocking the boat, testing the water, etc, or perhaps she really means what she is saying.

But if it is the latter, then it would seem that she has learnt nothing from recent events.

The science of Psychology tells us that people are very responsive to perceived injustice. When there's a fundamental decision involved, and the population is split (roughly) down the middle, any large-scale feelings of injustice will very quickly translate to unrest, violence, and possibly even revolution or civil war.

The reason that Democracies are able to contain these situations is that the majority of those who lost the vote believe it was done via a fair process, and only a minority think that they are subject of injustice - which is insufficient to mobilise the majority.

In countries with poor Democratic record, the results of election can quickly descent into large-scale violence, because the people in those countries do not trust the fairness of the elections process, and therefore feel cheated. Again, it has more to do with perceived injustice, as opposed to just not being happy with the elections results - it's the former that will mobilise people into action, and this is why non-Democratic counties have a difficulty in containing such events .

The first Scotland Independence Referendum, the Brexit Referendum, and the recent US elections are all examples where those who felt that the process was unfair (as opposed to just being unhappy with the end result) were in the minority and were unable to cause civil unrest or more.

If NS proceeds with a second Scotland Independence Referendum without the consent of the UK Parliament, and she is successful in her endeavour to achieve a Leave vote, then there's a grave risk that a large part of the 40+ percent of voters who will have voted against Scotland's departure from the UK will feel that the calling of a second Scotland Independence Referendum - without the relevant legal authority as currently required in law - amounts to cheating, and the proportion of people who will feel that the process was unfair will be significantly higher than it was in the previous Scotland Independence Referendum.

This situation can lead to all sort of unwanted outcomes, possibly beyond what NS' government can contain.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if NS is engaging in muscle-flexing, rattling the cage, rocking the boat, testing the water, etc, or perhaps she really means what she is saying.

But if it is the latter, then it would seem that she has learnt nothing from recent events.

The science of Psychology tells us that people are very responsive to perceived injustice. When there's a fundamental decision involved, and the population is split (roughly) down the middle, any large-scale feelings of injustice will very quickly translate to unrest, violence, and possibly even revolution or civil war.

The reason that Democracies are able to contain these situations is that the majority of those who lost the vote believe it was done via a fair process, and only a minority think that they are subject of injustice - which is insufficient to mobilise the majority.

In countries with poor Democratic record, the results of election can quickly descent into large-scale violence, because the people in those countries do not trust the fairness of the elections process, and therefore feel cheated. Again, it has more to do with perceived injustice, as opposed to just not being happy with the elections results - it's the former that will mobilise people into action, and this is why non-Democratic counties have a difficulty in containing such events .

The first Scotland Independence Referendum, the Brexit Referendum, and the recent US elections are all examples where those who felt that the process was unfair (as opposed to just being unhappy with the end result) were in the minority and were unable to cause civil unrest or more.

If NS proceeds with a second Scotland Independence Referendum without the consent of the UK Parliament, and she is successful in her endeavour to achieve a Leave vote, then there's a grave risk that a large part of the 40+ percent of voters who will have voted against Scotland's departure from the UK will feel that the calling of a second Scotland Independence Referendum - without the relevant legal authority as currently required in law - amounts to cheating, and the proportion of people who will feel that the process was unfair will be significantly higher than it was in the previous Scotland Independence Referendum.

This situation can lead to all sort of unwanted outcomes, possibly beyond what NS' government can contain.
But you can bet when it hits the fan Sturgeon will say it is Westminsters fault.
 
But you can bet when it hits the fan Sturgeon will say it is Westminsters fault.

Perhaps so, but violence is only ever in the interest of the side that lost the vote.

A Leave votes followed by unrest and violence cannot be a good result for NS (let alone for Scotland), regardless of who she'll blame for it.

Rocking the boat is only good for those who have nothing to lose.
 
I don't know if NS is engaging in muscle-flexing, rattling the cage, rocking the boat, testing the water, etc, or perhaps she really means what she is saying.

There are some issues with they way things are being described - the SNP has the provocotive declare UDI type camp that would have an unsanctioned referendum in a heartbeat - and there are those like Ms Sturgeon who have to pander to them and offer up something different - knowing that an unsanctioned referendum could lead to a world of legal pain.

Ms. Sturgeon has always been caught between the hardcore elements in her party and the ones who are fronting it. She has very little in the way of depth in terms of the team behind her. She is currently under severe attack from *within* her own party. (A demonstration of how weak and pathetic the opposition parties are in Scotland that despite how poorly governed Scotland is that the incumbant dominant party has the time for infighting and is anticipating an increase in the number of seats at Holyrood at the next Scottish election).

I didn't think that Ms Sturgeon looked physically OK in the last media interview I saw. I don't think that is unconnected.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Well, Brian Rose wasn't actually arrested, just given a fine, and it wasn't for 'political campaigning', but for breaking lockdown rules, but hey, where he comes from, facts don't matter, they are only means to an end anyway..... :D
 
I would prefer that all sides be constructive and avoid poking anybody in the eye.
I suspect the UK's restriction of the EU to the lesser status of a diplomatic mission rather than granting it full diplomatic status with an embassy/ambassador etc mirrors exactly the UK's former diplomatic relations with the EU while we were still a member. The problem lies with the fact we maintain standard diplomatic relations [embassy/ambassador] with many individual countries in the EU so in the event of a " diplomatic incident " there would be a clash of precedence between the individual country and the EU if it too had full diplomatic status.
 
Lisa Nandy has thrown her support behind abolition of the armed services in favour of a balanced and ethnically diverse peace force.

She has denied that she supported this but there is clear video of her gushing over the report.

Anyway somebody on talk radio asked how this force would react if we were to be invaded. Somebody suggested that they could sit down before the invading force and sing Cum Bye Ya.
 
Lisa Nandy has thrown her support behind abolition of the armed services in favour of a balanced and ethnically diverse peace force.
She is totally out of her depth, like most of the Shadow Cabinet - Annelise Dodds for example
 
She is totally out of her depth, like most of the Shadow Cabinet - Annelise Dodds for example

Totally agree. No charisma, no integrity no experience, no gravitas. A sixth form school council member at best.
 
If NS proceeds with a second Scotland Independence Referendum without the consent of the UK Parliament, and she is successful in her endeavour to achieve a Leave vote, then there's a grave risk that a large part of the 40+ percent of voters who will have voted against Scotland's departure from the UK will feel that the calling of a second Scotland Independence Referendum - without the relevant legal authority as currently required in law - amounts to cheating, and the proportion of people who will feel that the process was unfair will be significantly higher than it was in the previous Scotland Independence Referendum.

This situation can lead to all sort of unwanted outcomes, possibly beyond what NS' government can contain.

For those who don't acknowledge the authority of Holyrood to hold such a referendum without consent there is a dilemma.

If you vote you are potentially recognising the referendum and its outcome.​
If you refuse to vote because you do not recognise it then you are unrepresented.​

My guess is that such a referendum would be come a "vote yes" vs "don't vote" campaign.

This is why there is a suggestion that such a referendum would not be on independence but on authorising negotiations to independence. So a referendum to get a referendum.
 
For those who don't acknowledge the authority of Holyrood to hold such a referendum without consent there is a dilemma.

If you vote you are potentially recognising the referendum and its outcome.​
If you refuse to vote because you do not recognise it then you are unrepresented.​

My guess is that such a referendum would be come a "vote yes" vs "don't vote" campaign.

This is why there is a suggestion that such a referendum would not be on independence but on authorising negotiations to independence. So a referendum to get a referendum.
Once consent has been granted by the PM, again.
 
This evening we have seen outbursts from the Nationalist angry mob complaining about Matt Hancock praising cooperation between Scottish and English ambulance services because he dared to suggest we are ā€œbetter togetherā€.

Meanwhile Nicola Sturgeon tells us on her daily propaganda broadcast how much better Scotland could have done if it was independent and without any trace of irony.

Independence aside, wouldnā€™t it be beneficial for the whole U.K. if the devolved assemblies joined forces with the U.K. Government to tackle the pandemic as a united front?
 
Last edited:
.

Independence aside, wouldnā€™t it be beneficial for the whole U.K. if the devolved assemblies joined forces with the U.K. Government to tackle the pandemic as a united front?

No, because (for some) there are higher priorities than dealing with the pandemic. Political career and nationalism clearly take precedence.
 
Meanwhile Nicola Sturgeon tells us on her daily propaganda broadcast how much better Scotland could have done if it was independent and without any trace of irony.

Well it looks like Scotland is unable to manage vaccination.

Quite why I don't understand. But I'm now hearing multiple sources complaining about having had vaccination appointments allocated centrally that are then followed up by phone calls *to cancel* from their GP surgery. There seems to be a problem getting allocated supplies to those dispensing them that has been going on for maybe a week.

For everybody else it seems that actually procuring the vaccine and finding enough people to dispense it was the hard part.

Of course Scotland always has to be different. There are allegedly supllies allocated - but just not being called off and delivered to those who can dispense.

Those left with cancelled appointments don't know how long they'll have to wait for new ones.

Scotland's vaccination rate is something like three quarters of that in England.
 
Well it looks like Scotland is unable to manage vaccination.

Quite why I don't understand. But I'm now hearing multiple sources complaining about having had vaccination appointments allocated centrally that are then followed up by phone calls *to cancel* from their GP surgery. There seems to be a problem getting allocated supplies to those dispensing them that has been going on for maybe a week.

For everybody else it seems that actually procuring the vaccine and finding enough people to dispense it was the hard part.

Of course Scotland always has to be different. There are allegedly supllies allocated - but just not being called off and delivered to those who can dispense.

Those left with cancelled appointments don't know how long they'll have to wait for new ones.

Scotland's vaccination rate is something like three quarters of that in England.
This....:
But you can bet when it hits the fan Sturgeon will say it is Westminster's fault.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • m80
Back
Top Bottom