General British politics discussion thread

breezy1985

Headshot wrote: »

Listening to Sturgeon speech at the start of the SNP conference.

I've always been a big fan of hers and she's knocking it out of the park with her speech and loved the dig at the Tories

She gets a lot of respect even in England. I have plenty of friends from the North and midlands jealous that they don't have a Sturgeon to vote for

Leroy42

breezy1985 wrote: »

She gets a lot of respect even in England. I have plenty of friends from the North and midlands jealous that they don't have a Sturgeon to vote for

The problem she runs into, indeed the problem the SNP and Scottish independence have, is that all the arguments they make about how terrible Brexit is will be exactly the same against them for any vote.

Just because the UK, mainly through England, seems to have lost the ability for rational thought, I fail to see how anyone can think that a vote for Scottish independence would not create massive issues for everyone involved.

That is not to say it isn't worth it, or that they might not achieve it, and certainly, the last few years have increased the likelihood, but it is a big ask to take such a leap into the unknown.

The experience of just how difficult Brexit proved to be, despite the assurances of the Leave campaigners, will weigh heavily on any Indy ref.

Like the BRexiteers, the real value for the SNP is calling for the ref. What wold they actually do if it ever actually passed?

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem she runs into, indeed the problem the SNP and Scottish independence have, is that all the arguments they make about how terrible Brexit is will be exactly the same against them for any vote.

Just because the UK, mainly through England, seems to have lost the ability for rational thought, I fail to see how anyone can think that a vote for Scottish independence would not create massive issues for everyone involved.

That is not to say it isn't worth it, or that they might not achieve it, and certainly, the last few years have increased the likelihood, but it is a big ask to take such a leap into the unknown.

The experience of just how difficult Brexit proved to be, despite the assurances of the Leave campaigners, will weigh heavily on any Indy ref.

Like the BRexiteers, the real value for the SNP is calling for the ref. What wold they actually do if it ever actually passed?

They wrote a massive white paper, a plan if you will, about the likely path in the event of the referendum passing.

It's not likely that they'd approach independence with the same disregard and fecklessness that the Tories tend to in these situations.

Shelga

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem she runs into, indeed the problem the SNP and Scottish independence have, is that all the arguments they make about how terrible Brexit is will be exactly the same against them for any vote.

Just because the UK, mainly through England, seems to have lost the ability for rational thought, I fail to see how anyone can think that a vote for Scottish independence would not create massive issues for everyone involved.

That is not to say it isn't worth it, or that they might not achieve it, and certainly, the last few years have increased the likelihood, but it is a big ask to take such a leap into the unknown.

The experience of just how difficult Brexit proved to be, despite the assurances of the Leave campaigners, will weigh heavily on any Indy ref.

Like the BRexiteers, the real value for the SNP is calling for the ref. What wold they actually do if it ever actually passed?

Sturgeon was asked about the prospect of a hard border between Scotland and England on Radio 4 this morning, in the event of an independence referendum and rejoining the EU succeeding. She batted away the question somewhat, and said it's the fault of Brexiters that this is even a potential scenario. That may be, but she's going to have to come up with more detailed answers than that, and it's going to be very hard to make that border sound in any way appealing.

I like Sturgeon, and can see why they want independence, but I hope any campaign is realistic about the difficulties involved, unlike Brexit. It'll be a difficult balance to strike.

cml387

Shelga wrote: »

Sturgeon was asked about the prospect of a hard border between Scotland and England on Radio 4 this morning, in the event of an independence referendum and rejoining the EU succeeding. She batted away the question somewhat, and said it's the fault of Brexiters that this is even a potential scenario. That may be, but she's going to have to come up with more detailed answers than that, and it's going to be very hard to make that border sound in any way appealing.

I like Sturgeon, and can see why they want independence, but I hope any campaign is realistic about the difficulties involved, unlike Brexit. It'll be a difficult balance to strike.

I suspect that Nicola Sturgeon is more popular in the greater Celtic lands than she is in her own party.
There is a considerable minority within the SNP who believe she shafted Alex Salmond and who are waiting in the long grass.

BonnieSituation

Shelga wrote: »

Sturgeon was asked about the prospect of a hard border between Scotland and England on Radio 4 this morning, in the event of an independence referendum and rejoining the EU succeeding. She batted away the question somewhat, and said it's the fault of Brexiters that this is even a potential scenario. That may be, but she's going to have to come up with more detailed answers than that, and it's going to be very hard to make that border sound in any way appealing.

I like Sturgeon, and can see why they want independence, but I hope any campaign is realistic about the difficulties involved, unlike Brexit. It'll be a difficult balance to strike.

Does she have to come up with it this morning on Radio 4?

Sure, they don't even know what relationship theya re going to have with the EU in a month. So it would be impossible to work out the answer to the hypothetical dependent on a hypothetical.

It's a amazing how the BBC and the rabid Brexiter demands so much detail of others and yet can't be bothered supplying it when asked of themselves.

BonnieSituation

cml387 wrote: »

I suspect that Nicola Sturgeon is more popular in the greater Celtic lands than she is in her own party.
There is a considerable minority within the SNP who believe she shafted Alex Salmond and who are waiting in the long grass.

I suspect you're wrong.

I suppose you were one of those that thought Ruth Davison was the second coming as well as opposed to the media created mirage of nothingness that she was?

Salmond is a busted flush at this point and his RT links aren't something to be associated with.

The likes of Joanna Cherry needs to calm their proverbials. They are tantalisingly close to a whopper majority in Holyrood next May. Just keep letting the Tories be Tories.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem she runs into, indeed the problem the SNP and Scottish independence have, is that all the arguments they make about how terrible Brexit is will be exactly the same against them for any vote.

Just because the UK, mainly through England, seems to have lost the ability for rational thought, I fail to see how anyone can think that a vote for Scottish independence would not create massive issues for everyone involved.

That is not to say it isn't worth it, or that they might not achieve it, and certainly, the last few years have increased the likelihood, but it is a big ask to take such a leap into the unknown.

The experience of just how difficult Brexit proved to be, despite the assurances of the Leave campaigners, will weigh heavily on any Indy ref.

Like the BRexiteers, the real value for the SNP is calling for the ref. What wold they actually do if it ever actually passed?

As Bonnie pointed out, last time around the Scottish government published a detailed white paper on the practical issues involved in independence, with proposals for their policies in relation to each. Plus a draft interim constitution for an independent Scotland. Given this example of planning, and of seeking a mandate for specific proposals, the abject failure of the Brexit movement to do the same is all the more remarkable.

You are of course correct that Scottish independence raises significant challenges, and that many arguments which were deployed against Brexit could, with modest reworking, be deployed against Scottish independence.

The difference, though, is what lies on the other side of the debate. The oppression, lack of control, lack of independence, etc against which Brexiters campaigned was either overstated or simply illusory. The UK wasn't in fact being forced into positions that it didn't want to adopt, or being subject to laws which it had no hand in making. Whereas Scotland really is being governed by a Union that cares nothing for its wishes and interests - as the whole sorry history of the implementation of Brexit makes abundantly clear. In the Scottish independence referendum, advocates of independence will be able to point to Scotland's forced exclusion from the EU, against its democratically-expressed with and very much contrary to its material interests, as a concrete illustration of why Scotland needs to be independent, despite the challenges involved.

The Brexit campaign had nothing like that to point to; therfore they had to deny that Brexit would involve any cost or any detriment. Campaigners for Scottish independence can afford to be more honest and more realistic about this.

So when Unionists point to the pains of separation, Independence campaigners have two responses: First, we're having the pains of separation forced on us anyway, by the English-dominated government that is subjecting us to hard Brexit for domestic political advantage in England. So a pain-free option isn't on offer in this referendum. And, secondly, if we choose the pain of separation from England, something positive results for Scotland. But there's no upside to sticking with England; we get the pain of separation from the EU, and we are still governed by the same shower that thinks it's fine to treat us like this.

dogbert27

Shelga wrote: »

Sturgeon was asked about the prospect of a hard border between Scotland and England on Radio 4 this morning, in the event of an independence referendum and rejoining the EU succeeding. She batted away the question somewhat, and said it's the fault of Brexiters that this is even a potential scenario. That may be, but she's going to have to come up with more detailed answers than that, and it's going to be very hard to make that border sound in any way appealing.

I like Sturgeon, and can see why they want independence, but I hope any campaign is realistic about the difficulties involved, unlike Brexit. It'll be a difficult balance to strike.

By the time Scottish independence comes around and a solution to the border issue there will have already been an answer made for them by what happens in Northern Ireland

forgottenhills

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It's a country that can not feed its own children.


Thats very 3rd worldish dont you think? Plenty of 3rd world countries have extremes of poverty and "elites" who are insanely rich.

Nonsense, it can well afford to feed all its children. Failure to do so is down to government policy and feckless parents, who can't be overlooked for blame. For instance the minimum wage in the UK is higher than that in all EU states apart from Luxembourg if memory serves me correctly.

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

Nonsense, it can well afford to feed all its children. Failure to do so is down to government policy and feckless parents, who can't be overlooked for blame. For instance the minimum wage in the UK is higher than that in all EU states apart from Luxembourg if memory serves me correctly.

Why is UNICEF donating £25,000 worth of breakfasts to poor children in the UK?

forgottenhills

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why is UNICEF donating £25,000 worth of breakfasts to poor children in the UK?

I don't know, maybe someone wanted to embarrass the current UK government? But it is certainly not because the UK does not have 25k. I think their stats for children being possibly in danger of food poverty were approx 29% while ours here are approx 24%. Not a world of difference.

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

I don't know, maybe someone wanted to embarrass the current UK government? But it is certainly not because the UK does not have 25k. I think their stats for children being possibly in danger of food poverty were approx 29% while ours here are approx 24%. Not a world of difference.

Why would UNICEF want to embarrass the UK by feeding poor children?

ElJeffe

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It's a country that can not feed its own children.


Thats very 3rd worldish dont you think? Plenty of 3rd world countries have extremes of poverty and "elites" who are insanely rich.

There are families today getting handed out food parcels in Dublin city centre. It's not just the UK that has this issue.

ancapailldorcha

forgottenhills wrote: »

I don't know, maybe someone wanted to embarrass the current UK government? But it is certainly not because the UK does not have 25k. I think their stats for children being possibly in danger of food poverty were approx 29% while ours here are approx 24%. Not a world of difference.

Without evidence, this is an incredibly weak assertion.

HM government can certainly afford to help these people but it unfortunately chooses not to.

Lumen

forgottenhills wrote: »

I don't know, maybe someone wanted to embarrass the current UK government? But it is certainly not because the UK does not have 25k. I think their stats for children being possibly in danger of food poverty were approx 29% while ours here are approx 24%. Not a world of difference.

If you dig into the data a little, beyond poverty (inequality) and into material deprivation, you will find a larger difference.

Living conditions in Europe - material deprivation and economic strain
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Living_conditions_in_Europe_-_material_deprivation_and_economic_strain

Share of people at risk of poverty who are unable to afford a meal with meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every second day, 2018
IE: 1.6%
UK: 4.8%

forgottenhills

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Without evidence, this is an incredibly weak assertion.

HM government can certainly afford to help these people but it unfortunately chooses not to.

These stats were shown on a bar graph here on a post from yesterday, I didn't see the need to repost. And yes there is a failure of UK government policy in that regard. As there is a failure of Irish government policy (and some parents) to keep all our children out of danger of hunger.

ancapailldorcha

forgottenhills wrote: »

These stats were shown on a bar graph here on a post from yesterday, I didn't see the need to repost. And yes there is a failure of UK government policy in that regard. As there is a failure of Irish government policy (and some parents) to keep all our children out of danger of hunger.

This is just whataboutery. I was referring to your claim that UNICEF are seeking to humiliate the UK. Since you've not produced any source for this, this claim can be disregarded IMO.

Strazdas

swampgas wrote: »

The UK is run by a government that doesn't want to feed its own children. They certainly could feed everyone if the political will was there. Instead they see the poor as a disposable underclass to be despised and abused.

As do most Conservative voters. One of the big hate sectors for them before Brexit came along were 'people on benefits'.

forgottenhills

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why would UNICEF want to embarrass the UK by feeding poor children?

I don't know the machinations of charity groups and their individual country officers. Perhaps they also hand out food in Ireland? If not then why not as we have hungry children here too? If they did then it wouldn't mean that we as a nation couldn't afford to feed our children.

CelticRambler

Lumen wrote: »

If you dig into the data a little, beyond poverty (inequality) and into material deprivation, you will find a larger difference.

Living conditions in Europe - material deprivation and economic strain
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Living_conditions_in_Europe_-_material_deprivation_and_economic_strain

Share of people at risk of poverty who are unable to afford a meal with meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every second day, 2018
IE: 1.6%
UK: 4.8%

For the sake of completeness, let's note that the UK's level of deprivation according to those data is noticeably lower than that of France or Germany and considerably lower than that of most of the eastern European states.

Most interestingly, IMO, is an apparent correlation between geographical size and deprivation: the "best" countries tend to be the smaller ones. I've often wondered if there's an optimal size for coherent nationhood - bigger is not necessarily better, once you start trying to govern territories with marked cultural differences (France suffers a lot from this). If ever anyone came up with hard data on the topic, it could bolster Scotland's social and economic argument for disassociating itself from Mother England.

listermint

forgottenhills wrote: »

I don't know the machinations of charity groups and their individual country officers. Perhaps they also hand out food in Ireland? If not then why not as we have hungry children here too? If they did then it wouldn't mean that we as a nation couldn't afford to feed our children.

Unicef should not be doing political interference and Marcus Rashford should stay in his lane and do 'football' , amiright?

forgottenhills

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just whataboutery. I was referring to your claim that UNICEF are seeking to humiliate the UK. Since you've not produced any source for this, this claim can be disregarded IMO.

I didn't state it as a fact, I suggested it as a possibility and you can't deny that the UK could feed all its own kids if it wanted to. Actions of a multinationals in one country can be down to decisions of individual officers in that country. Perhaps a top Unicef UK officer is a Labour supporter? Why are Unicef not handing out food parcels to kids in Ireland for instance? Surely all kids should be equal so is this a political decision?

Cheensbo

forgottenhills wrote: »

The quotes were from MPs who were not in the UK government at the time and their remarks didn't form the actual terms of an eventual agreement. It is dangerous to react to every random utterance of a country's politicians as if it represents the policy of its government.

Never said it was a government policy, I pointed out that the remarks were from elected representatives at the time, so they definitely carry more weight than some randommer like you or I mouthing off on an internet forum. Those remarks don't form part of any agreement either.


Contrary to your position - it is dangerous for an elected representative to threaten food shortages on a neighbor, and that's before you apply the additional connotations that threatening food shortages on Ireland by the UK carries.

forgottenhills

listermint wrote: »

Unicef should not be doing political interference and Marcus Rashford should stay in his lane and do 'football' , amiright?

Wrong I applaud Rashford. And Unicef should be feeding hungry children in all countries if their governments or parents are not doing it. Do you think that Unicef should be providing food to kids in Ireland as there are hungry kids here also?

ancapailldorcha

forgottenhills wrote: »

I didn't state it as a fact, I suggested it as a possibility and you can't deny that the UK could feed all its own kids if it wanted to. Actions of a multinationals in one country can be down to decisions of individual officers in that country. Perhaps a top Unicef UK officer is a Labour supporter? Why are Unicef not handing out food parcels to kids in Ireland for instance? Surely all kids should be equal so is this a political decision?

That's nonsense though since you have no evidence to back it up. I can claim with equal legitimacy that the Tories want to starve ethnic minority, foreign born and working class children.

As regards UNICEF and Ireland, I suggest you research your own point instead of expecting other people to do it for you.

listermint

forgottenhills wrote: »

Wrong I applaud Rashford. And Unicef should be feeding hungry children in all countries if their governments or parents are not doing it. Do you think that Unicef should be providing food to kids in Ireland as there are hungry kids here also?

Rashford is feeding kids in the UK, should we not therefore based on your own made up metrics deride him for not feeding kids in Ireland too.

these are your rules by the way not mind. Im not measuring people or organisations on them you are.

paul71

forgottenhills wrote: »

Wrong I applaud Rashford. And Unicef should be feeding hungry children in all countries if their governments or parents are not doing it. Do you think that Unicef should be providing food to kids in Ireland as there are hungry kids here also?

They are not required as Irish charities (often government funded) and social services do it, they are required in the UK.

forgottenhills

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's nonsense though since you have no evidence to back it up. I can claim with equal legitimacy that the Tories want to starve ethnic minority, foreign born and working class children.

As regards UNICEF and Ireland, I suggest you research your own point instead of expecting other people to do it for you.

Look my argument is that I disagree with the assertions on here from some posters that the UK is a third world country and can't afford to feed its own children, assertions which have used the actions of Unicef UK to provide food worth 25k to children in London as proof.

Do you agree with these assertions as I note that you haven't been asking these posters for evidence or proof that the UK is not in a position to feed its children?

dogbert27

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why would UNICEF want to embarrass the UK by feeding poor children?

Because they are obviously Remainers looking to embarrass Brexit :rolleyes:

To believe someone is trying to embarrass the current UK government by asking help from UNICEF is farcical when for months a Premier League footballer has had to fight against MPs on line to secure free meals for school children but I guess Rashford is only looking to embarrass the UK government too instead of actually caring about the public.