The Scottish Politics Thread

[Blackmac]

you called someone out for pointing out the importance of normalising trans peopl. You accused them of trying to score internet points for leveraging a young woman's murder.and said they should give themselves an upper cut for saying it.

you should be fucking ashamed of yourself. and apologise.

you are an embarrassment to Scottish rugby.

you got a club affiliation? I'd like to steer players away from it, tbh.

You are a hysterical drama queen and you're the one that's been abusive. My pint is valid and the debate has been completely reasoned until you stepped in with this utter bullshit, I'm probably one of the least offensive and least controversial posters on here and you would need to be a retard to think that anyone took the "give yourself and uppercut" to be anything serious.

He’s a loon mate. I tried to have a conversation with him once and he went quickly to calling me a racist. Pops on every now and then and acts the cunt

Can''t say I've ever noticed him to be honest. I've been doing this too long to be thin skinned but this is exceptional and is difficult to brush off.

[Simian]

If you don’t want peope to think you’re racist and don’t want someone to find your viewed troubling, reflect in that maybe

Admin… maybe best you delete my account. I don’t wanna cause trouble and it’s striking to me these people don’t appreciate being challenged on their, frankly (to me), offensive views

[Paddington Bear]

Try this again in the morning?

[Slick]

If you don’t want peope to think you’re racist and don’t want someone to find your viewed troubling, reflect in that maybe

Admin… maybe best you delete my account. I don’t wanna cause trouble and it’s striking to me these people don’t appreciate being challenged on their, frankly (to me), offensive views

Sounds like a good idea since 2 minutes ago you were denying it ever even happened

[Blackmac]

If you don’t want peope to think you’re racist and don’t want someone to find your viewed troubling, reflect in that maybe

Admin… maybe best you delete my account. I don’t wanna cause trouble and it’s striking to me these people don’t appreciate being challenged on their, frankly (to me), offensive views

Racist now. What the actual fuck. Where are you getting this from.

[inactionman]

If you don’t want peope to think you’re racist and don’t want someone to find your viewed troubling, reflect in that maybe

Admin… maybe best you delete my account. I don’t wanna cause trouble and it’s striking to me these people don’t appreciate being challenged on their, frankly (to me), offensive views

If you want challenge, there's another board I could happily recommend

[ASMO]

i have sadly had to exercise the banhammer for him, i have given him 7 days in the cooler, if he comes back and carries on it will be a lot longer

[Blackmac]

Try this again in the morning?

Sorry mate it's not like me to get this involved but yeah I will leave it there. I don't think anyone perusing the thread
would find the slightest thing offensive or abusive in anything I have said and both myself and Tichtfield were having a pretty reasoned debate whilst agreeing to disagree. I'm quite happy to hear from anyone, other than this lunatic who thinks otherwise. As I said, quite thick skinned, but I've rarely seen anyone post in such an over the top manner, inferring a poster is abusive to their family, even on the old place, and the lad is clearly not fit to post here

[Tichtheid]

Can I ask why what I said was innaproaute but his comments to tichtheid were apparently fine? I thought they were incredibly offensive.

Tightheid is a long standing member here, if he was offended he would have said something or reported it, he didn't, and to be honest it doesnt need anyone else to be offended on his behalf.

Well to be fair, just because I didn’t report a post doesn’t mean it was okay or not offensive

I didn’t expect a retraction, but a repetition on the thread you had to delete wasn’t good

[Blackmac]

i have sadly had to exercise the banhammer for him, i have given him 7 days in the cooler, if he comes back and carries on it will be a lot longer

Appreciated mate. If I have offended anyone else I apologise. It's not my MO to be involved in this sort of sideshow but I'm not taking that shit from anyone.

[Paddington Bear]

Try this again in the morning?

Sorry mate it's not like me to get this involved but yeah I will leave it there. I don't think anyone perusing the thread
would find the slightest thing offensive or abusive in anything I have said and both myself and Tichtfield were having a pretty reasoned debate whilst agreeing to disagree. I'm quite happy to hear from anyone, other than this lunatic who thinks otherwise. As I said, quite thick skinned, but I've rarely seen anyone post in such an over the top manner, inferring a poster is abusive to their family, even on the old place, and the lad is clearly not fit to post here

No, I fully understand why you’re not happy, just suggesting there’s a reason he went quite so far off the deep end from around 9ish this evening

[Tichtheid]

Scotland thread is best thread

You made me laugh

It must be time for me to quit

[Biffer]

How’s everyone doing today?

Have I missed anything?

[Blackmac]

Can I ask why what I said was innaproaute but his comments to tichtheid were apparently fine? I thought they were incredibly offensive.

Tightheid is a long standing member here, if he was offended he would have said something or reported it, he didn't, and to be honest it doesnt need anyone else to be offended on his behalf.

Well to be fair, just because I didn’t report a post doesn’t mean it was okay or not offensive

I didn’t expect a retraction, but a repetition on the thread you had to delete wasn’t good

I suppose I could equally say that about your post, which I found unnecessary and offensive which is why I responded. I don't think my response was even close to going over the score or reportable in any way. If you did find it overly offensive you really made no indication of that and we proceeded to debate the point in a fairly reasonable manner. However, as I have said I don't go out to offend anyone on here and if I did I apologise to you.

[Random1]

Tightheid is a long standing member here, if he was offended he would have said something or reported it, he didn't, and to be honest it doesnt need anyone else to be offended on his behalf.

Well to be fair, just because I didn’t report a post doesn’t mean it was okay or not offensive

I didn’t expect a retraction, but a repetition on the thread you had to delete wasn’t good

I suppose I could equally say that about your post, which I found unnecessary and offensive which is why I responded. I don't think my response was even close to going over the score or reportable in any way. If you did find it overly offensive you really made no indication of that and we proceeded to debate the point in a fairly reasonable manner. However, as I have said I don't go out to offend anyone on here and if I did I apologise to you.

I’ll tell you what’s offensive!

Two separate posters on this thread, you being one of them, have used the word ‘inferred’ when clearly the word should have been ‘implied’

Sort your shit out.

[Blackmac]

Well to be fair, just because I didn’t report a post doesn’t mean it was okay or not offensive

I didn’t expect a retraction, but a repetition on the thread you had to delete wasn’t good

I suppose I could equally say that about your post, which I found unnecessary and offensive which is why I responded. I don't think my response was even close to going over the score or reportable in any way. If you did find it overly offensive you really made no indication of that and we proceeded to debate the point in a fairly reasonable manner. However, as I have said I don't go out to offend anyone on here and if I did I apologise to you.

I’ll tell you what’s offensive!

Two separate posters on this thread, you being one of them, have used the word ‘inferred’ when clearly the word should have been ‘implied’

Sort your shit out.

I'm just a thick ex cop mate.

[Blackmac]

Can I ask why what I said was innaproaute but his comments to tichtheid were apparently fine? I thought they were incredibly offensive.

Tightheid is a long standing member here, if he was offended he would have said something or reported it, he didn't, and to be honest it doesnt need anyone else to be offended on his behalf.

Well to be fair, just because I didn’t report a post doesn’t mean it was okay or not offensive

I didn’t expect a retraction, but a repetition on the thread you had to delete wasn’t good

I don't know where you are getting this from. I didn't repeat anything you or I had said on that thread, merely highlighted the outrageousness of that clowns post.

[Yr Alban]

Going to break a rule I imposed on myself and post in this thread again. Just the once, and I expect I'll be staying away from it again afterwards, so flame away.

I have enormous respect for Nicola Sturgeon, although I don't agree with all of her decisions. She has faced a relentlessly hostile media for 8 years and has remained composed and dignified.

She is subject to so much poisonous abuse on a daily basis that I can't blame her for calling it a day. Don't take my word for it. Look at the responses to literally anything she posts on Twitter. Even if it's about the book she is reading. Hateful, nasty, misogynistic shite.

However, anyone celebrating because they think this is the end of the Indy movement is in for a nasty shock. It isn't going away. In fact, a change of leader may tempt back some people who had become disillusioned with her leadership style and what she chose to prioritise.

Support for Indy amongst young people is in excess of 70%, and has been for a while. Nicola not being FM isn't going to change that. For purely demographic reasons, Indy is going to happen eventually.

[Random1]

I suppose I could equally say that about your post, which I found unnecessary and offensive which is why I responded. I don't think my response was even close to going over the score or reportable in any way. If you did find it overly offensive you really made no indication of that and we proceeded to debate the point in a fairly reasonable manner. However, as I have said I don't go out to offend anyone on here and if I did I apologise to you.

I’ll tell you what’s offensive!

Two separate posters on this thread, you being one of them, have used the word ‘inferred’ when clearly the word should have been ‘implied’

Sort your shit out.

I'm just a thick ex cop mate.

Was trying to lighten the mood by pretending to be offended. Shit joke, but promise your thickness didn’t cross my mind.

[dpedin]

I don't disagree with much of what Yr Alban has said. It is interesting to look at the quality of leadership across UK politics over the period of Wee Nics time and compare and contrast. For example this is my snapshot of most of the main players. I would argue that like her or loath her, in terms of political leadership she has easily stood head and shoulders above most of this cabal of shite!

- David 'Shagged a pigs head, dont mention Brexit' Cameron - stood down before being sacked by Party
- Teresa 'Can't dance, Hostile environment architect' May sacked by Party
- Boris 'lying, adulterous, crooked cunt' Johnson - sacked by Party
- Rishi 'Posh rich boy - are you in business?' Sunak - Will be sacked by Party
- Jeremy 'Red till I'm dead' Corbyn - sacked by Party
- Keir 'Who?' Starmer - next PM?
- Arlene 'NO SURRENDER!' Foster - resigned before being sacked by Party
- Peter 'Save Ulster from Sodomy'' Robinson - stood down
- Mark 'Nice guy' Drakeford - still in post

I won't even begin with the likes of Edwin 'Creationist' Poots or some of the other party leaders like Douglas 'Run the line, never a ref' Ross.

Why has Wee Nic been so popular in Scotland? A whole lot of reasons but one main reason has been when compared to the dross on offer elsewhere, particularly the London centric national parties, she has looked more competent, offered real leadership and has been more connected with the Scottish public. No political leader will ever please everyone all the time but she has carried a strong majority of support during her time as FM.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!

[Slick]

I don't disagree with much of what Yr Alban has said. It is interesting to look at the quality of leadership across UK politics over the period of Wee Nics time and compare and contrast. For example this is my snapshot of most of the main players. I would argue that like her or loath her, in terms of political leadership she has easily stood head and shoulders above most of this cabal of shite!

- David 'Shagged a pigs head, dont mention Brexit' Cameron - stood down before being sacked by Party
- Teresa 'Can't dance, Hostile environment architect' May sacked by Party
- Boris 'lying, adulterous, crooked cunt' Johnson - sacked by Party
- Rishi 'Posh rich boy - are you in business?' Sunak - Will be sacked by Party
- Jeremy 'Red till I'm dead' Corbyn - sacked by Party
- Keir 'Who?' Starmer - next PM?
- Arlene 'NO SURRENDER!' Foster - resigned before being sacked by Party
- Peter 'Save Ulster from Sodomy'' Robinson - stood down
- Mark 'Nice guy' Drakeford - still in post

I won't even begin with the likes of Edwin 'Creationist' Poots or some of the other party leaders like Douglas 'Run the line, never a ref' Ross.

Why has Wee Nic been so popular in Scotland? A whole lot of reasons but one main reason has been when compared to the dross on offer elsewhere, particularly the London centric national parties, she has looked more competent, offered real leadership and has been more connected with the Scottish public. No political leader will ever please everyone all the time but she has carried a strong majority of support during her time as FM.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!

Quite. As I said earlier, the most open of open goals and little has changed

[inactionman]

Going to break a rule I imposed on myself and post in this thread again. Just the once, and I expect I'll be staying away from it again afterwards, so flame away.

I have enormous respect for Nicola Sturgeon, although I don't agree with all of her decisions. She has faced a relentlessly hostile media for 8 years and has remained composed and dignified.

She is subject to so much poisonous abuse on a daily basis that I can't blame her for calling it a day. Don't take my word for it. Look at the responses to literally anything she posts on Twitter. Even if it's about the book she is reading. Hateful, nasty, misogynistic shite.

However, anyone celebrating because they think this is the end of the Indy movement is in for a nasty shock. It isn't going away. In fact, a change of leader may tempt back some people who had become disillusioned with her leadership style and what she chose to prioritise.

Support for Indy amongst young people is in excess of 70%, and has been for a while. Nicola not being FM isn't going to change that. For purely demographic reasons, Indy is going to happen eventually.

I'm far from convinced people persist with their beliefs and political persuasions for their whole lives. I'm sure many of the seniors who are ardent Unionists weren't that way when they were younger.

Get a mortgage, kids, bills, and your perspective on life changes quite significantly.

I think a lot of the complaints Sturgeon raised about the brutality of politics is massively hypocritical (she wasn't above putting in a dig, a nasty word or a slagging herself) but I can imagine getting dog's abuse on social media for over a decade is pretty draining.

[JM2K6]

Tightheid is a long standing member here, if he was offended he would have said something or reported it, he didn't, and to be honest it doesnt need anyone else to be offended on his behalf.

Well to be fair, just because I didn’t report a post doesn’t mean it was okay or not offensive

I didn’t expect a retraction, but a repetition on the thread you had to delete wasn’t good

I suppose I could equally say that about your post, which I found unnecessary and offensive which is why I responded. I don't think my response was even close to going over the score or reportable in any way. If you did find it overly offensive you really made no indication of that and we proceeded to debate the point in a fairly reasonable manner. However, as I have said I don't go out to offend anyone on here and if I did I apologise to you.

In an attempt to mediate a little bit...

Personally I was surprised you reacted the way you did to his post. He was making what seemed to me to be a fairly obvious comment about the nature of the "controversy" surrounding gender. Wires were crossed in that you didn't really understand that his criticism of you was for accepting the framing of the bill (and all things gender) as being widely divisive, and he didn't really get that your point was merely a high level one about the gender bill causing a ruckus.

I think you overreacted to his post by misunderstanding why he made it (nothing to do with his personal circumstances really, fwiw - those are just why he has skin in the game in the first place) and part of me wonders why we don't see that level of condemnation from you when the "other side" of the argument use the same tactics, but in all honesty I appreciate that it's because it felt more like a personal attack to you. On the flip side it can be difficult for people to unpick why certain seemingly innocuous comments like your original one can trigger such a response and it's difficult to explain it in hindsight when the pitch has been queered YES DELIBERATELY CHOSEN FOR THE PUN by the interaction having turned hostile.

On this particular topic the minefield is less "you can't say anything without offending people" and more "the history and detail of this is complex, there's a huge amount of disinformation, and even how the argument is framed is weaponised as it's how 'regular' people will be informed about the issue". Neither of you were arguing in bad faith and both made assumptions about the point the other was making, and took it personally for different reasons.

My opinion is worth shit and we've clashed a few times so I'm not expecting to be treated like Solomon here, but I got where both of you were coming from and why both of you responded the way you did.

Simian was way out of line though and that's distressing seeing as he agreed with my earlier post. I'm not afraid of calling people out if I think they're actual shitheads but what the fuck was that

[Tichtheid]

He was making what seemed to me to be a fairly obvious comment about the nature of the "controversy" surrounding gender. Wires were crossed in that you didn't really understand that his criticism of you was for accepting the framing of the bill (and all things gender) as being widely divisive, and he didn't really get that your point was merely a high level one about the gender bill causing a ruckus.

I try to not get involved with meta arguments about who said what when, but I'll make an exception in this case.

I did know what point Blackmac was making in the first instance about the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, but I'm fucking angry and I moved from the specific point about the reaction to the bill to what the bill actually meant, not what people have been told it meant. I'm not only angry because of my personal circumstances but my ire is certainly informed by them.

What makes me furious is the deliberate, unrelenting misinformation campaign on what the bill contained and what it means in real life. I read a stat yesterday that 75% of Scots are against the bill - I do not believe for one second that 75% of Scots are against the tiny number of Trans people in Scotland being able to change their birth certificate a bit more easily, or that making a false declaration in the application carries an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison.

Terrible things happen to minorities through ignorance, ignorance is a consequence of misinformation. That misinformation campaign continued on the other thread. I was furious about the events at the weekend, I still am, I do not understand how anyone can not be angry about it.

The deliberate misinformation, or the reaction to it, was part of the reason Sturgeon chose to step down, that's why I see it as relevant to here.

[Blackmac]

Well to be fair, just because I didn’t report a post doesn’t mean it was okay or not offensive

I didn’t expect a retraction, but a repetition on the thread you had to delete wasn’t good

I suppose I could equally say that about your post, which I found unnecessary and offensive which is why I responded. I don't think my response was even close to going over the score or reportable in any way. If you did find it overly offensive you really made no indication of that and we proceeded to debate the point in a fairly reasonable manner. However, as I have said I don't go out to offend anyone on here and if I did I apologise to you.

In an attempt to mediate a little bit...

Personally I was surprised you reacted the way you did to his post. He was making what seemed to me to be a fairly obvious comment about the nature of the "controversy" surrounding gender. Wires were crossed in that you didn't really understand that his criticism of you was for accepting the framing of the bill (and all things gender) as being widely divisive, and he didn't really get that your point was merely a high level one about the gender bill causing a ruckus.

I think you overreacted to his post by misunderstanding why he made it (nothing to do with his personal circumstances really, fwiw - those are just why he has skin in the game in the first place) and part of me wonders why we don't see that level of condemnation from you when the "other side" of the argument use the same tactics, but in all honesty I appreciate that it's because it felt more like a personal attack to you. On the flip side it can be difficult for people to unpick why certain seemingly innocuous comments like your original one can trigger such a response and it's difficult to explain it in hindsight when the pitch has been queered YES DELIBERATELY CHOSEN FOR THE PUN by the interaction having turned hostile.

On this particular topic the minefield is less "you can't say anything without offending people" and more "the history and detail of this is complex, there's a huge amount of disinformation, and even how the argument is framed is weaponised as it's how 'regular' people will be informed about the issue". Neither of you were arguing in bad faith and both made assumptions about the point the other was making, and took it personally for different reasons.

My opinion is worth shit and we've clashed a few times so I'm not expecting to be treated like Solomon here, but I got where both of you were coming from and why both of you responded the way you did.

Simian was way out of line though and that's distressing seeing as he agreed with my earlier post. I'm not afraid of calling people out if I think they're actual shitheads but what the fuck was that

It's a fair post mate. I really wasn't trying to create any point about the GRR other than highlight it was among the many issues contributing to Sturgeons resignation. I no way meant the bill itself was a disaster, just that the issues surrounding it had become a politics disaster for Sturgeon. If I'm being honest i'm still not clear on Tichtheids response but I took it to suggest that posters on here, possibly including myself, didn't care about that murder, which I thought was unfair.
I think we were probably both guilty of misunderstanding each others motives but I hope we thrashed it out without getting in too each other too much. I was however genuinely shocked at the response from Simian though. It was appallingly unjustified and seemed completely illogical.

[Random1]

He was making what seemed to me to be a fairly obvious comment about the nature of the "controversy" surrounding gender. Wires were crossed in that you didn't really understand that his criticism of you was for accepting the framing of the bill (and all things gender) as being widely divisive, and he didn't really get that your point was merely a high level one about the gender bill causing a ruckus.

I try to not get involved with meta arguments about who said what when, but I'll make an exception in this case.

I did know what point Blackmac was making in the first instance about the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, but I'm fucking angry and I moved from the specific point about the reaction to the bill to what the bill actually meant, not what people have been told it meant. I'm not only angry because of my personal circumstances but my ire is certainly informed by them.

What makes me furious is the deliberate, unrelenting misinformation campaign on what the bill contained and what it means in real life. I read a stat yesterday that 75% of Scots are against the bill - I do not believe for one second that 75% of Scots are against the tiny number of Trans people in Scotland being able to change their birth certificate a bit more easily, or that making a false declaration in the application carries an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison.

Terrible things happen to minorities through ignorance, ignorance is a consequence of misinformation. That misinformation campaign continued on the other thread. I was furious about the events at the weekend, I still am, I do not understand how anyone can not be angry about it.

The deliberate misinformation, or the reaction to it, was part of the reason Sturgeon chose to step down, that's why I see it as relevant to here.

Having a different opinion and talking about it is not misinformation.

[I like neeps]

I don't disagree with much of what Yr Alban has said. It is interesting to look at the quality of leadership across UK politics over the period of Wee Nics time and compare and contrast. For example this is my snapshot of most of the main players. I would argue that like her or loath her, in terms of political leadership she has easily stood head and shoulders above most of this cabal of shite!

- David 'Shagged a pigs head, dont mention Brexit' Cameron - stood down before being sacked by Party
- Teresa 'Can't dance, Hostile environment architect' May sacked by Party
- Boris 'lying, adulterous, crooked cunt' Johnson - sacked by Party
- Rishi 'Posh rich boy - are you in business?' Sunak - Will be sacked by Party
- Jeremy 'Red till I'm dead' Corbyn - sacked by Party
- Keir 'Who?' Starmer - next PM?
- Arlene 'NO SURRENDER!' Foster - resigned before being sacked by Party
- Peter 'Save Ulster from Sodomy'' Robinson - stood down
- Mark 'Nice guy' Drakeford - still in post

I won't even begin with the likes of Edwin 'Creationist' Poots or some of the other party leaders like Douglas 'Run the line, never a ref' Ross.

Why has Wee Nic been so popular in Scotland? A whole lot of reasons but one main reason has been when compared to the dross on offer elsewhere, particularly the London centric national parties, she has looked more competent, offered real leadership and has been more connected with the Scottish public. No political leader will ever please everyone all the time but she has carried a strong majority of support during her time as FM.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!

I think Nicola has gone the same way as all the politicians you've mentioned there except maybe Foster and Robinson (I don't know too much about NI)

Cameron - went when his political project of one nation Toryism died (brexit)
May - went when her political project of not tanking your economy died (the British people voted to tank the economy)
Johnson - went when his political project of enriching his accolytes had milked the British teet dry
Truss - couldn't the international socialists controlling stock markets to agree with her political agenda or radical deregulation and tax cuts
Sunak & Corbyn - will go when the ballot box repudiates their political project
Starmer is boldly offering no solutions so that'll get him in the end.
Sturgeon - went her her political project of independence was frustrated with no viable immediate route.

Sturgeon left at a perfectly rational time. The one political project she has dedicated her life too she has no moves to play. Why would she stay after that? Unlike Johnson and many others she's not out for personal enrichment. There's nothing left to achieve for her.

[dpedin]

I don't disagree with much of what Yr Alban has said. It is interesting to look at the quality of leadership across UK politics over the period of Wee Nics time and compare and contrast. For example this is my snapshot of most of the main players. I would argue that like her or loath her, in terms of political leadership she has easily stood head and shoulders above most of this cabal of shite!

- David 'Shagged a pigs head, dont mention Brexit' Cameron - stood down before being sacked by Party
- Teresa 'Can't dance, Hostile environment architect' May sacked by Party
- Boris 'lying, adulterous, crooked cunt' Johnson - sacked by Party
- Rishi 'Posh rich boy - are you in business?' Sunak - Will be sacked by Party
- Jeremy 'Red till I'm dead' Corbyn - sacked by Party
- Keir 'Who?' Starmer - next PM?
- Arlene 'NO SURRENDER!' Foster - resigned before being sacked by Party
- Peter 'Save Ulster from Sodomy'' Robinson - stood down
- Mark 'Nice guy' Drakeford - still in post

I won't even begin with the likes of Edwin 'Creationist' Poots or some of the other party leaders like Douglas 'Run the line, never a ref' Ross.

Why has Wee Nic been so popular in Scotland? A whole lot of reasons but one main reason has been when compared to the dross on offer elsewhere, particularly the London centric national parties, she has looked more competent, offered real leadership and has been more connected with the Scottish public. No political leader will ever please everyone all the time but she has carried a strong majority of support during her time as FM.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!

I think Nicola has gone the same way as all the politicians you've mentioned there except maybe Foster and Robinson (I don't know too much about NI)

Cameron - went when his political project of one nation Toryism died (brexit)
May - went when her political project of not tanking your economy died (the British people voted to tank the economy)
Johnson - went when his political project of enriching his accolytes had milked the British teet dry
Truss - couldn't the international socialists controlling stock markets to agree with her political agenda or radical deregulation and tax cuts
Sunak & Corbyn - will go when the ballot box repudiates their political project
Starmer is boldly offering no solutions so that'll get him in the end.
Sturgeon - went her her political project of independence was frustrated with no viable immediate route.

Sturgeon left at a perfectly rational time. The one political project she has dedicated her life too she has no moves to play. Why would she stay after that? Unlike Johnson and many others she's not out for personal enrichment. There's nothing left to achieve for her.

I partially agree. I think Sturgeon came to the realisation that no matter what the Scottish Gov nor the Scottish people voted for the UK Gov held the ultimate power, the veto, and would always step in and stop something they didn't want to go ahead in Scotland. Many people over estimate the devolved powers of the SG and what it can do and also under estimate the power that have not been devolved and still held by the UK. It was difficult to see the power of the devolved SG being increased and the recent court cases showed that there was little legal support to challenge the UK Gov when it does veto a SG decision. In that respect I can understand that she saw it was the end of the road for gaining independence under the current devolution arrangements. It would take a huge majority and riots on the streets for independence to become a reality. I also suspect the stakes have been raised considerable in recent years and the UK Gov have now realised how dependent they are and will be in the future on Scottish oil & gas, green power, clean water, etc. and will never give up control of that.

[Slick]

I don't disagree with much of what Yr Alban has said. It is interesting to look at the quality of leadership across UK politics over the period of Wee Nics time and compare and contrast. For example this is my snapshot of most of the main players. I would argue that like her or loath her, in terms of political leadership she has easily stood head and shoulders above most of this cabal of shite!

- David 'Shagged a pigs head, dont mention Brexit' Cameron - stood down before being sacked by Party
- Teresa 'Can't dance, Hostile environment architect' May sacked by Party
- Boris 'lying, adulterous, crooked cunt' Johnson - sacked by Party
- Rishi 'Posh rich boy - are you in business?' Sunak - Will be sacked by Party
- Jeremy 'Red till I'm dead' Corbyn - sacked by Party
- Keir 'Who?' Starmer - next PM?
- Arlene 'NO SURRENDER!' Foster - resigned before being sacked by Party
- Peter 'Save Ulster from Sodomy'' Robinson - stood down
- Mark 'Nice guy' Drakeford - still in post

I won't even begin with the likes of Edwin 'Creationist' Poots or some of the other party leaders like Douglas 'Run the line, never a ref' Ross.

Why has Wee Nic been so popular in Scotland? A whole lot of reasons but one main reason has been when compared to the dross on offer elsewhere, particularly the London centric national parties, she has looked more competent, offered real leadership and has been more connected with the Scottish public. No political leader will ever please everyone all the time but she has carried a strong majority of support during her time as FM.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!

I think Nicola has gone the same way as all the politicians you've mentioned there except maybe Foster and Robinson (I don't know too much about NI)

Cameron - went when his political project of one nation Toryism died (brexit)
May - went when her political project of not tanking your economy died (the British people voted to tank the economy)
Johnson - went when his political project of enriching his accolytes had milked the British teet dry
Truss - couldn't the international socialists controlling stock markets to agree with her political agenda or radical deregulation and tax cuts
Sunak & Corbyn - will go when the ballot box repudiates their political project
Starmer is boldly offering no solutions so that'll get him in the end.
Sturgeon - went her her political project of independence was frustrated with no viable immediate route.

Sturgeon left at a perfectly rational time. The one political project she has dedicated her life too she has no moves to play. Why would she stay after that? Unlike Johnson and many others she's not out for personal enrichment. There's nothing left to achieve for her.

I partially agree. I think Sturgeon came to the realisation that no matter what the Scottish Gov nor the Scottish people voted for the UK Gov held the ultimate power, the veto, and would always step in and stop something they didn't want to go ahead in Scotland. Many people over estimate the devolved powers of the SG and what it can do and also under estimate the power that have not been devolved and still held by the UK. It was difficult to see the power of the devolved SG being increased and the recent court cases showed that there was little legal support to challenge the UK Gov when it does veto a SG decision. In that respect I can understand that she saw it was the end of the road for gaining independence under the current devolution arrangements. It would take a huge majority and riots on the streets for independence to become a reality. I also suspect the stakes have been raised considerable in recent years and the UK Gov have now realised how dependent they are and will be in the future on Scottish oil & gas, green power, clean water, etc. and will never give up control of that.

Probably fair to say there was a referendum not that long ago and the Scottish people did vote. Don't go down that tired old route of hers of saying "Scottish people" when what she meant was "a minority of Scottish people"

In my opinion, the route to getting a clear majority for independence was to firstly try to get move devolved powers then show how well they could run the country with them. They choose the easy path of grievance and have failed on just about every area where we do have devolved powers. I think that route has gone now, and I hope the new leader gets a few more adults in the room, negotiates more powers and then works, long term, to improve the lives of Scottish people. Then we can talk.

[Slick]

I thought this was quite good and reflects a lot of my thoughts. Ignore the gender stuff, that wasn't needed to make the points.

There’s a tendency in Scottish political discourse to assume that if you don’t adore Nicola Sturgeon, you must be a hellbent devotee of the Union and all it stands for.

Amid the tumult of Resignation Day, prevalent was a sense that all anti-Sturgeon sentiment issues from an establishment whose chief shared concern is the crushing of Scottish independence.

But there are many voters like me, who once shared many of Sturgeon’s broad beliefs and commitments, including her desire for separation from the United Kingdom, and who changed our minds over the course of her leadership. The noise around her departure has reinforced some of the reasons why.

I was what I called a “soft Yes”, a constituency somewhat under-examined in today’s frenzy to identify people as bone-deep Us-es or Thems. I saw it as a “worth a try” sort of situation: I didn’t hate England, where I mostly grew up, and I didn’t think independence would magic social problems away, but I did think pulling away from Westminster would help to break the stranglehold of inherited wealth and privilege on the lives of people with neither.

I thought a small nation could be in closer touch with its own people and less trapped in the class hierarchies of the past. I also had multiple reservations — currency, abandonment of the rest of the UK, the unpleasant notes of Scottish exceptionalism that often crept into friends’ discourse. But as an instinctive pessimist, I wanted to choose idealism; and in my specific milieu of educated arty left-leaning media types, independence was the idealistic path. Peer pressure is a powerful thing. I didn’t have a lot of friends who were upfront Nos.


Post-2014 referendum, that feeling — that only one option existed for the progressively-inclined —intensified rather than dissipating. Defeat strengthened some people’s conviction that they were oppressed. The burgeoning of Twitter as a platform for political squabbling, and the associated confusion of “insulting people” with “activism”, increased the polarisation. Brexit complicated both sides’ arguments. And then there was gender.

The issue itself is one thing. Whether services consecrated to vulnerable women should be made unisex is obviously a significant political matter; so too is whether it’s a social good to alter the bodies of troubled gender non-conforming kids.


Yes, those of us who have urged open and informed discussion of these matters have broken friendships, lost work and campaigns of weird slander by maladjusted online men to show for it. But that ground has been well covered, and though I don’t expect her to admit it, even Sturgeon herself must now recognise that she would have benefited considerably from listening to analysts’ warnings over the legal hazards of self-ID, instead of freezing out anyone not prepared to chant her favoured slogans.



What chilled my blood, and really caused me to rethink that whole thing about a small nation being more accountable and lighter on its feet, wasn’t so much Sturgeon’s own stated position on the issue, but the closing of ranks around it, and the attitudes thus revealed and condoned.

A small nation, I started to see, might also be particularly vulnerable to personality cults, cliques and crazes. Gender is a craze, one that Sturgeon adopted and clung to in order to shore up her progressive credentials, whether she personally truly believes some men are really women or not. That’s in large part social signalling, like her insistence on showing us her bedtime reading pile; peer pressure, as I said, is powerful.

But Sturgeon’s desire to be regarded as cool by a particular demographic had frightening consequences. Whole sectors were intimidated into compliance. Well-funded charities sprang up, strangely compelled to echo government positions. Debate was disallowed, dissenting opinions drummed out, and not only peculiar little online “activists” but senior SNP figures took a really disquieting glee in traducing and smearing dissenters online. If they can be like this about one matter, I thought, how can I trust them on anything?

Endless columns about cancel culture have made this point, of course, but it bears repeating: once you’ve been on the bad side of the self-styled progressive left, you will never again buy into any claim of its adherents being more inherently compassionate or just. And once you’ve witnessed an attempt to make participation in your society conditional upon the repetition of certain slogans, you crave more voices, and more checks and balances, not fewer. You want things to expand, not contract, and to be less bordered and boundaried, not more.


Partly, this is a decade’s worth of growing up talking. You get older, and what seemed black and white gets as grey as that bit at the front of your hair. But it’s also the sense, affirmed this week, that a cult of personality is not only a dangerous but a self-defeating thing. It was grimly revealing that after Wednesday’s press briefing, Sturgeon’s Twitter faithful got to lamenting that journalists were asking her questions that risked making her sad. Scrutiny of our leaders should be regarded as sacrosanct, not suspect. Those who don’t support the SNP are of course inclined to hold them to account. But those who do support them should do so too.

The slate of potential replacements is fascinating, because what it does not offer is a Sturgeon acolyte or clone. There’s room to hope that this means an end to the sort of tribal signalling that Sturgeon favoured — the heavy messaging we’ve all endured that only people of certain views merit being listened to — and an acknowledgment that independent or not, Scotland is a broad church.

Whether we tend yes or no (and whether, indeed, that’s likely to be anything other than a rhetorical question anytime soon), we shouldn’t feel personally fearful as either journalists or citizens of asking questions. Nor should we to have to sign up to a checklist of permitted beliefs to feel respected or represented by our governing party. With my politics, as with my hair, I for one intend to keep the grey.

[tc27]

I don't disagree with much of what Yr Alban has said. It is interesting to look at the quality of leadership across UK politics over the period of Wee Nics time and compare and contrast. For example this is my snapshot of most of the main players. I would argue that like her or loath her, in terms of political leadership she has easily stood head and shoulders above most of this cabal of shite!

- David 'Shagged a pigs head, dont mention Brexit' Cameron - stood down before being sacked by Party
- Teresa 'Can't dance, Hostile environment architect' May sacked by Party
- Boris 'lying, adulterous, crooked cunt' Johnson - sacked by Party
- Rishi 'Posh rich boy - are you in business?' Sunak - Will be sacked by Party
- Jeremy 'Red till I'm dead' Corbyn - sacked by Party
- Keir 'Who?' Starmer - next PM?
- Arlene 'NO SURRENDER!' Foster - resigned before being sacked by Party
- Peter 'Save Ulster from Sodomy'' Robinson - stood down
- Mark 'Nice guy' Drakeford - still in post

I won't even begin with the likes of Edwin 'Creationist' Poots or some of the other party leaders like Douglas 'Run the line, never a ref' Ross.

Why has Wee Nic been so popular in Scotland? A whole lot of reasons but one main reason has been when compared to the dross on offer elsewhere, particularly the London centric national parties, she has looked more competent, offered real leadership and has been more connected with the Scottish public. No political leader will ever please everyone all the time but she has carried a strong majority of support during her time as FM.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king!

I think Nicola has gone the same way as all the politicians you've mentioned there except maybe Foster and Robinson (I don't know too much about NI)

Cameron - went when his political project of one nation Toryism died (brexit)
May - went when her political project of not tanking your economy died (the British people voted to tank the economy)
Johnson - went when his political project of enriching his accolytes had milked the British teet dry
Truss - couldn't the international socialists controlling stock markets to agree with her political agenda or radical deregulation and tax cuts
Sunak & Corbyn - will go when the ballot box repudiates their political project
Starmer is boldly offering no solutions so that'll get him in the end.
Sturgeon - went her her political project of independence was frustrated with no viable immediate route.

Sturgeon left at a perfectly rational time. The one political project she has dedicated her life too she has no moves to play. Why would she stay after that? Unlike Johnson and many others she's not out for personal enrichment. There's nothing left to achieve for her.

I partially agree. I think Sturgeon came to the realisation that no matter what the Scottish Gov nor the Scottish people voted for the UK Gov held the ultimate power, the veto, and would always step in and stop something they didn't want to go ahead in Scotland. Many people over estimate the devolved powers of the SG and what it can do and also under estimate the power that have not been devolved and still held by the UK. It was difficult to see the power of the devolved SG being increased and the recent court cases showed that there was little legal support to challenge the UK Gov when it does veto a SG decision. In that respect I can understand that she saw it was the end of the road for gaining independence under the current devolution arrangements. It would take a huge majority and riots on the streets for independence to become a reality. I also suspect the stakes have been raised considerable in recent years and the UK Gov have now realised how dependent they are and will be in the future on Scottish oil & gas, green power, clean water, etc. and will never give up control of that.

With Sturgeon its pretty simple. She has resigned because she knows she no longer has the support of her own party over the only policy that really matters to them - no-one wanted a defacto referendum. The signs have being obvious for a while but the removal of her man Blackford as leader of the Westminster group was the point it became when not if. The finical misconduct of the SNP leadership is going have a wider fallout but I think she is personally insulated from it.

WRT to the court case - anyone with a basic understanding of the Scotland acts and how the devolved government was intended to work knew it was a bust from the start. Sturgeon and the NSP promising things they new they could not deliver is not anyone else's problem.

I don't agree about the idea that stakes are raised - if anything I think we are going to see it go to the back burner now - I think a lot of the soft support for independence was based on NS 's perceived credibility. The pool of leaders below is not great and the infighting has only just begun.

I personally think the end of the Union would be a catastrophe for all sorts of reasons but the idea people outside Scotland only support the Union so they can exploit Scottish resources is absurd (particularly in light of the flow of fiscal transfers ).

Oil and Gas - the North sea is still active but the revenues are not significant in the UK context anymore- biggest recent new field would be in 'English' part of the North Sea.

Green power - in private hands and built with considerable up front and supply subsidies from the GB energy market - the 2014 white paper wanted to keep Scottish suppliers in the GB energy market for these reasons - effectively nothing would change.

Fresh water is one of those weird nationalist memes - to put it simply its not something that's ever being exported except in bottles and the engineering and finical challenges of pumping it hundreds of miles south dwarf the costs of just building new reservoirs much closer. If nothing else the characterization if England as a barren desert devoid of rainfall is pretty hilarious.

[spike]

I think Nicola has gone the same way as all the politicians you've mentioned there except maybe Foster and Robinson (I don't know too much about NI)

Cameron - went when his political project of one nation Toryism died (brexit)
May - went when her political project of not tanking your economy died (the British people voted to tank the economy)
Johnson - went when his political project of enriching his accolytes had milked the British teet dry
Truss - couldn't the international socialists controlling stock markets to agree with her political agenda or radical deregulation and tax cuts
Sunak & Corbyn - will go when the ballot box repudiates their political project
Starmer is boldly offering no solutions so that'll get him in the end.
Sturgeon - went her her political project of independence was frustrated with no viable immediate route.

Sturgeon left at a perfectly rational time. The one political project she has dedicated her life too she has no moves to play. Why would she stay after that? Unlike Johnson and many others she's not out for personal enrichment. There's nothing left to achieve for her.

I partially agree. I think Sturgeon came to the realisation that no matter what the Scottish Gov nor the Scottish people voted for the UK Gov held the ultimate power, the veto, and would always step in and stop something they didn't want to go ahead in Scotland. Many people over estimate the devolved powers of the SG and what it can do and also under estimate the power that have not been devolved and still held by the UK. It was difficult to see the power of the devolved SG being increased and the recent court cases showed that there was little legal support to challenge the UK Gov when it does veto a SG decision. In that respect I can understand that she saw it was the end of the road for gaining independence under the current devolution arrangements. It would take a huge majority and riots on the streets for independence to become a reality. I also suspect the stakes have been raised considerable in recent years and the UK Gov have now realised how dependent they are and will be in the future on Scottish oil & gas, green power, clean water, etc. and will never give up control of that.

With Sturgeon its pretty simple. She has resigned because she knows she no longer has the support of her own party over the only policy that really matters to them - no-one wanted a defacto referendum. The signs have being obvious for a while but the removal of her man Blackford as leader of the Westminster group was the point it became when not if. The finical misconduct of the SNP leadership is going have a wider fallout but I think she is personally insulated from it.

WRT to the court case - anyone with a basic understanding of the Scotland acts and how the devolved government was intended to work knew it was a bust from the start. Sturgeon and the NSP promising things they new they could not deliver is not anyone else's problem.

I don't agree about the idea that stakes are raised - if anything I think we are going to see it go to the back burner now - I think a lot of the soft support for independence was based on NS 's perceived credibility. The pool of leaders below is not great and the infighting has only just begun.

I personally think the end of the Union would be a catastrophe for all sorts of reasons but the idea people outside Scotland only support the Union so they can exploit Scottish resources is absurd (particularly in light of the flow of fiscal transfers ).

Oil and Gas - the North sea is still active but the revenues are not significant in the UK context anymore- biggest recent new field would be in 'English' part of the North Sea.

Green power - in private hands and built with considerable up front and supply subsidies from the GB energy market - the 2014 white paper wanted to keep Scottish suppliers in the GB energy market for these reasons - effectively nothing would change.

Fresh water is one of those weird nationalist memes - to put it simply its not something that's ever being exported except in bottles and the engineering and finical challenges of pumping it hundreds of miles south dwarf the costs of just building new reservoirs much closer. If nothing else the characterization if England as a barren desert devoid of rainfall is pretty hilarious.

I was just about to post about the GB integrated power grid and market, but you beat me to it. On water you hear the same thing from some Plaid Cymru suporters, they think they will be able to sell water to England for a load of money. Actually I heard this recently from my sons partner, who is doing a phd in Geography, inexcusable really.

[Biffer]

England would have regular electricity shortages without the export from Scotland. The UK is a net importer of electricity, Scotland and NI are net exporters - England has a significant shortage in generation compared to demand.

Been trying to find figures, difficult to pin down exactly but the UK imports about 30TWh of electricity a year. That would go up by at least a third, and possibly half, if Scotland was excluded from the UK market. As usual people are only considering the implications for Scotland and not for the rest of the UK.

[robmatic]

England would have regular electricity shortages without the export from Scotland. The UK is a net importer of electricity, Scotland and NI are net exporters - England has a significant shortage in generation compared to demand.

Been trying to find figures, difficult to pin down exactly but the UK imports about 30TWh of electricity a year. That would go up by at least a third, and possibly half, if Scotland was excluded from the UK market. As usual people are only considering the implications for Scotland and not for the rest of the UK.

Why would there be no export from Scotland?

[Biffer]

England would have regular electricity shortages without the export from Scotland. The UK is a net importer of electricity, Scotland and NI are net exporters - England has a significant shortage in generation compared to demand.

Been trying to find figures, difficult to pin down exactly but the UK imports about 30TWh of electricity a year. That would go up by at least a third, and possibly half, if Scotland was excluded from the UK market. As usual people are only considering the implications for Scotland and not for the rest of the UK.

Why would there be no export from Scotland?

Previous few posts seem to have inferred / implied that Indy Scotland assuming they'll be part of an integrated market is a mistake.

[spike]

England would have regular electricity shortages without the export from Scotland. The UK is a net importer of electricity, Scotland and NI are net exporters - England has a significant shortage in generation compared to demand.

Been trying to find figures, difficult to pin down exactly but the UK imports about 30TWh of electricity a year. That would go up by at least a third, and possibly half, if Scotland was excluded from the UK market. As usual people are only considering the implications for Scotland and not for the rest of the UK.

If Scotland pulled out of the integrated market, Scottish consumers would have to subsidise the renewable subsidies and grid maintenance and development which are currently shared over the whole of the UK, and the UK energy market is ten times the size of the Scottish. Also Scotland exports power when the wind blows (as they have over capacity), to balance the grid the UK turns down the gas plant output. Taking Scotland out of the equation (whatever that means) would mean the gas plants output being turned up to replace (as happens normally now, when the wind isn't blowing). Who would Scotland sell all that power to?

Being part of an integrated power grid benefits everyone, but in particular Scotland. Hence why the 2014 independence white paper suggested Scotland would remain in the integrated power market after independence.

[Glaston]

England would have regular electricity shortages without the export from Scotland. The UK is a net importer of electricity, Scotland and NI are net exporters - England has a significant shortage in generation compared to demand.

Been trying to find figures, difficult to pin down exactly but the UK imports about 30TWh of electricity a year. That would go up by at least a third, and possibly half, if Scotland was excluded from the UK market. As usual people are only considering the implications for Scotland and not for the rest of the UK.

Not last year.
High exports to France

There are also more HDVC's being built, the one connecting England to Denmark should be online by 2024.
There is even one proposed to connect Morocco to UK (the cable for it will be built in Scotland)




The other thing about water.
The bits of the UK that need more water are nowhere near Scotland and to move the water from the N to the SW/SE would probably cost more than HS2

[Tichtheid]

England would have regular electricity shortages without the export from Scotland. The UK is a net importer of electricity, Scotland and NI are net exporters - England has a significant shortage in generation compared to demand.

Been trying to find figures, difficult to pin down exactly but the UK imports about 30TWh of electricity a year. That would go up by at least a third, and possibly half, if Scotland was excluded from the UK market. As usual people are only considering the implications for Scotland and not for the rest of the UK.

Not last year.
High exports to France

It was the first time in 44 years that the UK had been a net exporter,

Over the past year, French nuclear power stations had many maintenance problems which led to significant reductions in their output. In August, 57% of the country’s generation capacity was not being used. Despite a modest recovery, as of January 2023, 15 of its 56 reactors were closed for repairs. All this meant nuclear-reliant France had to import electricity from neighbouring countries.

This led to more electricity being generated in Britain than would otherwise have been the case, to satisfy the additional demand from France. So while Britain’s renewable generation was at a record level, its fossil fuel generation was also higher than in the previous year. Without the problems in France, 2022 could have been the first year that Britain’s wind, solar and hydro combined generated more electricity than its fossil fuels – a milestone that will happen anyway over the next couple of years.

https://theconversation.com/britain-is- ... ars-197506

[Biffer]

England would have regular electricity shortages without the export from Scotland. The UK is a net importer of electricity, Scotland and NI are net exporters - England has a significant shortage in generation compared to demand.

Been trying to find figures, difficult to pin down exactly but the UK imports about 30TWh of electricity a year. That would go up by at least a third, and possibly half, if Scotland was excluded from the UK market. As usual people are only considering the implications for Scotland and not for the rest of the UK.

Not last year.
High exports to France

There are also more HDVC's being built, the one connecting England to Denmark should be online by 2024.
There is even one proposed to connect Morocco to UK (the cable for it will be built in Scotland)




The other thing about water.
The bits of the UK that need more water are nowhere near Scotland and to move the water from the N to the SW/SE would probably cost more than HS2

Uk exporting to France was a one off for known reasons, as above.

We could of course wonder why the HVDC line to Norway, to access more hydro storage, wasn’t terminated in Scotland, where the excess is generated and where it’s closer.

[spike]

England would have regular electricity shortages without the export from Scotland. The UK is a net importer of electricity, Scotland and NI are net exporters - England has a significant shortage in generation compared to demand.

Been trying to find figures, difficult to pin down exactly but the UK imports about 30TWh of electricity a year. That would go up by at least a third, and possibly half, if Scotland was excluded from the UK market. As usual people are only considering the implications for Scotland and not for the rest of the UK.

Not last year.
High exports to France

There are also more HDVC's being built, the one connecting England to Denmark should be online by 2024.
There is even one proposed to connect Morocco to UK (the cable for it will be built in Scotland)




The other thing about water.
The bits of the UK that need more water are nowhere near Scotland and to move the water from the N to the SW/SE would probably cost more than HS2

Uk exporting to France was a one off for known reasons, as above.

We could of course wonder why the HVDC line to Norway, to access more hydro storage, wasn’t terminated in Scotland, where the excess is generated and where it’s closer.

There was a NorthConnect project to link Norway to Scotland, to utilise excess Scottish wind power and balance with Norwegian hydropower, proposed by a consortium of Norwegian companies. The Norwegian government though wasn't convinced of the benefits and stopped it.