Politics Thread 6

[Moggy]

I read that that Scotland would be marginally better off per capita if it left the UK, so it probably make economic sense to leave. The Tories will not give a second vote though.

This doesn't really matter. If we get to the stage of having overwhelming popular support within the nation of Scotland - if those numbers get solidly into the 60%s, say - it'll happen.

If the SNP held a vote and won by a solid margin, and it was declared illegitimate by the Tories, could you imagine the civil unrest?

The Tories wouldn't care about any civil unrest, because that's all the way up in Scotland, far away from the nice, safe walls of Westminster.

Do you think people wouldn’t be protesting in London?

I have very little faith in the people of London to give a strawberry float about anything that doesn't directly affect themselves.

Yeah, you never see people in London protesting for things like BLM....

London is incredibly diverse, and the Met are a bunch of racist, violent banana splits, so issues like BLM are issues that affect Londoners directly.

You think every Londoner is protesting against the Met?

They are protesting against the wider issue, which affects Londoners by being extremely prevalent in the Metropolitan Police.

Wider issues, so not just things that affect London?

I guess there are examples of people in other areas of the UK protesting things that don't directly affect themselves?

[Lex-Man]

You probably missed my last post as we posted at the same time, but I really do think - in the scenario where support for independence grows by another 10% over the next few years - you simply wouldn't be able to govern Scotland by ignoring or strong-arming it. It would have an absolute majority in favour of independence and a legitimate government-in-waiting coordinating that movement.

It's really not clear to me how "Boris not budging" would have any impact at all on that situation. Him getting pink and sweaty on the BBC won't force Scotland to continue to comply with any of the things that make up the process of English governance.

I guess I think strong arming would work. They'd be protests but they'd die out eventually. The Scottish people won't be able keep it indefinitely and there isn't enough of them to revolt against the government.

Edit: I doubt it'd be a unique situation there are a lot of independence movements across the world.

[That]

Sure, I mean, the Tories are very comfortable doing war crimes so maybe they would try it. I just don't think escalation offers a path to retaining power long-term. I feel like we're going around in circles a bit now though so I'll give it a rest here.

[Corazon de Leon]

You probably missed my last post as we posted at the same time, but I really do think - in the scenario where support for independence grows by another 10% over the next few years - you simply wouldn't be able to govern Scotland by ignoring or strong-arming it. It would have an absolute majority in favour of independence and a legitimate government-in-waiting coordinating that movement.

It's really not clear to me how "Boris not budging" would have any impact at all on that situation. Him getting pink and sweaty on the BBC won't force Scotland to continue to comply with any of the things that make up the process of English governance.

I guess I think strong arming would work. They'd be protests but they'd die out eventually. The Scottish people won't be able keep it indefinitely and there isn't enough of them to revolt against the government.

Edit: I doubt it'd be a unique situation there are a lot of independence movements across the world.

The Scottish national consciousness is literally to have a chip on our collective shoulders about that kind of tactic(it's not paranoia if they're really out to get us ) - the Poll Tax riots kicked off a movement that pretty much directly led to devolution in 1999. I reckon if Westminster tried any bully boy tactics support for independence would see a similar surge.

[Lex-Man]

Sure, I mean, the Tories are very comfortable doing war crimes so maybe they would try it. I just don't think escalation offers a path to retaining power long-term. I feel like we're going around in circles a bit now though so I'll give it a rest here.

I agree that it would be hard to keep going for the long term but it'd certainly work for the duration of parliament or as long as Boris / a Tory happy to use force to keep control is in office. Short term could easily be twenty years if not more.

[Rocsteady]

Scotland will not ever get a majority of the potential electorate voting for independence which is where part of this argument falls down. There are too many non-voters to push it to the required levels.

[Lex-Man]

Scotland will not ever get a majority of the potential electorate voting for independence which is where part of this argument falls down. There are too many non-voters to push it to the required levels.

Turn out was 85% in the last one.

[Tineash]

Scotland will not ever get a majority of the potential electorate voting for independence which is where part of this argument falls down. There are too many non-voters to push it to the required levels.

Cameron being the big-brained genius never put a minimum % of electorate requirement on the first referendum, and no chance that the Scottish government agree to it being added for a later one. Scotland would have had its own assembly/parliament 20 years sooner if not for such a clause in the '79 referendum.

[Qikz]

twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1269327287452864513

[Lagamorph]

twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1269333326025953282

[Benzin]

Shame that'll be back to normal by end of the year, let alone the next election.

[DML]

Shame that'll be back to normal by end of the year, let alone the next election.

40,000 families with a dead loved one is not an inconsiderable number of people. I don't think Coronavirus just gets forgotten. Look at the war, they binned Churchill off as soon as they could.

[Parksey]

Shame that'll be back to normal by end of the year, let alone the next election.

40,000 families with a dead loved one is not an inconsiderable number of people. I don't think Coronavirus just gets forgotten. Look at the war, they binned Churchill off as soon as they could.

Helps that the election was in July 1945 though, not five years and a full parliamentary cycle after. They also re-elected Churchill in 1951, having re-elected Atlee in 1950. Crucially, almost everyone who voted in that 1945 is now dead, so it's probably not going to have a bearing on modern thinking anyway.

[<]:^D]

41% of the populations still would vote back in the Cons?
there'd be a proportion who'd still vote for Boris if he was shitting on their face at the time. morons.

[Moggy]

twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1269546510217289735

"How many black people are in the Cabinet?"

"We have Asians!"

"Yes, but how many black people?"

"We had some before!"

"Yes, but how many now?"

"WE HAVE DIVERSE THOUGHTS!!!"

[caseinpoint]

twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1269546510217289735

"How many black people are in the Cabinet?"

"We have Asians!"

"Yes, but how many black people?"

"We had some before!"

"Yes, but how many now?"

"WE HAVE DIVERSE THOUGHTS!!!"

Why wouldn't he just answer the question? It's bizarre to deflect like that.

The answer is, there are none. 22 people in the cabinet, none of them are black. From the proportion of the population (3%), you'd expect either none or 1. It's hardly surprising, is it?

[Squinty]

'We have none, this is something we need to consider in future selections'.

Done.

And more importantly, PICK strawberry floating COMPETENT PEOPLE FOR YOUR WHOLE CABINET. Not another shower of stupid strawberry floaters who lack basic empathy and intelligence.

[Vermilion]

I see Moggy was busy throwing statues in Bristol Harbour today.

Don't deny it, we all know it was you.

[Cuttooth]

Who would deny it?

[DML]

I see Moggy was busy throwing statues in Bristol Harbour today.

Don't deny it, we all know it was you.

....why would he deny it? Is it something to be ashamed of?