Tuesday, June 16, 2020

This is the problem with not being an independent country

At the outset of the pandemic, New Zealand was on one end of the spectrum in controversially arguing that the virus could be completely eliminated.  On the other end was the UK, which insisted (in defiance of evidence that already existed from China and South Korea) that it was literally impossible to contain the epidemic, and that it was therefore pointless - and somehow harmful - to even try.  I lost count of the number of times Chris Whitty put on a patronising little smile as he spoke about those naive souls who thought that the goal of the government should be to actually prevent people from being infected, rather than to ensure that the majority of the population was infected in the most 'orderly' way.  "Look at the map," he would say.  "Look at all the countries around us where the virus is.  The idea that this thing is going away does not strike me as terribly plausible."

That's the sort of statement that superficially appears to be highly intelligent and grounded in realism, but is actually totally daft.  It rests on the implication that the virus can somehow move from one country to another in a way that cannot be stopped, which in the case of the UK means that it would have to be able to fly across the English Channel on its own propulsion.  It cannot do that, which means Whitty was wrong: if a country can control its own borders, and can eliminate the virus within those borders, there's no need to fret so much about what's happening elsewhere.  We know that the UK can, if it wishes, control its borders, so that leaves only one question: is it feasible to eliminate the virus on this island?

Initially, Devi Sridhar (Professor at Edinburgh University and one of the voices of sanity throughout this crisis) seemed sceptical that outright eradication could be achieved, and instead tended to argue for the virus to be suppressed as much as possible while we wait for a vaccine or effective treatments to arrive.  But she's come round more to the idea of eradication now that New Zealand has proved its critics wrong.













The Scottish Government, to its credit, has been increasingly bullish about using the word 'eradicate' -



But the snag, of course, is that the Scottish Government does not have all of the tools required to eliminate the virus, because it is not the government of an independent sovereign state. A devolved government can, as we've seen in recent weeks, have success in pushing the virus back and suppressing it, but total elimination requires control over borders and the ability to quarantine people who arrive from countries (such as, for example, England) where the epidemic is far from being extinguished. That doesn't mean elimination is impossible, but it does mean it can only happen if the UK Government are persuaded of the need to attempt it, which at the moment looks a distant prospect. (I suspect the penny will drop eventually, but on past form every painful lesson seems to take far too long.)

The cost of not being independent will on this occasion be counted in the loss of human lives.

* * *

On the other extreme from Devi Sridhar's thread is one from former Scottish Tory spin doctor Andy Maciver, who seems to have learned no lessons at all over the last few months. He's arguing that, in spite of the success of New Zealand and other countries, it's for some reason not possible to stamp out the epidemic in this particular country, and that we should therefore accept that the virus might be around into the long-term. Essentially what he wants is for the Scottish Government to throw caution to the wind on the reopening of schools. He sticks his head firmly in the sand on two points in particular -

"There is a reason why we never hear about children dying or even becoming ill from Covid - it’s because it is not happening."

"I know, I know, it’s not about the children, it’s about who they contact. Firstly, it is worth noting that there is no hard evidence that children infect adults at all."


The idea that we don't hear about children even becoming ill is ludicrous. I personally know of a young child who was symptomatic for several days after being infected. But even leaving aside anecdotal evidence of that sort, there's well-documented evidence of children suffering from a rare inflammatory condition as a result of coronavirus. As for there being "no evidence" of children infecting adults, you'd think we might by now have grasped the point that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that the precautionary principle dictates that you don't take risks with people's health when there just isn't enough information to know one way or the other.

* * *

I've said a few times that I don't see the need for a new pro-indy party, but that if one is formed it's really important that it has a purpose in life other than 'gaming the system'. If your Party Election Broadcast is an embarrassing three-minute monologue about the d'Hondt formula, you can safely assume you've gone badly wrong somewhere. Alas, judging from the website of the freshly-formed Independence for Scotland party, that mistake has not been avoided. One of the first articles on the site is a tortuous explanation of why the SNP failed to win a list seat in the north-east in 2016, and of how the ISP can supposedly remedy that on behalf of the independence movement if they win "just" 7% of the vote.

The north-east is actually a really poor choice of example, because the SNP succeeded in taking a list seat there in 2011 in spite of winning every constituency seat in the region. A repeat of that type of scenario is not guaranteed, but it's certainly infinitely more likely than a fringe party taking 7% of the vote on its first attempt. What really gives the game away, though, is the fact that the article openly prays in aid Gavin Barrie's pseudoscientific 'analysis' from last year, which many authoritative voices have pointed out was deeply flawed.

It's stated that a voting system designed to prevent a single-party majority means that the forces of unionism have an in-built advantage due to being comprised of three major parties rather than just one. That is, frankly, absolute rubbish. It's the complete opposite of the truth. The SNP's dominance of the Yesser vote has worked firmly in favour of the pro-indy camp - in 2016, a pro-indy majority of seats was won without an absolute majority of the popular vote on either ballot.

I'm troubled also by the suggestion that the ISP exists to challenge a "single party system". That characterisation is simply not accurate - the SNP run a minority government at Holyrood and can't get anything through the Scottish Parliament without the support of at least one other party. But the claim echoes the chorus of spurious unionist complaints from 2015-17 about a "one-party state" - and that period did not end well for the Yes movement. Avoiding self-inflicted wounds is always a good idea.

91 comments:

  1. In a scarily well timed manner to illustrate your point, New Zealand has just registered its first Covid-19 cases in 3 weeks. Guess where the infected people came from... yep, the UK.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/16/new-zealand-records-first-new-covid-19-cases-after-women-arrive-from-uk-carrying-virus

    ReplyDelete
  2. I got banned from posting on a prominent indie blog because of this,

    Vote SNP 1 - Green 2 at next years Holyrood election to decimate the Unionist list MSPs and give the Scottish Parliament numbers to take the Independence campaign forward.

    Did I say something wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree, it is not beyond the most politically sophisticated electorate to do this.

      Delete
    2. If this is done properly, with likes of scot goes pop informing independence supporters, it could reduce the unionist parties to a handful of list seats, labour could be wiped out, which would put Sarah Smith into a tailspin

      Delete
    3. Why would I want to vote for Green nutters?

      Delete
    4. @Anon 11:01

      Honest question, would you rather have:
      a)independence supporting Green MSPs
      or
      b) Unionist Tory/Lab MSPs?

      Delete
    5. If the Green party were in actual fact just that, a Green party then I would consider voting for them, but they're not, Patrick Harvie is a communist and that's every bit as bad as a Tory because they're so far left they're meeting the Tories round the back as they go far right

      The other problem with the Greens is they're not pro Scottish Independence, they're just pro popularity of the SNP so coat tail hangers, other than that they're mostly just nuisances the minute they think they hold the balance of power to affect the passing of budgets

      Their constant bleating about how Scotland should be full of cyclists and comparing Scotland to the netherlands is a complete fraud and stupid, the Netherlands is as flat as a pancake where even dead people could cycle, Scotland however is the complete opposite where you have to be either young or an athlete to cycle regularly, plus the Greens always seem to neglect the fact that people carrying three bags of shopping while trailing three kids into the town to carry a microwave home from the shops just can't quite manage that on a bike

      The Greens also demand more public transport taxpayer funded so the world will suffer from less pollution, poppycock, unless public transport becomes all electric or hydrogen powered it's a massive polluter and once again you can't carry the two table lamps a living room rug and a duvet you just bought home on the bloody bus

      I drive a car, I pay and paid for the construction and maintainance of the roads through direct taxation and road fund licence, the Greens believe cyclists should pay no tax no insurance and have zero responsibility for their own behaviour with all road difficulties the sole responsibilty of the car driver, so if I hit them I pay for it, if they hit me I pay for it, and after all that I have to moniter their behaviour on the road more than a motor vehicle because when they swerve right in front of me to avoid a pothole I cannot avoid the offending pothole for taking evasive action to avoid them

      All that while they ride on the pavement half the time anyway to avoid adhering to the highway code and stopping for traffic lights that I pay for in order to keep both road users and pedestrians safe

      So no the Greens don't get my vote now or ever until they become a proper political party and not just a populist virtue signal

      Delete
    6. Were you not probably banned because you kept repeating the same post every few hours, that's normally considered trolling.

      P.S. I would vote UKIP before I voted Green, the last thing I want is them holding the balance of power. As we donned our organically grown smock deputy leader Harvie would arrive at parliament in his sedan chair propelled by workers under the new job creation scheme to eliminate unemployment.

      Delete
    7. @Anon 12:11 and jfngw

      Have you ever heard of the climate emergency?

      Delete
    8. "If this is done properly, with likes of scot goes pop informing independence supporters"

      I'm afraid that Scot Goes Pop will, as it has always done, point out that tactical voting on the list is simply not viable and that people should always vote for their first choice party on the list. Although I was rather amused by the conspiracy theorists in the Wings comment section a week or two back who thought they'd worked out that THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for some of the things I'd said was that I'm secretly angling for a Green list vote - apparently ignoring about nine years of vast evidence to the contrary!

      Delete
    9. Put the polling numbers from the Scot Goes Pop poll last week into that seat calculators and it spits out a 13 seat majority for the SNP!

      So the ISP or Greens isn't the only way to a pro-indy majority.

      However there is one thing... it's only the performance of the SNP that will mater to Westminster and the MSM. They'll use a majority for indy by plurality of parties to dismiss us away.

      Delete
    10. @James Kelly

      I wouldn't catagorise it as unviable, it is perfectly viable, but that it is probably unachievable. A big hitting leader of a list party could swing things the same way Farage swung the Tory party, the big difference here is he had a helping hand from the media and that is unlikely to happen in Scotland.

      The current ISP have no big name currently which the voters will recognise. Most of the public don't pay that much attention to politics in any depth, too many commenting on blog sites get caught in their bubble assuming the rest of the public pay the same attention to politic as themselves.

      Delete
    11. jffbesx, I very rarely post over thonder, I guess I didn't fit in with the hatefest.

      Delete
    12. However there is one thing... it's only the performance of the SNP that will mater to Westminster and the MSM. They'll use a majority for indy by plurality of parties to dismiss us away.

      If the SNP and Greens both commit to a referendum, then a combined majority provides a mandate for one. There's not much point worrying about Westminster dismissing such a result, because they'll dismiss any result. If the SNP have a parliamentary majority, they'll say they need a majority of votes. If they have a majority of votes, they'll say that we can't have a referendum while dealing with the pressing matters of Brexit, Covid, or Boris paying for his lover's latest abortion.

      Delete
    13. ScottytheScotinScotlandJune 17, 2020 at 1:04 PM

      Anonymous - 12.50 pm 16June - "However there is one thing.............". - that is a seriously strong dose of the Cringe you are displaying there. Why care what the MSM say. They will criticise and lie whatever.

      You should be more concerned about the Scotgov giving them money to help stop independence.

      Delete
    14. I don't trust the Greens. Half of the Greens I meet are closet Tories.

      Delete
  3. Various medics have given advice to a select committee recently in Westminster with one surgeon saying that having done lung autopsies on 30 people after they were in hospital for 3-4 weeks they showed highly irregular and in some cases fused cells and is behaving differently SARS or flu. In many the lung cells were not recognizable. Also patients who have recovered are very likely to have long term respiratory problems depending on severity of damage which has implications for health services in the future.
    Covid 19 is spread by human contact so as you point out James we need boarder controls which for Scotland means Idependence ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The one party state claim is always good for a laugh in a country where the voting system is designed specifically to avoid that outcome
    England however actively seeks a one party state situation where the media constantly tell you that the party they favour most can't possibly govern without an absolute majority and what thet statement should tell anybody is that the politicians in England refuse to co-operate as they are forced to do in Scotland

    How many times have we heard it, *we need an absolute majority to govern and get our policies through*

    They're actually telling you quite clearly they demand to be a one party state and if they're not the government will collapse in failure

    They call this democracy but it's not it's dictatorship, how is one party representative of the people, it's not, yet they demand it until they get it and when they do they're out of control because no other party or parties combined can stop them

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the basis of statistical risk, it's utterly nonsensical to quarantine arrivals to Scotland from e.g. New Zealand and Norway while letting people from England just walk in. The latter is/was one of the most severely infected countries in the world.

    This is just another example of how comically inept the UK government has been at handling covid.

    If we are honest, it's racist too; to exempt English folk from quarantine that is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said.
      I don’t want to seem like a provocateur, although I am feeling pretty vexed - How about the aeroplanes from England - are they under our control as far as landing on our airports is concerned? ( I sort of assume so on the basis of the Air passenger duty plan that fell by the wayside)
      And how do we hear of welsh police turning people away back to England but not so
      much here?

      Delete
  6. @anon12.00
    I've always voted SNP 1 AND 2. The lack of urgency from the SNP and their GRA position might have me giving my 2nd vote to another Indy party, but it will never go to the Greens with their GRA nonsense. They are even worse than the SNP on that issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More than entitled to that position. But that wasn't the question.

      Would you rather have
      a) independence supporting Green MSPs
      or
      b) unionists Tory/Labour MSPs ?

      Delete
    2. Bogus choice unless you add
      or
      c) neither

      Delete
    3. It isn't a real choice for sure! But standard A/B testing technique.

      For the record, independence trumps all for me so would always be a

      Delete
  7. If advocating a "SNP 1 X 2" strategy, your X party shouldn't be standing in any constituencies at all. A Green candidate standing in Edinburgh Southern in 2016 arguably handed that seat to Ruth Davidson. The Greens would've still got their two list seats in Lothians if that seat had gone SNP.

    They did this after a warning in 2015 when it looked like Green voters had robbed us the gift of unseating David Mundell. I could overlook that because it really was a tight contest and a percentage of Green voters simply won't go SNP under any circumstances. Not after Edinburgh South.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Having seen points of view here there and everywhere on 2021 voting strategies, something seems missing.

    The Scottish Parliament doesn't have a preference voting system like for council elections. We can't rank the Greens or SSP or ISP over the Tories or otherwise. That requires careful voting.

    In 2016, the SNP list vote went down, and so too did their total seats. The allocation on seats from the list vote also depends on how other parties perform in constituencies and the list.

    When it comes to "tactics" or "strategy" that means you can think and vote as carefully as you like, but there are lots of variables at play which means you might not get what you want.

    So. Until there is voting reform at Holyrood (which I think the SNP should have done already, buy heyho), you still have to vote carefully and for what you truly want and is achievable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with a lot of what people have said here, but Anonymous seems to keep contradicting herself. One minute she says something supportive of independence and the next she says the opposite. Call me old-fashioned, but that seems strange to me. As Uncle Wattie loved to say, "They'd argue with a knitting needle."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous applies to all posters who don't supply names, it's not all the same person mutthead

      Delete
    2. So why do different people choose the same name? I think they're cakey. People should have different names or they could get confused.

      Delete
  10. ScottytheScotinScotlandJune 16, 2020 at 7:00 PM

    As ever you are spot on re the virus. Not so much re Scottish independence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You can always tell populist / careerist politicians; they only usually have one populist policy, with no clear plan for how that will be achieved. They promise you the moon on a stick at election time, telling how they will 'deliver what other parties have not', but are very short on detail. They are also really keep on asking you to 'tactically' vote for them; an attempt to distract you from the lack of a detailed manifesto upon which you should be basing your vote. In the end, they just want the cushy job and expenses; they don't want to make the hard decisions. They will leave the hot potato for others to handle. Classic Farage.

    By contrast, principled politicians put forward a rage of policies and defend these even when they come under attack for them. They are also pragmatic and honest about what's achievable and timescales. They are honest about the voting system and ask that you lend them your vote based on policy and record.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The UK do the defense and DWP Policy. What specific policies do the Nat sis have to improve this. How much will the Scottish taxpayer have to give the EU beaurocracy in an independent Scotland. Answer on a Stagecoach bus ticket.

      Delete
    2. That'll be for Scotland to decide, that's the whole point of independence! We decide, not Westminster.

      Delete
    3. The UK government removes £3.7 billion from Scotlands taxes to pay for defence, that's £1.4 billion more than Israel spends on defence and they're capable of blowing half the middle east or the UK to shit

      You think Scotland's got its moneys worth there

      Delete
    4. Can you provide evidence for this. And what has Israel goat tae dae with this. Israel is not part of the UK. Anti semitism raises its head with Scottish Nat si fash methinks.

      Delete
    5. GWC is antisemiticJune 17, 2020 at 9:05 AM

      Conflating the state of Israel and Jewish people is antisemitic.

      Delete
    6. Yes, GWC, the fact you conflate the actions of Israel and Jewish people is anti-Semitic under the Holocaust remembrance working definition of antisemitism.

      Israel is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state. To suggest the violent repression of the Palestinians by its government is somehow the fault of Jewish people is inherently anti-Semitic.

      Delete
  12. The idea that children do not infect adults appears ludicrous to me. The ONS have been doing an ifection survey for a number of weeks now, the 2-11 and 12-19 are as likely as any other group to be infected.

    In the latest survey the highest infected group is the 20-49 which is to be expected under the current lockdown restrictions.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/12june2020

    It's correct that children have less severe illness but not at all clear that they do not pass it on to other children and adults as some like to claim.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wee Knickerless holds back the release from lockdoon for personal Nat si political reasons hoping a few English will snuff it tae prove her point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Covidia shows its pathetic racism in its fevered fantasy about English corpses.
      Snivelling Nazi.

      Delete
  14. All the wee Yoons must've had their arses skelped by their Mammies they're so frightened of Nicola Sturgeon

    If Nicola Sturgeon is so bad at her job why are they all afraid of her, Boris the soup slurper is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would love wee Knickerless tae skelp ma erse then give her ra favourite. She would vote Unionist an ask fur more.

      Delete
    2. What a loathsome sack of filth you are.

      Delete
  15. Going by above comments by Nat sis you have resigned tae losing. Sad lot, feel sorry fur yea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stench of this Nazi bootlick.

      Delete
  16. There is just under 1 year to the scottish election..I think it's a bit premature to write off the isp party.50%+ want a referendum.with the yes movement. auob. prominent bloggers.and the rest of us just bringing up isp in conversations.there is a good chance that it could catch on.like the yes movement did in the last few months of 2014.i will vote snp 1 isp 2. What we need is for independence supporters to get behind isp.if they start making inroads on the list vote polls.there would be mass hysteria within the unionist party's. Which in itself would create more publicity.colette has said she is not there to derail the snp..let's give her as much backing as we can.if it doesn't work out I'm sure she will stand aside.im sure the unionist trolls on here will trumpet the snp/green tkt.but if all genuine independence supporters promote snp/isp we can sit back and watch the britnat cabal turning on itself

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ScottytheScotinScotlandJune 17, 2020 at 12:56 PM

      Stu hutch - I agree. I used to vote SNP/Green. I will now vote SNP/ISP.

      The SNP need to get on with what they are supposed to be about - Scottish independence.

      SNP members need to have a clearout of the Britnat saboteurs that inhabit positions of influence and power in the SNP.

      Delete
  17. I've not yet looked far into what the ISP is up to, other than an initial feeling that any new indy party will indeed split the vote and/or prove a devisive wedge between independence supporters. I am ready to be convinced otherwise but have the following thought.

    What is the goal or the SNP or ISP in Holyrood election? To get an indy majority. Ideally (at least in SNP's case) to win outright.

    Seems to me that the more the SNP are struggling to win 1st votes, the more the need for pro indy supporters to put SNP2. At the other extreme, the more the SNP is sailing away with constituency seats, to get a mounting overall majority, the less need to be attempting to convert every last indy vote into seats (on the basis there could come a point when a stonking popular vote could carry more moral weight than one or two additional opposition indy MPs).

    The question becomes: is there a middle zone in which the best way to get an indy majority is via the 'list seats' of a third or fourth indy party (after SNP and Greens and any other pro indy party that might yet come ahead of ISP). If so, how big is that zone, and what are the chances of the ISP being the best placed pro-indy party to achieve it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Presumably any new party is aiming to maximise its own vote and seats ahead of any others. For example, even if it's only on the list, that party would ideally seek to gain as many seats as possible and take them from whoever it possibly could. tHerefore the ISP must surely be tryong to take votes and seats off the SP. Surely that goes with the territory.

    Now that may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view. Some may rather having three or four indy parties in a grand indy coaltion than a SNP majority. But surely the ISP must admit it's after something - its own power nad influence - over and above simply independence. I am not sure if they have admitted that?

    This comes back to the issue of whether they would pull out of the elections if they felt sure that they would not have a chance of winning seats. If their sole aim is independence, they would surely stand aside and let the SNP take the indy vote (echoing the Brexit party in GE2019). Only if their aim is not, after all, to maximise the chance of indy, but to maximise their own vote for its won sake, would they decline to do so - in which case they'r be doing what some accuse the SNP of doing - just trying to keep power rather than pushing for indy.

    These are questions I'd put to any new indy party. (Maybe the ISP have answered them, I'll look into it.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, if the goal of such a party is to 'keep the SNP in line', then it must be a threat to the SNP in terms of seats and holding a majority. If had no impact on SNP seats, then how could it keep the SNP in line? The latter could simply ignore it.

      So there is clear intent to take ground from the SNP and those proposing this new party should be honest about that.

      I don't like this dishonesty, about intent and the voting system.

      The Greens have done this at times and it's part of the reason I've not given them a vote at Holyrood level.

      My list vote is my most important vote. It's always counted. Stop lying to me that I can give it to others like some sort of spare one. You will not get my vote for trying to deceive me in this way. The SNP at least have always been honest here; 'SNP 1 + 2!' is, unquestionably, the way to maximise SNP seats.

      Delete
    2. ScottytheScotinScotlandJune 17, 2020 at 1:21 PM

      It will maximise SNP seats. So if your primary aim is PARTY success then good for you.

      Some of us want Scottish independence not a strong SNP that is morphing into the British Labour PARTY.

      What did all those British Labour MPs in Scotland ever do for Scotland. What did all those SNP MPs at Westminster do for Scottish independence. Oh that's right Blackford said we won't be dragged out of the EU against our will and the Tories laughed. They are laughing at independence supporters. They know the SNP is full of hot air.

      Delete
    3. Sure, but then it needs to be made clear that if you vote for a party other than the SNP on the list, you are voting against the SNP, and it is likely to cost them seats. A non-list SNP vote is attacking them / trying to replace them in Holyrood etc; that is ultimately what will happen if enough folk do it.

      I'm personally not accusing you of trying to mislead here, but some 'new list party' folk are certainly guilty of pretending the list vote is some sort of extra vote you can use freely at no risk once you've voted SNP in the constituency. That's just a lie.

      Your list vote is your most important vote (PR so always counted) and should be given to the party that you desire most at the helm.

      Small parties stand on the list because they know it's they way to ensure they are counted democratically.

      Delete
    4. I'll also note that if you vote to put a party with only one policy in power, it suggests you are putting party before governance. After all, you are voting for people which don't have any plans at all for 5 years of governing the country. That's the height of careerism; like UKIP in the EU parliament.

      If there is a new list indy party, it needs to have a full manifesto, including policies for its vision of indy negotiations and the post indy world. Also for what it will do if indy is rejected again.

      Will it be pro-EU? Will it be left / right? Will it vote for low tax capitalism, socialism?

      People need to know these things. They're not going to give some out of the blue party a blank cheque. Only an idiot would do that.

      This new indy list party is an imaginary pig in a poke right now.

      Delete
    5. I agree with your earlier post about the need for honesty.

      However I am not sure I come to the same conclusion as you on "a party with only one policy". I think it's entirely reasonable to put yourself forward as a single issue party. It could in principle gather the widest possible vote, for those prioritising independence. Clearly a list-only party is not bidding to be leading a government so I don't have a problem on that front.

      Delete
    6. More problematic, I think, is a party who says they're just there to up the indy representation but also have some side issues, on which they differ from the SNP, and hope to siphon off SNP votes that way.

      Of course democratically that's fine, and it's what other pro indy parties do. But those other parties are in effect *defined* by those other causes - green issues or socialism etc. They nail their colours to the mast.

      But a new party claiming to exist for the sake of indy, and take list votes off the SNP, while harbouring other agendas that may not be made obvious to voters - but that they aim to use to attack and undermine the bigger pro-indy parties - well I am not sure about that, I still need to get my head round that.

      Delete
    7. ScottytheScotinScotlandJune 17, 2020 at 9:29 PM

      "Take list votes off the SNP" do people commenting above really understand how the system works. I voted green because I knew my SNP regional list vote would be a wasted vote. The SNP would NEVER get another SNP MSP if I voted SNP. I voted Green for SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE.

      I vote for Scottish independence - others now seem to vote for a PARTY or a LEADER.

      Scottish Skier could not be more wrong about the list vote being the most important vote. For most people voting SNP it is a wasted vote.

      Delete
  19. It's a funny old game here at Scot goes Pop, a game of 2 halves as Greavsie would say, 1st half, I get posts red carded, for no apparent reason and in the 2nd half, we see lots of offensive shite being left on the field, ha ha ha you kill me James.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As an aside, I do find the who 'attitudes were different back then' thing odd when it comes to racism.

    Churchill was a racist. It's not excused by the fact racism was more common at the time, with little protection for minorities in law.

    That's like saying if we encourage racism so lots of people start being racist, it will become ok to be racist. I mean if everyone starts doing it... Erm, no.

    Back in Churchill's time folk understood racism very well. Ask e.g. black people back then. They knew all about it. They wouldn't have answered 'No, it's fine because most white folks think like Churchill!'.

    There have always been people who fought against racism, bigotry, slavery etc. These things have always been wrong, and this was known. However, the world has always had racists, bigots and those who would enslave others, and historically, these have been in power sometimes.

    Nope, Churchill believed white English superior to the natives in the colonies because he was a racist and he knew exactly what racism was. Just like today, people would have told him his views were racist and he would have dismissed them.

    So the whole 'things were different then' is shite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ScottytheScotinScotlandJune 17, 2020 at 1:12 PM

      Churchill fought the Nazis and the Japanese to save the Brutish Empire - he failed - it started to unravel in the decades that followed WW2 and is still unravelling to this day. An English white supremacist he certainly was.

      Injustice, racism, imperialism, colonialism discrimination and prejudice have always been wrong.

      Delete
    2. Anti English racism is rampant amongst Scottish Nat sis.

      Delete
    3. Churchill was a Scottish MP. Represented Dundee for 14 years.

      Delete
    4. The former British Empire which the Scots helped build saw its final demise after the Suez fiasco. You Nat sis need to catch up on real history and stop making it up.

      Delete
    5. Skier, should it be Churchill was an Englishman who occupied a seat in Scotland.

      Delete
    6. 'Suez fiasco'.

      Typical anti-Scottish / English attitude from you GWC.

      Delete
    7. "Skier, should it be Churchill was an Englishman who occupied a seat in Scotland."

      See, you are anti-English. He represented Scotland for 14 years yet you won't consider him as one of us.

      Delete
    8. ScottytheScotinScotlandJune 17, 2020 at 9:19 PM

      GWC away slide back to your sewer where you will be happy stinking out the place with your fellow Britnat turds. Like all Britnat turds you are a disgusting piece of shit.

      Delete
  21. I live in New Zealand and life here has returned almost to normal, except our tourist industry is badly affected as we have no tourists. Lockdown completely ended just over a week ago and shops are back to normal. We only had 7 weeks of full lockdown because our government acted early, but even here we have Tories (national party New Zealand) saying we shouldn't have been in lockdown so long (the public's reaction to that ended in their leader being replaced).

    Scotland needs the power to control its borders, even the states in Australia have that power (Google western Australian border closures) that is why we have managed to control covid, purely because we control our borders and can stop its entry while stopping it spreading inside the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The borders in the UK are just fictional. We are a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      Delete
    2. The border between NI and ROI is fictional but Britain is separated from Ireland by the fucking Irish sea.











      Delete
    3. Never mind, Gormless Westminster Cringer, I'm sure your fellow blackshirts in NI will give you a hero's welcome for your assiduous (if futile) efforts to halt the tide, once those "fictional" borders rise up and bite you in the nether regions.

      And it will be soon enough, as you secretly fear but can't help but betray by your relentless busy-bee ballooning. You whine at others for being unaware of history, but poor old you, you are totally imprisoned by it.

      Delete
    4. The Conservative and Unionist party is putting a border in the Irish Sea. The Conservative and Unionist party is breaking up the Union. Well done chaps.

      Delete
    5. Love you Jesuits.

      Delete
    6. Covidia loves Yaxley-Lennon, even if he is a bit of a leftie for Covidia's liking.

      Delete
    7. GWC you do realise that no borders are real except as a socially determined construct, but these borders become power symbols of national identity,the Scottish-English border is not an actual fiction it is described in the laws of Scotland, England, and the United Kingdom, and it is an important boundary in jurisdiction and as a cultural border. Of course you are free to ignore that fact but every English and Scottish person understands that at that arbitary line dividing the two nations seperates both nations politically, legally, and socially, this has been the case since Scotland and England were defined as concepts, and although our border is open and unrestricted it doesn't mean that fact can't change, and I think if Scotland wants to eliminate Covid-19 it must police the border and quarentine all new arrivals at any port of entry in Scotland

      Delete
  22. To those who tiresomely accuse independence supporters of being racist: What more could the independence movement do to make itself less racist, while still pursuing independence?

    It seems the core argument of the anti-indy 'racist namecallers' is that independence supporters just must be anti-English and therefore racist.

    For a start, this ignores the existence of English supporters of Scottish independence (whether "English for indy" people, or Jockophobes in England who'd support Scotland f---ing off) - how can they be Anti-English?

    Also, does it mean that those who supported the creation of the independent Republic of Ireland must be racists?

    By this logic, the only 'nationalists' in these islands who are not racist are British nationalists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally, I think the English are fine. It's actually the Welsh I can't stand, what with their leeks and male choirs.

      But the racist brits/English think everything's about the them, and ignore all the other nations/peoples of the UK.

      Delete
    2. My English relatives do not ignore me, I even get Xmas kerds.

      Delete
    3. Strange that tens of thousands of non Catholics left the wee Irish Catholic State including Jews. Horrible wee State, the Magdalens and rumpy pumpy priests buggering children on an industrial scale. Massive covering up of abuse.

      Delete
    4. They don't call the UK the 'Mother of all child abusers' for nothing.

      Even gave a knighthood to kiddie fiddler Jim.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51630520

      Westminster abuse claims: Police and parties 'turned blind eye'

      Prof Alexis Jay, who chaired the inquiry, said: "It is clear to see that Westminster institutions have repeatedly failed to deal with allegations of child sexual abuse, from turning a blind eye to actively shielding abusers."

      Delete
    5. Institutional world wide abuse on the largest scale by the Catholic Church makes Jim who was a Catholic rather insignificant.

      Delete
    6. Covidia is obsessed with the subject. Not out of any human empathy for the victims - it has no empathy - but as an outlet for its knuckle dragging sectarian howlings.

      Delete
    7. Whoever holds the hegemonic power within a society gets to define what is perveived to as the dominant logic, in the UK, that logic is nationalism is bad; however the dominant British social identity defines itself not as a nationalist cause but a natural state of being, because they control the structural institutions which are used to define the nation.

      This process can be seen in other ways such as a cultural angle being appilied to domestic violencce in ethnic minority communites (honour killings for instance) , but that same logic is never applied to domestic violence in White households because minority groups can be 'othered' to create social disorganisation. This is the process that is applied to Scottish nationalism, it is a threat to the hegemonic power of the British State; therefore it is 'othered' by the British State as an example of a dangerous minority group who threaten the stability of the whole nation, this process has been used against BAME, LGBTQI, the poor, and even women, the British State is reliable in this one fact.

      Delete
  23. BBC Scotland are fishing for SNP Bad stories in a form on this article. I'm sure they'd love to hear from people who appreciate a cautious and planned approach to schools going back rather than risking people's lives.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53078358

    ReplyDelete
  24. FFS.

    Folk losing their jobs left right and centre and Boris is spending nearly a million making Britain look even more up its own erse.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53082294

    PM's plane to be rebranded at cost of £900,000

    The plane used by Boris Johnson and members of the royal family for international travel is being repainted in the colours of the Union flag to "better represent" the UK abroad.

    The red, white and blue "rebranding" will cost about £900,000, No 10 said.


    I'm sure countries across the world will suddenly wish to sign amazing trade deals with Brexitannia as a result of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great idea pity they are not putting a bit of orange and purple.

      Delete
    2. Covidia sharing its pathetic sectarianism, folks.

      Delete
  25. The Sturgeon Plan wont work because we cant close the Border legally it seems. NZ had two new cases ironically from the Tory Plague Hotspot called the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually the NZ authorities ballsed it up. The NZ military are now in charge. There is no borders in the UK.

      Delete
    2. How much did Covidia pay for its last prescription?

      Delete
    3. The Two Combs DandyJune 18, 2020 at 12:07 PM

      It's weird how GWC rambles on about Ireland when he is Irish himself.

      Delete