|
Which Thread Title shall we name this new thread? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce |
|
44 | 21.36% |
| ScotPol - Unclustering this gently caress |
|
19 | 9.22% |
| Trainspotting 2: Independence is my heroin |
|
9 | 4.37% |
| Indyref II: Boris hosed a Dead Country |
|
14 | 6.80% |
| ScotPol: Wings over Bullshit |
|
8 | 3.88% |
| Independence 2: Cameron Lied, UK Died |
|
24 | 11.65% |
| Scotpol IV: I Vow To Flee My Country |
|
14 | 6.80% |
| ScotPol - A twice in a generation thread |
|
17 | 8.25% |
| ScotPol - Where Everything's hosed Up and the Referendums Don't Matter |
|
15 | 7.28% |
| ScotPol Thread: Dependence Referendum Incoming |
|
2 | 0.97% |
| Indyref II: The Scottish Insturgeoncy |
|
10 | 4.85% |
| ScotPol Thread: Act of European Union |
|
5 | 2.43% |
| ScotPol - Like Game of Thrones only we wish we would all die |
|
25 | 12.14% |
| Total: | 206 votes | ||
|
Jedit posted:This is true apart from the bit about the rents. Through the floor in Aberdonian terms, obviously. Still eye watering to the rest of the country.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Coohoolin posted:The Greens got mocked because they had a pretty silly proposal from what I remember, something very shortsighted, and the SNP have been pretty good in terms of renewables all things considered. I do generally agree with the principle of retraining workers for a better industry to smooth a paradigm shift. I agree the SNP have been pretty decent on renewables, but "pretty decent on renewables" is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a coherent and concerted industrial policy to manage the direct and indirect effects of a major and geographically concentrated industry in decline - especially one so exposed to volatile pricing. I'm not saying the SNP need to come up with a magic bullet, I realise that this is a very difficult, expensive and decidedly imperfect thing to implement, so off-putting for any political party (particularly a populist one). But that they aren't even talking openly about it is strange. Not just because it's important economically and a major source of contention for any future spending plans, but because oil is a central issue of the independence debate - and whether you agree that it should be or not is really irrelevant, people think it is, so it is. I don't mean this as a stick to beat the SNP with, I'm genuinely surprised that they don't appear to have a coherent answer to "what about the oil?" - the kind of overly simple and intuitive question debates get framed by. Purely tactically, saying some variant of "we have lots of other industries" (which is effectively "oil doesn't matter") is a weak response, and people know that. Even a vague "we'll invest n billion, attract engineering multinationals blah blah blah" would, if repeated consistently and ad nauseum (and the SNP are definitely the most 'on message' party at the moment) go some way to mitigating that - as it has with Trident, as you note.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Through the floor in Aberdonian terms, obviously. Still eye watering to the rest of the country. No, they've barely fallen at all. Apart from a couple of really worrisome places in Torry every landlord still thinks £600pcm is an acceptable rent for a studio flat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
I hope there's a second referendum
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
tithin posted:I hope there's a second referendum We already had one. And now we know what happens when nationalist fuckwits win a referendum, we don't want a third.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
I didn't say who I want to win 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
tithin posted:I didn't say who I want to win We've also seen what happens when a loving idiot calls a referendum he doesn't want to succeed in an attempt to silence unruly elements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
I missed Cheviot talk?! I saw in Dundee last year, Edinburgh a few weeks ago and Inverness on Saturday there. Billy M was chatting to some folks behind us at the interval - who turned out to be parents of some SNP MP - and was saying that they're hoping to do a village hall tour with a scaled down version, which would be AWESOME! More importantly I still want his 7:84 t-shirt. It's the proper vintage one by the looks of it, and I can't even find my noughties 7:84 crew shirt  We managed to get front row seats for it on Saturday, and it was so much better there, unless you hate audience interaction, but we were chatting to another of the actors before the show (who was out prepping people to get in on the dancing as apparently Invernesians are more reticent) and immediately got pegged as "People Who Are Up For Joining In With Stuff". I am especially loving the little bit they've added near the end with a new, topical addition to "We Are The Men Who Own Your Glen" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Acaila posted:I missed Cheviot talk?! I saw in Dundee last year, Edinburgh a few weeks ago and Inverness on Saturday there. Billy M was chatting to some folks behind us at the interval - who turned out to be parents of some SNP MP - and was saying that they're hoping to do a village hall tour with a scaled down version, which would be AWESOME! I was at the Saturday showing too, second row. Got to say one of the lines at the end.  The Trump addition was loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Nicola Sturgeon is going to introduce a "Baby box" for every newborn in Scotland after 2017: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-baby-boxes-nicola-sturgeon-speech-live-snp-conference-a7363256.html Don't read the comments. I think it could be quite good provided its followed up with free and mandatory ante-natal exams and check-ups which is what purportedly is responsible for the reduction in child mortality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:Nicola Sturgeon is going to introduce a "Baby box" for every newborn in Scotland after 2017: Seems to work well for Finland at the moment from what I can gather. Also  at the subhumans wanting babies to die of cot death in the independent article.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Seems to work well for Finland at the moment from what I can gather. You just want to give sweaty jock babies free heroin and buckfast and deep fried mars bars and wait wonder if they will extend this to adults
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
At the rate we're going a free cardboard box for every baby might be enough to destabilize the housing market, that box might be worth £300/mo in rent by the time they're 18.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:Nicola Sturgeon is going to introduce a "Baby box" for every newborn in Scotland after 2017: This is a really good idea. It's been in development/discussion for a while now, so I'd kinda assumed it'd already been announced. Credit to the SNP; there's been a pretty impressive amount of collaboration on this between health, the third sector and government (even if it gets to a slightly surreal point of having seminars about what to put in a cardboard box).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Sure, ignore the dysgenic effects of saving the weak 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:I was at the Saturday showing too, second row. Got to say one of the lines at the end. Matinee or evening? If matinee, I was the long-haired girl dancing and signing books next to dark haired guy who got to fling peat and missed spectacularly I got to say one of the lines at the end in Dundee. Got quite ridiculous stage fright about it considering my theatrical experience!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/788075756698075136 It would be a fitting end for UKIP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:I was at the Saturday showing too, second row. Got to say one of the lines at the end. Saw it last night, the new additions were great - the Mexicans got the loudest cheer of the night. Am I right in thinking the contemporary oil rigger was brand new as well Acaila? Don't recall that from last year. One thing that bugged me though, which relates to the thread in general. When Chuckemup (the Glasgow businessman) came on for the second time sporting an SNP rosette, there was no laughter, only dark mutterings and the audience visibly bristled. This sense that the SNP cannot and should not be criticised comes up time and again here, and I think everyone, except for coohoolin, agrees it's a serious problem with Scottish politics. The play is not subtle about its diagnosis of the economic problem - that the land and its resources are not owned by, controlled by, or used for the benefit of the people as a collective. Yet even the mildest of suggestions that the SNP didn't share this diagnosis (and their appearance in the play is historic, not contemporary!) and would do nothing to alter it is met by simmering resentment - even in Glasgow, "red Clydeside." It goes back, I think, to the issue of identity; people feel the because the SNP govern then "we" the Scottish people own the land, even though this is plainly not the case: as the whole business with Trump testifies. The play deliberately, repeatedly and very explicitly stresses that the issues that matter are ownership and capital, yet this seemed ignored by an audience - an audience who laughed uproariously at the comment that 60s labour were not socialist - when it comes to the SNP. Niric fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Niric posted:One thing that bugged me though, which relates to the thread in general. When Chuckemup (the Glasgow businessman) came on for the second time sporting an SNP rosette, there was no laughter, only dark mutterings and the audience visibly bristled. This sense that the SNP cannot and should not be criticised comes up time and again here, and I think everyone, except for coohoolin, agrees it's a serious problem with Scottish politics. The play is not subtle about its diagnosis of the economic problem - that the land and its resources are not owned by, controlled by, or used for the benefit of the people as a collective. Yet even the mildest of suggestions that the SNP didn't share this diagnosis (and their appearance in the play is historic, not contemporary!) and would do nothing to alter it is met by simmering resentment - even in Glasgow, "red Clydeside." It goes back, I think, to the issue of identity; people feel the because the SNP govern then "we" the Scottish people own the land, even though this is plainly not the case: as the whole business with Trump testifies. The play deliberately, repeatedly and very explicitly stresses that the issues that matter are ownership and capital, yet this seemed ignored by an audience - an audience who laughed uproariously at the comment that 60s labour were not socialist - when it comes to the SNP. On a very much related topic, has anybody else been keeping up with the Indycamp appeal today? https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/788753895350734848
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:On a very much related topic, has anybody else been keeping up with the Indycamp appeal today? As amusing as the indycamp is, I don't think it's related, and that it's decidedly missing the point to claim so. My concern with the audience reaction wasn't that a small group of idiots did something extreme to make a dumb point, it's that the general feeling in the room conveyed something about what's socially acceptable amongst, at the very least, people who go see (left wing) shows about scotland at the citz. Trump appeared and was spontaneously booed, panto villain style. The SNP appeared and the audience, as a social mass, seemed to side with them - even though the character is presented within the context of the play as being part of the problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
The SNP have done a good job of digging themselves to be left-wing even though they aren't. I suppose the SNP is more then just a party now that they got a sort of constant following rather then just simply a party and I suppose some will see the SNP getting mocked as a way of offending their beliefs of the likes of independence, even though that shouldn't be the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
That scene was brief and informative whereas Trump was in a musical number so sure he got the laughs and boos I never felt the audience "bristling" with indignation that the SNP were criticised.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Niric posted:As amusing as the indycamp is, I don't think it's related, and that it's decidedly missing the point to claim so. My concern with the audience reaction wasn't that a small group of idiots did something extreme to make a dumb point, it's that the general feeling in the room conveyed something about what's socially acceptable amongst, at the very least, people who go see (left wing) shows about scotland at the citz. Trump appeared and was spontaneously booed, panto villain style. The SNP appeared and the audience, as a social mass, seemed to side with them - even though the character is presented within the context of the play as being part of the problem I also saw it, not sure I got the same vibes but there were fewer laughs than for the Better Together joke. Its obviously an effect of the lingering polarisation from indyref. People are, and were, continually dumstruck at how aggressively some sections of the media, political and business establishment pushed back during the campaign. It's become impossible to decontextualise political debate in Scotland, even overtly materialist and historical stuff like Cheviot, from the national question. There is nobody on the unionist side offering a mea culpa for the events of the campaign (a bit of humility on the EU stuff would be welcome, I mean, loving hell), or more importantly a sensible constitutional position. Even now we have columnists painting Scotland as a one party state and the SNP as some kind of proto-fascist movement. These people are incapable of offering a thoughtful or effective critique. It's no wonder SNP supporters are defensive when they are constantly surrounded by this kind of aggressive stupidity. The frustrating thing is that the most loyal members of the SNP are often just the same brand of shitheaded liberals as other party activists, once you scratch the surface. For example loads of people in the party are cheerleading Hillary Clinton right now, all the while praising Angus Robertson for questioning the UK's complicity in the bombing of Yemen or protesting Trident.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Niric posted:Saw it last night, the new additions were great - the Mexicans got the loudest cheer of the night. Am I right in thinking the contemporary oil rigger was brand new as well Acaila? Don't recall that from last year. No, the oil rigger isn't new. That bit actually got a laugh in Inverness, even though, as I say, we were sitting in front of family members of Nat MPs, which I was pleased with. Was disappointed a younger friend of mine thought the message of the play was pro-indy, when it is far more developed than that. (If you want McGrath on the SNP, you need to read Little Red Hen - it's an awesome takedown of the SNP through a history of the Red Clydeside, with some absolute zingers! I always thought it was more dated than the Cheviot, but might actually have swung back into being ridiculously relevant again) It's also worth pointing out that The Cheviot was done, albeit in reading form, at an SNP conference back before its first run. So Liz McClennan stood up in front of the Nat masses proclaiming "Nationalism is not enough - the enemy of the Scottish people is Scottish capital as much as the foreign exploiter". If they could take it, so can yer Glasgow audience. Tl;dr - McGrath is better than all yez, so whiny Nats can go bolt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Acaila posted:No, the oil rigger isn't new. They used that 'nationalism is not enough' line in the play here too. What's worrying to me is that I got the impression that a lot of the Glasgow audience couldn't take it, that the arguments made by the play in terms of exploitation and ownership were only valuable and interesting to them to the extent that they can be used to criticise people who they already dislike, with a refusal to apply those same ideas to anything else. It's the triumph of narrow party political partisanship over any consideration of what politics should actually do and be for, and I'd say that's fundamentally antithetical to the entire point of the play. The play doesn't want you to identify with and have sympathy for the highlanders simply because they're highlanders or just because they're Scottish. The entire didactic purpose of the play is to illustrate how the highlanders' exist within an economic system, and that due to their lack of capital/ownership this system can and will, repeatedly and with devastating human consequences, exploit and oppress them, and that this is done with the willing (and inevitable) collusion of economic and political power. On the pro-indy thing, this was something that came up repeatedly (and heatedly) when teaching the play to 2nd year uni students (in 2013 and 2014, so especially topical). I honestly found it incredible how many students - students of literature no less - read what they wanted to read. The amount of times you had to gently remind (some of) them that, actually no, the play doesn't "clearly say Scotland is oppressed by the English." This was all the more irritating because it came on the syllabus just a few weeks after we'd read the Communist Manifesto, so you would've hoped that the idea of class-based exploitation as a way to interpret history might've been something to consider. Alertrelic posted:Even now we have columnists painting Scotland as a one party state and the SNP as some kind of proto-fascist movement. These people are incapable of offering a thoughtful or effective critique. It's no wonder SNP supporters are defensive when they are constantly surrounded by this kind of aggressive stupidity. I mean, yeah, the proto-fascist stuff you see flung about occasionally is completely absurd, but Scotland effectively is a one-party state, or at least has what the Electoral Reform Society calls "a predominant party problem." This isn't anything new (or result of/fault of the SNP); it's been going on for decades: quote:The predominant-party system has been the default setting of Scottish politics since the 1970s. In terms of votes rather than seats, the 1970s was arguably a time of multi-party politics in Scotland: Labour, the SNP and the Conservatives all won sizeable vote shares in the middle of the decade, but Britain’s first-past-the post (FPTP) electoral system left Labour with the lion’s share of seats and by the 1980s Labour’s predominance was secure. Scotland’s fondness for predominant parties can’t be simply blamed Niric fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
In some good news, minimum pricing is finally on track to being implemented. As someone who has been a massive proponent of minimum pricing, i'm over the moon. Although it's a disgrace that it's taken this long to finally be delivered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Home Office rules out SNP call for medicinal cannabis use Lol yea devolution good one fucktard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:In some good news, minimum pricing is finally on track to being implemented. Why? Like- you want to regulate bamjuice, right? If you do it by unit you run a pretty big risk of hitting one of Scotlands most noteworthy exports.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Sion posted:Why? Trust me guys. I'm sure minimum pricing will reduce the amount of alcohol that people will drink and will not include other problems to the mix. Trust me. I'm an SNP member. I know what I'm doing so as long it isn't anything to do with reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
God forbid we do anything that might actually reduce consumption, lest it affect middle-class student drinkers. EDIT: I'd like to see what policy you lot would put forward as an alternative that is equally supported by statistical and case evidence. Or are we going to fall back on the old chestnut of "education", which works fine as a buzzword but does gently caress-all to actually help people. Leggsy fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Sion posted:Why? I could be wrong on this, but I don't think minimum pricing would affect exports, at least not directly. I couldn't find anything firm on this, but the Scottish whisky association said the following in May 2011: quote:"We are also concerned at the long-term effect on the Scotch Whisky industry in our export markets, a matter we hope the government will consider closely given its policy priority to boost exports." What's relevant here is what they don't say: if minimum pricing directly and immediately affected export prices, they would surely make that big part of the argument against implementing the policy
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:God forbid we do anything that might actually reduce consumption, lest it affect middle-class student drinkers. Are you calling me a middle-class student? Leggsy posted:EDIT: I'd like to see what policy you lot would put forward as an alternative that is equally supported by statistical and case evidence. Or are we going to fall back on the old chestnut of "education", which works fine as a buzzword but does gently caress-all to actually help people. My policy is to reduce poverty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Minimum pricing always strikes me as being regressive in the same kind of way VAT is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Minimum pricing always strikes me as being regressive in the same kind of way VAT is. It's regressive in the same way that all consumption taxes are regressive, but it's unlike VAT in that there's a specific objective: to reduce consumption. It comes down to deciding whether the case for reducing consumption is worth the inherent unfairness. [Edit: worth noting that minimum pricing is MORE regressive than VAT in the sense that it's explicitly about making the lowest possible price higher rather than shifting all prices - so would theoretically only affect those buying the cheapest products. Also worth noting the direct parallel with the plastic bag charge, which has worked very well (even if, obviously, plastic bags and alcohol are very different products)] Niric fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Minimum pricing always strikes me as being regressive in the same kind of way VAT is. Extreme0 posted:Are you calling me a middle-class student? Extreme0 posted:My policy is to reduce poverty. You sneer at the SNP w.r.t. reform but they were the ones championing this policy in 2007 while the rest of the Scottish Parliament were too afraid to do anything meaningful to tackle Scotland's alcohol crisis (and I believe it is a crisis). It was only in 2011 when they had the majority that the other parties magically changed their minds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Minimum pricing is a fine idea so long as it prompts alcoholics to get help with their addiction and doesn't instead lead to them either choosing between eating and buying drink or deciding they'd be better served by theft in the same vein as heroin addicts. Is there any data on what happened to the rate of shoplifting after Canada's price hike for instance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:You sneer at the SNP w.r.t. reform but they were the ones championing this policy in 2007 while the rest of the Scottish Parliament were too afraid to do anything meaningful to tackle Scotland's alcohol crisis (and I believe it is a crisis). It was only in 2011 when they had the majority that the other parties magically changed their minds. Oh? And where did this courage go to reform the council tax system back in 2007 before they removed it from their manifesto later on? Extreme0 fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:God forbid we do anything that might actually reduce consumption, lest it affect middle-class student drinkers. It's cool that you've gone straight for the 'you classist gently caress, sion' angle. That's rad as hell. Alternative post: Attempting to reduce consumption is fine but it's a blanket 'let's raise the price' is a poo poo way of going about it. It's not the bottle of Talisker 25 once a year that're getting into a fight outside a pub, so why should that product be included in this to the same extent as, say, a bottle of Abbey's Finest or La Brew Espécial? It's not the super loving aggressive marketing of late night drinking sessions, two for one deals or poo poo like that, is it. Also, what other countries have minimum pricing laws? I've done a bit of googling but come up empty on it. Canada appears to have something, but they feel a lot more like an advisory and seem to be pretty easy to avoid. Is this one of those 'no way to prevent this, says country where this continually happens' things? Leggsy posted:It's regressive in the sense that rich people will benefit less from the policy, I guess. Explain this one to me. Like, if it's done by unit then cheaper, stronger drinks (ie, the drinks that are usually consumed in large quantities) will be hit. This will raise prices and further raise poverty levels. Raising taxes on smoking did not seem to have that big an impact on the number of people that smoked. If it's done by number of cans bought then, hey, just switch to that gigantic bottle of white lightning for 2.99. Sion fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Nice pivot from Minimum Pricing. But I'm actually not going to disagree with you w.r.t the Council Tax. I think the SNP have been shamefully craven on that issue which is why i'm hoping they re-examine it in the upcoming budget. Hopefully some nudging from the Greens might lead to a better settlement on that front. I know i'm defensive of the SNP, maybe too much so, but I acknowledge that they aren't perfect. However, I think it's worth giving them credit when it's due when they bring forward proposals that can actually help people, like Minimum Pricing. Especially when the alternatives seem to be a Labour party that is devoid of ideas and talent and the loving Tories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Leggsy posted:In some good news, minimum pricing is finally on track to being implemented. It's a lovely policy because instead of being a tax which could see money going towards treatment centres to help people with alcohol problems it just means that poor folk will spend a larger proportion of their wage on bevvy and supermarkets will make more profit. That's hosed. I'd accept it as a worthwhile attempt to treat a social ill. Put the money towards the health service & social care, giving it to Billy Tesco & Bobby Walmart is a terrible policy though. Now I don't drink too often, but when I do, I binge drink horribly. And unless I'm particularly flush at that moment it's far more likely I'll buy a dirt cheap bottle of Glen's gut-rot vodka rather than a bottle of Laphroaig. Of course it's easy for tee-totallers to back a law that doesn't impact them. But more than "middle class students" drink for fucksake, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. What an utterly asinine point. On top of that, I'm just not sure it'll make a huge dent into how much people drink. Just into their wallet. It's a very SNP policy, more about posture than the actual outcome, and a wee bit old-fashioned paternalistic too. Daddy (or in this case Mummy) knows best. forkboy84 fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:22
|
|
