|
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 | ||
|
Niric posted:Also interesting to see the National pre-empting the debate by pushing the story that tax rises will just increase tax avoidance (I think Richard Murphy makes a good point, but he's also more balanced on the question of the rise than the National implies). Which suggests to me they want to give nationalists a get-out for siding with the Tories. Using the regular Tory excuses for not taxing the rich is not a get-out for siding with them. They may as well just say "Yes, the SNP haven't in fact changed since 1934, we're still just Tories who hate the English."
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Jedit posted:Using the regular Tory excuses for not taxing the rich is not a get-out for siding with them. They may as well just say "Yes, the SNP haven't in fact changed since 1934, we're still just Tories who hate the English." Weird, then, how they didn't actually side with them and instead allowed Labour's motion on increasing income tax to pass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
How is the Scottish Labour leadership election so bloody long? Result is 18th November and there is a whole three weeks of voting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Alertrelic posted:Weird, then, how they didn't actually side with them and instead allowed Labour's motion on increasing income tax to pass. Instead they bravely abstained on the non-binding motion in the hope everyone will have forgotten about this by the time the budget rolls around
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Alertrelic posted:Weird, then, how they didn't actually side with them and instead allowed Labour's motion on increasing income tax to pass. The SNP understand optics and are ultimately beholden to the electorate. The National staff are the ones using the Tory excuses on the SNP's behalf, and their only obligation is to say what their readers want to hear. I think it would be fair to say the McSturmer better represents the views of SNP voters than (necessarily) those of the SNP itself. Plus the SNP just lost a poo poo-ton of support to the Tories, which is good because now their main support is left/centre voters who came for the independence vote it might mean they'll have to realign their compass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Niric posted:Instead they bravely abstained on the non-binding motion in the hope everyone will have forgotten about this by the time the budget rolls around This doesn't make them "Tories who hate the English" though. It makes them centrists who've spent too long around business lobbyists and civil servants. They are in the same category as the previous Labour/Lib Dem administrations. Ignoring this and pretending they occupy some especially right-wing category is what Labour moderates have been trying to do for the past decade, since it gives them cover to posture as authentically left-wing in precisely the same way that the SNP did in opposition. The entire policy consensus in Holyrood, shaped by 'Civic Scotland', is broken. Fairytales about the evils of nationalism in government only serve the Labour right and Lib Dem irrelevants. The left needs to break this consensus, which means moving past referendum-era nostrums and constitutional bickering. Jedit posted:I think it would be fair to say the McSturmer better represents the views of SNP voters than (necessarily) those of the SNP itself. I remember people attacking CommonSpace as an SNP mouth piece. There is plenty of shite in the National, and some SNP supporters believe a lot of shite, but ascribing a majority view on the basis of the slant taken by a single article is silly. Give them a conference vote on land reform or fracking and the members will become (embarrassingly, for the leadership) radical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Alertrelic posted:This doesn't make them "Tories who hate the English" though. It makes them centrists who've spent too long around business lobbyists and civil servants. They are in the same category as the previous Labour/Lib Dem administrations. Ignoring this and pretending they occupy some especially right-wing category is what Labour moderates have been trying to do for the past decade, since it gives them cover to posture as authentically left-wing in precisely the same way that the SNP did in opposition. The SNP position on tax is not exactly left of centre. They froze council tax when it needed to be raised to cope with increased demand on services and only relented when local councils were at the point of collapse. They are also have a history of using the "the rich will avoid it so why even bother" argument to try and get out of income tax rises as well. Saying that the SNP are radical lefty at their conference ,which has zero effect on people's day to day lives , makes up for them being to the right of centre in government is not a great argument
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Yes but the baby box
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Niric posted:Also interesting to see the National pre-empting the debate by pushing the story that tax rises will just increase tax avoidance That's why you send the secret service spooks to assassinate tax dodgers and also forge their wills so that the state inherits 100% of their wealth. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
jre posted:The SNP position on tax is not exactly left of centre. They froze council tax when it needed to be raised to cope with increased demand on services and only relented when local councils were at the point of collapse. They are also have a history of using the "the rich will avoid it so why even bother" argument to try and get out of income tax rises as well. I didn't say the radicalism of conference members "makes up for them being to right of centre" in Government. I used it as an example of the differing views of SNP membership in the context of using a National article as some kind of authority on the issue. I didn't say the SNP position was "left of centre". I said it was "centrist" and informed by business lobbyists. Note that they did not pass on the Conservative tax cut for high earners, for example, this is about triangulation. I fully understand their betrayals on local and income tax, it informed my vote in the last two elections. I used to work for the SNP. I've talked to people in the party about why these concessions were made. It's not because they are secret Tories, it's because they've capitulated to a managerial and incremental politics. The left needs to find some unity on these issues, which is my concern and my main contention with the ongoing constitutional rhetoric around things like tax policy. The point isn't that the SNP are OK really, and we should stop complaining. The point is that if we want to move past the politics of managed decline that the SNP represent, then we need to stop pretending that Anas Sarwar or Willie Rennie are going to get us there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yes but the baby box You're too big for one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Alertrelic posted:I didn't say the radicalism of conference members "makes up for them being to right of centre" in Government. I used it as an example of the differing views of SNP membership in the context of using a National article as some kind of authority on the issue. How about voting for the Labour party who are proposing renationalising the railways amongst loads of other lefty things? Last time I checked Corbyn was the leader of the labour party not Anas Sarwar. Not voting for a party with actually leftist policies because they're not your team is a bit daft if you actually care about this stuff. Extreme0 posted:You're too big for one. Sizeist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:How is the Scottish Labour leadership election so bloody long? Result is 18th November and there is a whole three weeks of voting. To give people a chance to become Labour members and vote in it basically. Because that in theory increases the chance of Leonard winning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
So, I thought Alertrelic's post was really interesting, but probably not for the intended reasons. It echoes the National's article in some striking ways, especially when it comes to excusing the SNP. It's not rare, of course, for newspapers and supporters to deflect and dismiss criticism of their preferred party in such a way that doesn't address the criticism, but in this case I think it's interesting because it reveals something about what Alertrelic (and many others - it's interesting because the post isn't particularly idiosyncratic) thinks the SNP are and what they're for - and it's an idealisation which goes well beyond just football team politics and says something about attitudes to Scottish politics, both in terms of parties and in terms of independence. This is going to get pretty waffly because it's an argument based on a whole close reading/deconstruction/ontology kind of thing, which is esoteric at the best of times, but hopefully you'll see what I mean by going through the posts and breaking it down: Alertrelic posted:This doesn't make them "Tories who hate the English" though. It makes them centrists who've spent too long around business lobbyists and civil servants. Right away, there's this deferral or deflection of responsibility, but also an implicit claim about the essence or nature of the party. What stands out is the way the SNP is framed as something pure, prelapsarian, whose political programme has been diluted by outside influences. In Alertrelic's post, it's not that the party is at fault, it's that it has "spent too long" in the company of corrupting agents. It might seem like a minor thing, just a rhetorical flourish, but I think it's important for two reasons. First, I honestly think it's indicative of a view held quite widely among many (if certainly not all) that the SNP - and Scottish Independence - is inherently good in a way which pre-exists actions and consequences. That is, that actions and consequences are, in some sense, less morally meaningful that the mere existence of the party. Second, and less abstractly, it frames the SNP as outside the establishment and, even more bizarrely, outside the processes of government: it pits civil servants as the "true" enemy, suggesting a kind of Yes, Minister world where Sir Hamishes distort and divert and diminish the grand (and here implicitly left wing) plans of inherently good purpose. This is something I see coming up again and again when talking to SNP supporters: the SNP as the underdog, the outsiders, the radicals, the avant garde, the voice and vehicle against any and all established and entrenched interests that you don't like. That they are fundamentally ("essentially") different to other mainstream political parties. quote:They are in the same category as the previous Labour/Lib Dem administrations. Ignoring this and pretending they occupy some especially right-wing category is what Labour moderates have been trying to do for the past decade, since it gives them cover to posture as authentically left-wing in precisely the same way that the SNP did in opposition. I agree with the gist of this, in the sense that the SNP are not "especially right wing" (even if it's only Jedit who's even gestured in that direction), that their administration has been, broadly speaking in domestic terms, practically similar to the Labour/Lib Dem coalition, and that their presented of themselves as "authentically left-wing" in opposition has been rather undermined by their governance. But there are some odd elements thrown in there. Talking of "Labour moderates" - rather than just "Labour" - is slightly curious, playing up a factionalism which is implicitly not present in the SNP, linking back to the sense of purity mentioned earlier. It's also interesting that you seem to actually agree with the criticism of the SNP as politically two-faced, yet this doesn't seem to do much to undermine confidence in them. This is something I've encountered again and again talking to SNP supporters, an admission that they're not left-wing which yet has little influence on the way they think about or understand the party. The SNP are still frequently talked about (by voters rather than politicians incidentally) as the "real" left wing in Scottish politics, in contrast to Labour's "betrayal" of the working class. quote:The entire policy consensus in Holyrood, shaped by 'Civic Scotland', is broken. Fairytales about the evils of nationalism in government only serve the Labour right and Lib Dem irrelevants. The left needs to break this consensus, which means moving past referendum-era nostrums and constitutional bickering. And we're back to the SNP as political and establishment outsiders. Again, look at the curious way this is all rhetorically framed. It's "Civic Scotland," "the Labour right" and "Lib Dem irrelevants" who are pouring poisonous "fairytales about the evils of nationalism in government" into the nation's ear, so it reads that the SNP are being placed on the side of the angels. Which, in this case, is configured as "the left." My verbiage breaks up the original flow, so it's worth stressing here that this comes immediately after a suggestion the SNP are not actually left-wing in government. And this doublethink, this sense of holding firm to the SNP being both centrist in government but yet still at the same time left wing in essence (and by "essence" I mean something more fundamental and abstract than something like "the aggregate views of the members"), is by no means unique to Alertrelic. Read that bit of Alertrelic's post again, focusing on the idea of "consensus." It's presented as bad, obviously. It's presented as the product of "Civic Scotland" and "the Labour right and Lib Dem irrelevants." It's presented as something aided and perpetuated by "fairytales about the evils of nationalism" and "referendum-era nostrums and constitutional bickering." Again, the SNP are uncannily absent from this idea of the establishment, again they are excused of responsibility for how Scotland is being governed. To be clear, I'm not arguing against the SNP here, I'm arguing against this idea of the SNP which occurs again and again in Scottish political discourse, especially on the left. Also, "which means moving past referendum-era nostrums and constitutional bickering" really annoyed me. It's both a Question-Time-audience "why can't they all just work together?" reduction of the process of politics and a bizarre take on Scotland especially: "constitutional bickering," after all, is literally the founding principle of the SNP and the pro-Indy movement. Personally, I'd love to set aside consitutional bickering and focus on issues of domestic governance (where I think there's plenty of common ground between Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems and the Greens), but constitutional bickering is currently the major fault line in Scottish politics in large part because of the SNP's campaign for Scottish independence. quote:There is plenty of shite in the National, and some SNP supporters believe a lot of shite, but ascribing a majority view on the basis of the slant taken by a single article is silly. I'm hoping this was aimed more at Jedit, but I wasn't trying to ascribe a majority view by posting that article, at least not a specific view. What interested me more was the approach, the pre-emptive excuses and deflection of criticism, and the way that plays into broader understandings of what people think they're defending when they're defending the SNP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
UK Labour Party has horrible Blarist dicks running it "Scottish Labour is just a branch office" UK Labour has a jam making marxist running it "Anas Sarwar isn't the answer"* * Actually he's a good answer to the question "why are political dynasties bad for democracy?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
jre posted:How about voting for the Labour party I did vote Labour. My days in the SNP are long in the past now and, even then, they related largely to referendum campaigning rather than party political activity. This all sounds a bit student politics, but for me, socialism comes before independence. It also comes before party loyalty. Cat Boyd, and I'm sure many others on Scotland's far left, have similar views. I probably should have clarified all of this before an extended deconstruction of my argument was written up on the basis that I’m some kind of SNP loyalist. Then again, I did say the SNP represent the politics of managed decline, which I thought was a pretty clear indicator of my views on the party. I’ll do my best to respond while ignoring the stuff about “doublethink” which was based on faulty assumptions of my own views. Niric posted:Right away, there's this deferral or deflection of responsibility, but also an implicit claim about the essence or nature of the party. What stands out is the way the SNP is framed as something pure, prelapsarian, whose political programme has been diluted by outside influences. In Alertrelic's post, it's not that the party is at fault, it's that it has "spent too long" in the company of corrupting agents. It might seem like a minor thing, just a rhetorical flourish Yes, it was actually intended as just a “rhetorical flourish”. I don’t actually believe Fergus Ewing was corrupted by lobbyists, he was always that way. I also don’t believe the SNP represent a pure expression of authentic, left-wing politics. They embody the consensus-driven approach of Holyrood which seeks to bury the real contradictions, inequalities and conflicts in Scottish society under layers of consultations and long-running commissions. However bad this is, it’s also a completely different thing to the “tartan Tories” image and is much closer to the position of many senior Labour politicians, which is why I think it's relevant. Civil servants play a significant role in shaping Government policy and how it's ultimately delivered. It worth noting that Corbyn will have to tackle some of the most ossified, elite-driven and conservative institutions in the world if he intends to change anything (just so we’re clear, I hope he does). Now, we can disagree about the extent of the SNP’s initial radicalism. It doesn’t matter now. However, it’s undeniable that proximity to power, and time in Government, leads to compromise and conservatism over the long run. The second issue, which is something more prominent in Holyrood and Civic Scotland, is this notion of "consensus". I actually do think it’s bad, yes. It’s bad that the divisions in society are subsumed into a “grown-up debate on tax” (to use the First Minister’s recent remarks on the issue). It’s bad that issues with clear winners and losers, like local taxation or land reform, are made entirely on the basis of “stakeholder engagement” and compromise. This means that the Government can get away with watering down legislation on the basis that it pissed off the NFU, or property developers, or Scottish Land and Estates. Look at consultation respondents, or committee witnesses, and you will see just how narrowly Holyrood operates. This is what I’m talking about when I refer to the influence of lobbyists and Civic Scotland. It’s not that these are all bad people, many of them are charities doing good work, it’s the structure itself and lack of broader public involvement that’s the problem. This feeds into and reinforces the unwillingness, on the part of Government and vested interests, to push for bold, redistributive solutions which are ultimately cast as idealistic or unrealistic. None of these points are intended to absolve the SNP of responsibility or set them up as outsiders. Indeed, their success was largely predicated on working within these structures and maintaining them. The core point is that we face deep, underlying problems with the way politics is conducted in Scotland. This goes beyond the SNP. Some of it is cultural, or relates to the way Holyrood was designed and has evolved. A lot of it has to do with class and the decline of trade unions. These problems won’t be solved by putting another centrist in charge with the same assumptions and approach, even if they are wearing a red tie. This is relevant because Scottish Labour are still genuinely considering this approach. Furthermore, any new Government with a socialist outlook will have to understand and reckon with these structures in order to effect real, lasting change. quote:Talking of "Labour moderates" - rather than just "Labour" - is slightly curious, playing up a factionalism which is implicitly not present in the SNP. Well, Labour does have literal, high-profile factions like Progress and Momentum. There are significant differences of opinion within the SNP, but they are held together by a mutual objective in a way that Labour isn’t. Even if this goal seems impossibly distant at times. More informally, they are held together by the fact that the older members, who are far fewer in number, have known each other through long years of thankless work on the political fringes. It’s a question of necessity, discipline and learning from Labour’s weaknesses, rather than purity or political principle. At the end of the day everyone in the SNP acquiesces to a bland form of broadly mainstream liberalism. But the factionalism in Labour is far more pronounced and vicious. On the one hand, you have bloodthirsty, murderous ghouls like John Spellar. On the other hand, you have jam making Marxists with far more radical potential than any SNP leader. So yes, Labour’s brand of factionalism is not present within the SNP. This doesn’t make the SNP “purer” it just reflects differences in their history, access to state power, the foibles of the UK electoral system, relationships with other institutions etc. Could talk for ages about this, but this is getting pretty long. quote:Also, "which means moving past referendum-era nostrums and constitutional bickering" really annoyed me. It's both a Question-Time-audience "why can't they all just work together?" reduction of the process of politics and a bizarre take on Scotland especially: "constitutional bickering," after all, is literally the founding principle of the SNP and the pro-Indy movement. Personally, I'd love to set aside consitutional bickering and focus on issues of domestic governance (where I think there's plenty of common ground between Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems and the Greens), but constitutional bickering is currently the major fault line in Scottish politics in large part because of the SNP's campaign for Scottish independence. That campaign ended three years ago and the spectre of another has only been revived thanks to Brexit, an event which has, even if you're unsympathetic, largely supports the SNP's contentions on the flaws of the British constitution. I'm talking about the status of devolution, intergovernmental relations and the management of shared powers here, not the fact that Scotland was outvoted. Both sides are contributing to this. We have a group called “Scotland in Union” with hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding, the Scotland Office now solely exists to promote the union (read their job adverts and they outright state as much), almost every press release from opposition parties on economic statistics over the last two years focused on the case for independence, the Scottish Government is repeatedly implored to apologise for the White Paper, people still reflect, ruefully, on just how awful and “divisive” the campaign itself was (there’s that Question Time audience member again). And, of course, one of Scottish Labour’s leadership candidates has to emphasis just how super-mega-unionist he is. It's obvious that the Conservatives would adopt this posture, but I think the left, (meaning Labour, under Corbyn and hopefully Leonard) needs to develop a more inclusive approach. This means having a worked out policy on how to expand or protect devolution post-Brexit, and vocally rejecting British nationalism. I'm worried that a lot of people within Labour are now too afraid to concede any ground to the much hated Nats to embark on this work. If you aren't bored enough already, read this on the rise of the Scottish Conservatives and contemporary unionism. It's good and covers a lot of similar ground to this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
So: it turns out I have paid too much for my union subscription, ticked the wrong boxes, and am entitled to vote in the Labour leadership election! Please can anyone tell me why Sarwar Junior is on this ballot, or who Richard Leonard is. I liked Sarwar Senior a bit; despite being a 19th-century patrician socialist he got a lot off his chest in his last term, including some nice interventions on behalf of local asylum-seekers against the weight of his party. Junior, on the other hand, thinks stepping off a corporate board means that he isn't responsible for it not paying the local wage hes supposedly agitating for, although he'll still get dividends as a shareholder. I'm not sure the working class will see that it was more important for him to blame the SNP / Westminster government than use his weight to make an immediate, positive difference to his employees at some limited expense to himself. Meanwhile: who is Richard Leonard? My vote is going to Jackie Baillie absent other suggestions, and perhaps even in spite of them. The most sure and certain solution to poverty and injustice is global nuclear war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Jackie bailie is awful, just putting that out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Juliet Whisky posted:So: it turns out I have paid too much for my union subscription, ticked the wrong boxes, and am entitled to vote in the Labour leadership election! You'll be hard pressed to vote for someone who isn't running. Richard Leonard is a trade unionist and basically the left candidate, backed by the CFS/Momentum wing of the party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Juliet Whisky posted:So: it turns out I have paid too much for my union subscription, ticked the wrong boxes, and am entitled to vote in the Labour leadership election! A) Anas Sarwar is Blairite as gently caress, used to do work for Progress, etc. Also his dad was real dodgy. B) Richard Leonard used to work for the GMB and has been an MSP since 2016. He's the left-wing candidate. Little wonder Jackie Baillie hates him. Longstanding member of the Campaign for Socialism, a left campaign group in Scottish Labour & all round good guys. C) Jackie Baillie is a gaping sore on the face of the Scottish Labour Party, why the gently caress would you want to vote for her, even when she isn't standing? Literally, if you aren't voting for Richard Leonard you are voting for Scottish Labour to continue losing to the Tories & SNP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Nicola Sturgeon announces Scottish energy firmquote:The Scottish government is to set up a publicly-owned, not-for-profit energy company, Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
The only review of the new Blade Runner you need https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/918146248384884737 Wonder if he watched a version with Scots subtitles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The only review of the new Blade Runner you need I get most of think but 'faur-i-the-buik' has defeated me. Like I don't know what accent it's supposed to be in, I don't know anyone who would pronounce it 'oreeginal' but also say 'thocht'
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:I get most of think but 'faur-i-the-buik' has defeated me. Like I don't know what accent it's supposed to be in, I don't know anyone who would pronounce it 'oreeginal' but also say 'thocht' I'm guessing it has something to do with the book. Then again, what this dumbfuck types isn't words that any human being has ever spoken, Scottish or otherwise. It's the National's manufactured "Scottish cultural heritage".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:I get most of think but 'faur-i-the-buik' has defeated me. I had to google it. I think it's some sort of idiom? "Then we hae that faur-i-the-buik chiel, an lad o pairts, Dr Tam Hubbard" "He alsae scrieves in a vera readable an easy mainner that ne'er skails ower intil some dry 'faur-i-the-buik' academic style" "His faur-i-the-buik philosophie wis nae defence" "These alternative solstice ongauns this weekend hae attracted some o the maist kenspeckle an faur-i-the buik scientists" Maybe "far in the book", meaning intellectual? Pompous? The National is starting to make me hate Scotland.  In other news, I've got a nominating meeting for the SLab leader contest tonight. We sided with Corbs the last two times but there's a lot of pro-Sarwar sentiment floating around, so we'll see how that goes. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
You guys realise that Scots existed before 2014 right? I got given a book I've never read for a birthday about 15 years ago which is exactly that. It's funny how mad it makes you all but still.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:You guys realise that Scots existed before 2014 right? I got given a book I've never read for a birthday about 15 years ago which is exactly that. Scots existed, yes, in a variety of dialects. What the McSturmer guy churns out is a mishmash of all of them. It's painfully false.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:You guys realise that Scots existed before 2014 right? I got given a book I've never read for a birthday about 15 years ago which is exactly that. Indeed, I've got several Scots Dictionaries of various flavours and read books and poems written in Scots for the best part of 20 years. I still have no idea what hes saying. I would be genuinely grateful if you could translate it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Indeed, I've got several Scots Dictionaries of various flavours and read books and poems written in Scots for the best part of 20 years. I still have no idea what hes saying. hosed if I know, I'm from Inverness, Scots isn't a thing there. Buik is book but faur? You could always tweet Rab & ask.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:hosed if I know, I'm from Inverness, Scots isn't a thing there. Buik is book but faur? You could always tweet Rab & ask. I can just picture the response: "Jings, faur a muckle skirret".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
'faur in the beuk' would be 'well read' as in Educated, so assuming that's what he means as Scots has no formalised spelling then then he's saying '..characters and what became of them and has come up with an ingenious and well thought out and well read script. So perhaps he means literally well read, as in the actors read the script well. Anyway, it just looks like he's typed something up and run it through a Scots translator, no effort to make it consistent or context aware. Though I've never heard him speak, maybe he speaks like an idiot as well. On the topic of a nationalised energy company I'm all for it, an actual progressive policy from the SNP. Just need to see how it gets implemented.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:In other news, I've got a nominating meeting for the SLab leader contest tonight. We sided with Corbs the last two times but there's a lot of pro-Sarwar sentiment floating around, so we'll see how that goes. Massacre in Leonard's favour. He won Edinburgh Southern's nomination too. Ian Murray's got to be livid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Massacre in Leonard's favour. He won Edinburgh Southern's nomination too. Ian Murray's got to be livid. Hope he's so mad he resigns as an MP and vanishes into anonymity, where he belongs. Only reason anyone outside of Edinburgh knows who that round faced twat is is the Scottish Labour collapse of 2015 leaving him as Shadow Scottish Secretary by default.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Massacre in Leonard's favour. He won Edinburgh Southern's nomination too. Ian Murray's got to be livid. It would be almost impossible to overstate how weak the pro-Sarwar arguments being put forward were. Essentially "he's a nice guy who helped me get elected as a councillor" or "I'm not sure who Richard Leonard is but I know who Anas Sarwar is". Frankly I was surprised Sarwar got as many votes as he did...
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:
loving awfully. There are costs that are fixed that they can do nothing about in TUOS and DUOS charges (20%). Then the wholesale cost of the energy supplied, forecasting, delivery, the requirements to upgrade meters for customers under DOCUSA, and a raft of other requirements that they’d be going into as a new entrant, while trying to run as efficiently as existing big six suppliers. Look at the customer complaint league tables and they’re all new challenger companies (and Scottish Power). Watching SNPLeccy getting roasted in Westminster by BEIS will be fun though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:loving awfully. There are costs that are fixed that they can do nothing about in TUOS and DUOS charges (20%). Then the wholesale cost of the energy supplied, forecasting, delivery, the requirements to upgrade meters for customers under DOCUSA, and a raft of other requirements that they’d be going into as a new entrant, while trying to run as efficiently as existing big six suppliers. Just as well then that it will never happen, like every other potentially progressive policy put forward by the SNP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Just as well then that it will never happen, like every other potentially progressive policy put forward by the SNP. It’s such a beautifully bullshit policy though, I applaud them for it. Ignores any of the issues with current building regs or attempting to do anything about the existing housing stock, because those might cost money or donor confidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:It’s such a beautifully bullshit policy though, I applaud them for it. Ignores any of the issues with current building regs or attempting to do anything about the existing housing stock, because those might cost money or donor confidence. They designated energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority a couple of years ago, and have been putting money into it via SEEP etc. Not nearly enough of course, but it seems reasonable to anticipate some joined-up thinking on this front. I share the overall cynicism wrt the likelihood of this actually happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
MacDiarmid also wrote in a bullshit mashed-up Scottish language and he was a good poet, but he was also a fascist so
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Really isn't all language mashed-up bullshit? Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 17:02
|
|
