Jump to content
Beautiful Sunday
Sign in to follow this  
Buster

The Scottish/UK Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Bobs said:

As I understand it the various treaties and agreements mean that governments will try to harmonise rates of tax (including VAT). How quickly they do this is up to them.GB still has children’s books, and clothes, not to mention new housing on Zero rates. Others have done it differently. 

In a global economy you are never truly independent. You depend on others as they depend on you. 

I'm dependent on shops and supermarkets in my local economy, but it doesn't mean I should transfer sovereignty to Tescos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

No mate, it's not a question of scale. It's a question of political and economic status and international law. I could declare myself the independent kingdom of Shug, but I'd still get a council tax demand , a recommendation that I visit ward 30 for a while and it would still be irrelevant to the realities of pooled sovereignty.

What I mean is the acceptance of pooled sovereignty is a question of scale.  I personally would rather not be part of the UK.  I was at university with some shetlanders who felt more affinity with Norway and would rather not be part of scotland.  

Yer man from hay on wye would rather live in his own wee dominion- or the castle he bought. 

Interestingly, technology - especially stuff like blockchain - may erode international boundaries to a point where they are meaningless.  The NAAGA companies are already bigger than many countries and almost sit outside any traditional legislation.

Just saying 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, chuckitphilliben said:

What I mean is the acceptance of pooled sovereignty is a question of scale.  I personally would rather not be part of the UK.  I was at university with some shetlanders who felt more affinity with Norway and would rather not be part of scotland.  

Yer man from hay on wye would rather live in his own wee dominion- or the castle he bought. 

Interestingly, technology - especially stuff like blockchain - may erode international boundaries to a point where they are meaningless.  The NAAGA companies are already bigger than many countries and almost sit outside any traditional legislation.

Just saying 

 It is a question of whether you are content with the positive rewards, balanced against the negative consequences. That consideration is why you would prefer not to be in the UK surely?  Where scale comes into it, is that a minority can never redress a negative perception, or assert it's own political ethos  with the central authority in a Union by democratic means. You either accept that and go, or accept that and stay, but mumping about it changes nothing, as I don't doubt you know.

Neither does burying heads in sand and refusing to accept it change anything, but the perceptions of any proposed change in leaving a political union,  always conflict. The only constant is the right to do it if people vote for it and the moral and legal duty to carry it out.

We do indeed live in a world where multinational corporations can ignore national legislatures. That isn't a reason to do away with national legislatures though. If someone's nicked your bike you don't say here, have the car keys as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Bino said:

 It is a question of whether you are content with the positive rewards, balanced against the negative consequences. That consideration is why you would prefer not to be in the UK surely?  Where scale comes into it, is that a minority can never redress a negative perception, or assert it's own political ethos  with the central authority in a Union by democratic means. You either accept that and go, or accept that and stay, but mumping about it changes nothing, as I don't doubt you know.

Neither does burying heads in sand and refusing to accept it change anything, but the perceptions of any proposed change in leaving a political union,  always conflict. The only constant is the right to do it if people vote for it and the moral and legal duty to carry it out.

We do indeed live in a world where multinational corporations can ignore national legislatures. That isn't a reason to do away with national legislatures though. If someone's nicked your bike you don't say here, have the car keys as well. 

Scale and power.

If you nick my bike I will not offer you my car keys.

If the russian mafia nick my bike I might well offer them my car keys

Let's take the council.

Scenario 1

They give a supermarket planning permission to build a store.  The supermarket builds one bigger than allowed.  The council tells them to change it.  They refuse.  The council threatens them with legal action.  They say bring it on.  We've got more money and power than you.  Council gives in.  

Scenario 2

The council sells some common land to a housing association.  They're not allowed to do that.  I complain about it.  They fob me off with some story or other.  I threaten them with legal action.  They say bring it on.  We've got more money and power than you.  I give up.

Like you I understand that the world is full of shades of grey and that it suits those with power to make it black and white as required.   We can discuss the nuances of brexit, geopolitics, the nature of nationality and identity and so on till we go red in the face.  Ultimately those who are pushing for it at the highest level are doing so simply for monetary gain.  Like stockbrokers they'll win either way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, chuckitphilliben said:

Scale and power.

If you nick my bike I will not offer you my car keys.

If the russian mafia nick my bike I might well offer them my car keys

Let's take the council.

Scenario 1

They give a supermarket planning permission to build a store.  The supermarket builds one bigger than allowed.  The council tells them to change it.  They refuse.  The council threatens them with legal action.  They say bring it on.  We've got more money and power than you.  Council gives in.  

Scenario 2

The council sells some common land to a housing association.  They're not allowed to do that.  I complain about it.  They fob me off with some story or other.  I threaten them with legal action.  They say bring it on.  We've got more money and power than you.  I give up.

Like you I understand that the world is full of shades of grey and that it suits those with power to make it black and white as required.   We can discuss the nuances of brexit, geopolitics, the nature of nationality and identity and so on till we go red in the face.  Ultimately those who are pushing for it at the highest level are doing so simply for monetary gain.  Like stockbrokers they'll win either way.

 

 

Each to their own. If they nicked my bike I'd put a bomb in the car, detonate it when they tried to nick it and tell the insurance it was stolen by suicide bombers who accidentally blew themselves up. But that's just me.

Scenario one. Build a council owned super coop give yourself low business rates, undercut them and wreck their business.

Scenario two Vote them out.

George Soros isn't pushing against it because he's a philanthropist and it's always been a nice little earner plus pension, for toxic or washed up politicians. There's people set to make money pushing both sides, not just one. They all have their ways and motives for driving the pound down and buying it up when the time is right. Ask Mori who they are, they should know. They were the ones selling different poll projections to hedge fund managers than the ones they were feeding to the media.  In politics and profiteering, there's no heroes, just arseholes and bigger arseholes whether for leave or remain. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chuckitphilliben said:

Scale and power.

If you nick my bike I will not offer you my car keys.

If the russian mafia nick my bike I might well offer them my car keys

Let's take the council.

Scenario 1

They give a supermarket planning permission to build a store.  The supermarket builds one bigger than allowed.  The council tells them to change it.  They refuse.  The council threatens them with legal action.  They say bring it on.  We've got more money and power than you.  Council gives in.  

Scenario 2

The council sells some common land to a housing association.  They're not allowed to do that.  I complain about it.  They fob me off with some story or other.  I threaten them with legal action.  They say bring it on.  We've got more money and power than you.  I give up.

Like you I understand that the world is full of shades of grey and that it suits those with power to make it black and white as required.   We can discuss the nuances of brexit, geopolitics, the nature of nationality and identity and so on till we go red in the face.  Ultimately those who are pushing for it at the highest level are doing so simply for monetary gain.  Like stockbrokers they'll win either way.

 

 

Interested in scenario 2. Councils own and manage Common Good land on behalf of the Community. There is normally no restrictions on selling it provided the proceeds are placed in a separate account and used for the benefit of the Community. Of course there may be other reasons for not selling. .

Scenario 1 happens fairly regularly. Any case would go before a planning inspector who would ask himself “why does the Council want this reduced in size?” and “is the Council’s action proportionate?” Costs a lot and no guarantee of success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bobs said:

Interested in scenario 2. Councils own and manage Common Good land on behalf of the Community. There is normally no restrictions on selling it provided the proceeds are placed in a separate account and used for the benefit of the Community. Of course there may be other reasons for not selling. .

Scenario 1 happens fairly regularly. Any case would go before a planning inspector who would ask himself “why does the Council want this reduced in size?” and “is the Council’s action proportionate?” Costs a lot and no guarantee of success. 

They were just made-up examples of power imbalance   I'm not suggesting that either of these things might have occurred...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, chuckitphilliben said:

They were just made-up examples of power imbalance   I'm not suggesting that either of these things might have occurred...

Shows you how realistic your examples are.

scenario 2 certainly has happened. A local councillor promoted acceptance of a supermarket application in the knowledge that cash would go to the common good.

As I said scenario1 has also happened.

politicians have always taken the view that to strengthen objectors powers or, make it easier to object would result in almost all development being frustrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bobs said:

Shows you how realistic your examples are.

scenario 2 certainly has happened. A local councillor promoted acceptance of a supermarket application in the knowledge that cash would go to the common good.

As I said scenario1 has also happened.

politicians have always taken the view that to strengthen objectors powers or, make it easier to object would result in almost all development being frustrated.

Exactly their view on referendums Bobs. Only consent when the polls say you'll win and only then, in the expectation of burying the question with the answer you want. Unless of course you don't get the one you want, then whichever politicians lost scream for another one. 

Through all this we have heard MPs screaming that parliament is sovereign, as if Charles the first was only recently beheaded and the land owning class still held power by right. Substitute the land owning class for a self entitled middle class club and you have a parliament full of wannabe mini sovereigns, who think having the last say over the monarchy, is the same thing as having the last say over the people in a modern democracy. They are not sovereign. The only sovereignty they have, is temporarily entrusted to the largest party, by the people through the ballot box. 

They clearly don't get that and are in a rage that the people have wrested their "right" over gradual European integration from their elite little paws. Damned uppity plebs, how dare they!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

Exactly their view on referendums Bobs. Only consent when the polls say you'll win and only then, in the expectation of burying the question with the answer you want. Unless of course you don't get the one you want, then whichever politicians lost scream for another one. 

Through all this we have heard MPs screaming that parliament is sovereign, as if Charles the first was only recently beheaded and the land owning class still held power by right. Substitute the land owning class for a self entitled middle class club and you have a parliament full of wannabe mini sovereigns, who think having the last say over the monarchy, is the same thing as having the last say over the people in a modern democracy. They are not sovereign. The only sovereignty they have, is temporarily entrusted to the largest party, by the people through the ballot box. 

They clearly don't get that and are in a rage that the people have wrested their "right" over gradual European integration from their elite little paws. Damned uppity plebs, how dare they!

Or those nasty European people over there have wrested the right of the British Political Elite to do whatever they want with the plebs and we are going to sort it out!  Either way it’s not a pretty picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bobs said:

Or those nasty European people over there have wrested the right of the British Political Elite to do whatever they want with the plebs and we are going to sort it out!  Either way it’s not a pretty picture.

Fair enough Bobs, that's the other side of the coin. No it's not a pretty picture. They didn't lop of a kings head to replace the divine right of kings with rule by divine right of elected MP's. though that's how the majority of them seem to think.

As for the nasties over there. There are things they have wrested from MPs that a lot of UK voters aren't shedding any tears over and that includes me Bobs. It's the end game goal of a united states of Europe that I can't stomach. I certainly can't stomach being signed up to it bit by bit without consent.  If people in the UK want that end goal, fair enough, but by vote, not by the divine right of MPs. 

Few people remember a panicking Cameron, suggesting no more treaties signed without a referendum in the last weeks before the vote. The media ignored it, MPs ignored it and consequently the public barely registered it. Remain ignored it, because MPs wanted to keep the right to sign treaties without a mandate or consent. Leave ignored it, because MPs were'n't interested in a proposal that might lead people to vote remain.   I ignored it, because unless it was passed into law that MPs couldn't sign another treaty without a referendum, as usual Cameron's word wasn't worth the paper it wasn't written on. I also knew that MPs would never pass such a law in the house.

Yet I would have voted remain if that law had been passed and so I'm sure would enough others to get remain over the line. It never happened though. MPs preferred to risk all rather than lose their power to act without consent and the clowns duly lost. It could all have been avoided Bobs, but not when self entitlement and arrogance ruled the thinking.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal challenge by cross party MP's on prorogation got booted out today. It comes as no surprise to me that the judge wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.  The legal requirement for prorogation is royal assent. Since royal assent was given, you'd have to get a judge to rule that the Queen acted illegally in giving it. What kind of idiots actually thought that was going to happen?  Oh yeah.....MP's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

The legal challenge by cross party MP's on prorogation got booted out today. It comes as no surprise to me that the judge wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.  The legal requirement for prorogation is royal assent. Since royal assent was given, you'd have to get a judge to rule that the Queen acted illegally in giving it. What kind of idiots actually thought that was going to happen?  Oh yeah.....MP's.

and you gave them all that good advice as well Darth? unbelievable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bobs said:

and you gave them all that good advice as well Darth? unbelievable!

I know, I know and all they do is titter' Naughty titter mongers, oh please yourselves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank the few who have wanted to get involved in the debate of death for keeping it simple, but there seems to be little enthusiasm for it and no wonder.

I'd like to bring up a pet bugbear of mine. "Think tanks"

Who's comfortable with a body officially affiliated to the Labour Party, funded by banks, oil companies, the Rockefeller  Foundation, the Carnegie foundation, the European Union and uncle Tom corporate bastard and all?  80% of Labour MP's being members of it. Every Labour cabinet as far back as I can remember being dominated by it's members. Every Labour leader equally far back and further being members of it.  What body am I talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

I thank the few who have wanted to get involved in the debate of death for keeping it simple, but there seems to be little enthusiasm for it and no wonder.

I'd like to bring up a pet bugbear of mine. "Think tanks"

Who's comfortable with a body officially affiliated to the Labour Party, funded by banks, oil companies, the Rockefeller  Foundation, the Carnegie foundation, the European Union and uncle Tom corporate bastard and all?  80% of Labour MP's being members of it. Every Labour cabinet as far back as I can remember being dominated by it's members. Every Labour leader equally far back and further being members of it.  What body am I talking about?

I meant to write keeping it civil, not simple. Why does the edit function keep disappearing on here???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Bino said:

I meant to write keeping it civil, not simple. Why does the edit function keep disappearing on here???

perhaps the website is funded by the TUC? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that’ll be Parliament now shut, what next for Brexit? Another extension, this time until Jan 2020? A General Election or Leaving without a deal?

I can’t help but think a General Election will eventually be held and Labour with form a coalition with Lib Dems/SNP on the manifesto of stopping Brexit and we’ll not leave now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buster said:

So that’ll be Parliament now shut, what next for Brexit? Another extension, this time until Jan 2020? A General Election or Leaving without a deal?

I can’t help but think a General Election will eventually be held and Labour with form a coalition with Lib Dems/SNP on the manifesto of stopping Brexit and we’ll not leave now.

We live in a post-truth, post-shame world.

Johnson is trying to rally people behind an anti-elitist, man of the people flag and I can see that winning out.  He will go to Brussels asking for an extension and say that he is onlybdoing so because parliament forced him by changing the law, against his wishes.  

Opposition parties look to me to be setting themselves up as willing scapegoats.  Farage and his tinfoil hat xenophobes are waiting in the wings. 

Cummings will emerge from this as some form of mastermind when in reality all he is doing is encouraging some posh bloke to break the law and tell lies because if he does it in a personable, I'm-on-your-side kind of way he will get away with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish court has ruled Johnson's proroguing is illegal, which s a bit of a shock. Interesting to see what comes of that.

Given how serious the current situation is with Brexit being the battleground between xenophobes and internationalists (to put it in its simplest form), it's depressing to see who the leaders of the 2 sides are. A General Election is all but inevitable now, and Johnson may well have been angling for one from the outset, but it almost feels like the time May called one to try and strengthen her position. The Lib Dems (despite Swinson) and Brexit party may take enough seats so that we end up with 2 or 3 parties (when you factor in the SNP) having strong hands when it comes to any decision making.

It sort of makes things more interesting than the usual 2 party bean fight, but may well leave us in an even bigger muddle than we are now. Don't believe a word that Johnson says, but I kind of hope some sort of deal can be conjured up with the EU before mid October that would satisfy people enough that the country doesn't implode, which is what I fear might happen if we get no deal or we remain in the EU.

Can't say I'm optimistic about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, It's the Fabian society I'm talking about. Funded by every jerkoff in corporate shitland.  Also by the EU. It's members dominate the PLP.  Supposedly left wing, yet look who funds it. Some may remember Milliband saying he just can't read enough Fabian pamphlets.  When you question it, you get told it's just a think tank, when it's clearly far more than that and is very influential in Labour policy.  Who's in this "think tank"?  Who writes their pamphlets and promotes whatever and whoever they represent?  Well, according to them it's a mix of Labour MP's and academics who run it, write for it, or chair it. Indeed it's list of chairs is something of a who's who in politics over decades.  Any history or politics student will also come across academics like GDH Cole, or Ralph Milliband on their required reading list. It all seems innocent enough, apart from the questions arising from it's funding. Only one of which, is that MPs voting over our future in relation to the EU, belong to a group that is partly funded by it. That can't be right!

Neither can it be right, or truth, to present yourself as "left" when it's the corporate hand that feeds you. To be fair though, that pretense has all but fallen away with our Fabian masters. The demographics and the working class Fabian founders like Sydney and Beatrice Webb,Annie Besant  George Bernard (I'd gas the unemployed, sick and disabled) Shaw ain't what they used to be. The working class aren't a mass to control for power anymore. Upward mobility has changed the Fabian game.The new expanded middle class are the dumb useful masses needed for that now.  Hence  we still hear Labour  MPs yakking on about poverty, to keep the old core vote sweet, but more about attracting "people of inspiration."  translated from Fabian speak, that means the working class can go fuck themselves. They can't get power through you anymore.  Take what your masters condescend to permit you and shut the fuck up.

People can look at the Fabians own account of their history and goals on their website. But they'll find all reference to it's past thoroughly white washed. There are conspiracy theory style accounts, which go through the dirty laundry such as the Nazi sympathizer years, but never really connect many dots.  You can ignore it even exists, as the media does.  Or people can look at it. I've looked at it for years and I'm bloody hostile to the arrogant machiavellian bastards.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Buster said:

So that’ll be Parliament now shut, what next for Brexit? Another extension, this time until Jan 2020? A General Election or Leaving without a deal?

I can’t help but think a General Election will eventually be held and Labour with form a coalition with Lib Dems/SNP on the manifesto of stopping Brexit and we’ll not leave now.

Buster mate, what's next is another six months of the EU trying to get a deal signed that doesn't get you out of it. After which we still won't leave. We'll either sign a crap betrayal of a deal. or there will be another referendum. A referendum where the option that lost the last one will be on the ballot, but the one that won it will not be on the ballot. That is remainer MP democracy in. a nutshell.

Will there be a general election? Perhaps the answer to that is somewhere in another question....Why has there not been a no confidence vote?  The Tories have booted 26 of their own MP,s for voting to pass a law to prevent the house, from carrying out a law it had already passed.  That hasn't happened, because when Bojo lost it, either the opposition show they can form a government, or there's a general election. Labour doesn't have the numbers to form a government without the SNP so there's no way they're going for a no confidence vote now. What's more likely is a national government which excludes the SNP being formed  after the 31st of October. Then a second referendum, where the public are not permitted the option of leaving without a deal designed not to let you leave. 

Then about  ten to 15 years  on,  your MP's will sign another treaty without your consent, that involves abolishing all national vetoes in favour of qualified majority voting.   You know what qualified majority voting is, because that's what we have in the UK. The UK will no longer exist as a nation, it will be a region of a union. We will be true citizens of Europe and as true citizens, your new central government will have the right to control what you spend, what you borrow and to direct tax you.  Here's the best part though. If you don't like what your new EU central government is doing, you can't get shot of it with an election. Scot's are already very familiar with this and love it so much, that  doing it to the whole UK  is just the peachiest idea ever.

Welcome to the hotel Europa, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gmca said:

Scottish court has ruled Johnson's proroguing is illegal, which s a bit of a shock. Interesting to see what comes of that.

Given how serious the current situation is with Brexit being the battleground between xenophobes and internationalists (to put it in its simplest form), it's depressing to see who the leaders of the 2 sides are. A General Election is all but inevitable now, and Johnson may well have been angling for one from the outset, but it almost feels like the time May called one to try and strengthen her position. The Lib Dems (despite Swinson) and Brexit party may take enough seats so that we end up with 2 or 3 parties (when you factor in the SNP) having strong hands when it comes to any decision making.

It sort of makes things more interesting than the usual 2 party bean fight, but may well leave us in an even bigger muddle than we are now. Don't believe a word that Johnson says, but I kind of hope some sort of deal can be conjured up with the EU before mid October that would satisfy people enough that the country doesn't implode, which is what I fear might happen if we get no deal or we remain in the EU.

Can't say I'm optimistic about that.

The court decision certainly is a shock, because all the government is required to do is get royal assent prorogue it and call election. I guess the court has ruled that way due to the opposition parties refusing to hold an election,  therefore parliament can't be prorogued. I doubt that will be the end of that legal battle, but have no idea how that will turn out. 

"Brexit being the battleground between xenophobes and Internationalists (to put it in it's simplest form)"

Well you certainly couldn't put it in a more simple, stereotypical and offensive form than that.  So 17.1 million of the adult population eligible to vote, are all xenophobes including me are they?  I did not vote motivated by any form of xenophobia or racism.  I voted Brexit, because it was the only way I was given, to stop MP's signing more treaties on further integration without a mandate or consent. It's called being a democrat, not a xenophobe. The fact is that's the "status quo" the "internationalists" voted to continue with. So what do we call you?  You want to play the insult game, I'll play it.

First explain to me how someone who has no problem giving MP's the right to sign up for more treaties on " ever closer political and fiscal union" without a mandate or consent, actually qualifies as a democrat?  How can the MP's who jumped ship for Change UK, then the Lib Dems,  claim to be represent their constituencies, when they've represented three different parties in less than a year, without ever asking for approval in a by election?   I know the "internationalists"  love to scream about democracy as an excuse for spitting on it, pity they've all had a democracy bypass operation themselves though, isn't it?   Let's hear it, this should be fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chuckitphilliben said:

 

  Farage and his tinfoil hat xenophobes are waiting in the wings. 

We live in a post truth post shame world.

 

You certainly just participated in the second part. So how do tinfoil hat xenophobes like me, stop MPs from signing further treaties on ever closer political and fiscal union, without a mandate or consent, after your "truth" and "virtue" has emerged triumphant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Darth Bino said:

You certainly just participated in the second part. So how do tinfoil hat xenophobes like me, stop MPs from signing further treaties on ever closer political and fiscal union, without a mandate or consent, after your "truth" and "virtue" has emerged triumphant?

Behave.  There are plenty of people who have well considered and cogent reasons for wanting to leave.  I am happy to listen to them and see a lot of sense in what they say.  My own view is that the advantages of being in outweigh the advantages of being out.  

Farage and his tinfoil hat brigade are driven by a different agenda.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...