When will indyref2 happen?

[MONKMAN]

You’d think pep would give up constantly arguing with people, who are considerably more qualified on the specific subject they’re arguing about.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

44 minutes ago, MONKMAN said:

You’d think pep would give up constantly arguing with people, who are considerably more qualified on the specific subject they’re arguing about.

Ad Lib is qualified in politics?  

[DeeTillEhDeh]

No, you don't get to speak for or defend them. I'm afraid we all live in the same world and we all have eyes. We judge them by their actions and deeds, and by those actions and deeds every single one of them with two notable exceptions are exactly that. You can't just claim they aren't no surrender Britnats in deed when every single one of them has been exactly that all along.  You need to provide evidence if you want your claims to be taken seriously, but we all know there is none that's why you didn't.
No, my conception of democracy is that whoever wins elections gets to govern. That's actually the human race's concept of democracy as it happens.  Its you who is being Trumpist by putting an extra burden on those that win elections that they need to then convince the losers in an election to accept that they've lost. The issue is with them not accepting that, not with Scotgov not managing to convince them.
All democracies are elective dictatorships by definition. That's what a democracy is, the tyranny of the majority, and if losers don't like it let them win an election.
Your word salad about bitterness and loser's consent I will ignore as its patronising nonsense.
Your Starmer prediction is both cute and naive at the same time, given Starmer himself has literally said this will not be the case. Again, I judge him by his words and actions not yours.
Of course, Starmer isn't in a position to grant anything anyway given he is the leader of the opposition not the Prime Minister. 
I notice you completely avoided addressing what the position of the actual government will be, as we all know what that is and it doesn't fit your narrative. What Starmer's position will be doesn't matter in the slightest (though we know what it will be given his words and actions) when the Tories have an 80 seat majority.
PS - love how you begin by stating you aren't trying to speak for them then doing exactly that.  

You have just described a dictatorship of the majority.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

2 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

No, you don't get to speak for or defend them. I'm afraid we all live in the same world and we all have eyes. We judge them by their actions and deeds, and by those actions and deeds every single one of them with two notable exceptions are exactly that. You can't just claim they aren't no surrender Britnats in deed when every single one of them has been exactly that all along.  You need to provide evidence if you want your claims to be taken seriously, but we all know there is none that's why you didn't.
No, my conception of democracy is that whoever wins elections gets to govern. That's actually the human race's concept of democracy as it happens.  Its you who is being Trumpist by putting an extra burden on those that win elections that they need to then convince the losers in an election to accept that they've lost. The issue is with them not accepting that, not with Scotgov not managing to convince them.
All democracies are elective dictatorships by definition. That's what a democracy is, the tyranny of the majority, and if losers don't like it let them win an election.
Your word salad about bitterness and loser's consent I will ignore as its patronising nonsense.
Your Starmer prediction is both cute and naive at the same time, given Starmer himself has literally said this will not be the case. Again, I judge him by his words and actions not yours.
Of course, Starmer isn't in a position to grant anything anyway given he is the leader of the opposition not the Prime Minister. 
I notice you completely avoided addressing what the position of the actual government will be, as we all know what that is and it doesn't fit your narrative. What Starmer's position will be doesn't matter in the slightest (though we know what it will be given his words and actions) when the Tories have an 80 seat majority.
PS - love how you begin by stating you aren't trying to speak for them then doing exactly that.  

You have just described a dictatorship of the majority.

I know. Incase you haven't noticed you live in one. We all do.  Another name for that is democracy.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

[GordonS]

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

2 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

No, you don't get to speak for or defend them. I'm afraid we all live in the same world and we all have eyes. We judge them by their actions and deeds, and by those actions and deeds every single one of them with two notable exceptions are exactly that. You can't just claim they aren't no surrender Britnats in deed when every single one of them has been exactly that all along.  You need to provide evidence if you want your claims to be taken seriously, but we all know there is none that's why you didn't.
No, my conception of democracy is that whoever wins elections gets to govern. That's actually the human race's concept of democracy as it happens.  Its you who is being Trumpist by putting an extra burden on those that win elections that they need to then convince the losers in an election to accept that they've lost. The issue is with them not accepting that, not with Scotgov not managing to convince them.
All democracies are elective dictatorships by definition. That's what a democracy is, the tyranny of the majority, and if losers don't like it let them win an election.
Your word salad about bitterness and loser's consent I will ignore as its patronising nonsense.
Your Starmer prediction is both cute and naive at the same time, given Starmer himself has literally said this will not be the case. Again, I judge him by his words and actions not yours.
Of course, Starmer isn't in a position to grant anything anyway given he is the leader of the opposition not the Prime Minister. 
I notice you completely avoided addressing what the position of the actual government will be, as we all know what that is and it doesn't fit your narrative. What Starmer's position will be doesn't matter in the slightest (though we know what it will be given his words and actions) when the Tories have an 80 seat majority.
PS - love how you begin by stating you aren't trying to speak for them then doing exactly that.  

You have just described a dictatorship of the majority.

Or majoritarianism, which is not the same as democracy.

If we lived in the type of democracy our dude describes, it would be "democratic" for a majority to vote to remove rights from the minority. Women could vote to lock men up. But in the UK we do kinda live in that system, or what Lord Hailsham described as an elective dictatorship. It only takes about 40% of the vote to get 100% of the legislative and executive power until the next election. If we ever get dragged out of ECHR - which is next on the hit-list - then we really will be at the mercy of that 40%.

Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America should be compulsory study in school, in which he coins the term "tyranny of the majority".

[welshbairn]

22 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Ad Lib is qualified in politics?  

You remember when you questioned @craigkillie 's qualifications?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Or majoritarianism, which is not the same as democracy.

If we lived in the type of democracy our dude describes, it would be "democratic" for a majority to vote to remove rights from the minority. Women could vote to lock men up. But in the UK we do kinda live in that system, or what Lord Hailsham described as an elective dictatorship. It only takes about 40% of the vote to get 100% of the legislative and executive power until the next election. If we ever get dragged out of ECHR - which is next on the hit-list - then we really will be at the mercy of that 40%.

Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America should be compulsory study in school, in which he coins the term "tyranny of the majority".

This is wishy washy pish. We have a representative form of government with universal suffrage, widely characterised as a 'democracy'. The pure democracy you describe exists nowhere on earth and never has.

However, in the UK with FPTP our particular form of democracy (only practiced by two countries in Europe if memory serves) is often called 'elective dictatorship' funnily enough as you only require a majority in the Commons and you are untouchable for one term and can force through whatever you want.

Funnily the figure you quote 40% is about bang on what it takes to form such a majority in the UK, it can be done on as little as 34%. The Tories got 43% last time and have a massive majority.

So you're literally describing the UK there in every way, that's the state we live in. There is no effective second chamber as the Lords can only send a bill back three times and no real checks and balances like most other western countries.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

You remember when you questioned @craigkillie 's qualifications?

Yeah. I also know Ad Lib is qualified in law, not politics. As it happens I am.

[NotThePars]

Yeah. I also know Ad Lib is qualified in law, not politics. As it happens I am.

What degree and where?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

 

What degree and where?

 

What's it got to do with you

[NotThePars]

Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America should be compulsory study in school, in which he coins the term "tyranny of the majority".

No comment on Democracy in America but I really grew to fucking hate de Tocqueville after reading Losurdo’s Liberalism: A Counter History.

[oneteaminglasgow]

19 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

What degree and where?

 

He claimed he had a masters in International Relations previously. 

[NotThePars]

What's it got to do with you

I’m not sure actually I just find the degree flexing really funny given the dumbest things I ever heard in my life were in an International Relations/ Security Studies seminar at Glasgow Uni.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

I’m not sure actually I just find the degree flexing really funny given the dumbest things I ever heard in my life were in an International Relations/ Security Studies seminar at Glasgow Uni.

 

What do you want me to do?  I was just accused of arguing with someone qualified in the subject while I'm not, when in fact the opposite is true. Should I not point that out?

Again, this is heading down the road, as usual, of personalising it into attacks on me. Which, as always, I didn't engage in or start. So I'll leave it at that.

[Erih Shtrep]

2 hours ago, MONKMAN said:

You’d think pep would give up constantly arguing with people, who are considerably more qualified on the specific subject they’re arguing about.

I actually disagree.   

We're discussing political tactics so there isn't a black/white answer just personal ideas of what strategies should be used.   I find Pep to be quite passionate about Scottish football and Scottish politics and fairly knowledgeable about both.   I appreciate his level of posting is a little bit "in your face"  but apart from that I don't mind his contributions.  

[John Lambies Doos]

I actually disagree.   

We're discussing political tactics so there isn't a black/white answer just personal ideas of what strategies should be used.   I find Pep to be quite passionate about Scottish football and Scottish politics and fairly knowledgeable about both.   I appreciate his level of posting is a little bit "in your face"  but apart from that I don't mind his contributions.  

Agree with this post.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Hmmm. In the Blue corner, we have Ad lib, qualified in law and having spent considerable time working in the commons library, knowing a shit-ton about constitutional matters, former parliamentary candidate with extensive knowledge of constitutional matters, indeed having even briefly interviewed by the BBC in a similar regard.

In the Red Corner we have a fantasist gobshite who made up a story about being felt up by 70s golfer Doug Sanders.

I'm going to go with Ad Lib's thoughts here. It was close, but.

[Sergeant Wilson]

6 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Hmmm. In the Blue corner, we have Ad lib, qualified in law and having spent considerable time working in the commons library, knowing a shit-ton about constitutional matters, former parliamentary candidate with extensive knowledge of constitutional matters, indeed having even briefly interviewed by the BBC in a similar regard.

In the Red Corner we have a fantasist gobshite who made up a story about being felt up by 70s golfer Doug Sanders.

I'm going to go with Ad Lib's thoughts here. It was close, but.

Is that all you've got?

[Granny Danger]

55 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

What do you want me to do?  I was just accused of arguing with someone qualified in the subject while I'm not, when in fact the opposite is true. Should I not point that out?

Again, this is heading down the road, as usual, of personalising it into attacks on me. Which, as always, I didn't engage in or start. So I'll leave it at that.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but maybe you need help.  Seriously.

I’m going to pop you on ignore now but no doubt will be obliged to see your ramblings as other posters seem to rise easily to the bait.

 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Granny Danger