Jump to content

General Politics Thread


Granny Danger

Recommended Posts

Salmond is and was the greatest politician Scotland has seen in the past 20 year, but we needed a softer touch and we've got that in Sturgeon. She has massive appeal with people that were turned off by Salmond's abrasiveness. Sturgeon has been the perfect following act for Salmond.

There was nothing quite like Salmond trolling someone.

As much as George Galloway is an absolute fucking roaster and an irrelevance - I'd have loved to have watched them two debate each other!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Salmond is and was the greatest politician Scotland has seen in the past 20 year, but we needed a softer touch and we've got that in Sturgeon. She has massive appeal with people that were turned off by Salmond's abrasiveness. Sturgeon has been the perfect following act for Salmond.

There was nothing quite like Salmond trolling someone.

As much as George Galloway is an absolute fucking roaster and an irrelevance - I'd have loved to have watched them two debate each other!

I see Salmond and Galloway as very similar, bit like Tony Benn. Very good in debate, great in opposition, but a bit weak in critical moments or in power. Very clever in soundbites but not so good at the nitty gritty, compromise and hard slog of making things happen. Populists basically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I see Salmond and Galloway as very similar, bit like Tony Benn. Very good in debate, great in opposition, but a bit weak in critical moments or in power. Very clever in soundbites but not so good at the nitty gritty, compromise and hard slog of making things happen. Populists basically. 

Never saw Tony Benn as a populist. He was one of the few politicians worthy of respect, whichever way you voted. 

Then again, was Populism around in the 70's? 

Edited by oldbitterandgrumpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, oldbitterandgrumpy said:

Never saw Tony Benn as a populist. He was one of the few politicians worthy of respect, whichever way you voted. 

Then again, was Populism around in the 70's? 

He said all the right things when he was powerless, but did nothing about making it happen when he was in powerful cabinet positions. Maybe he found it impossible, but it's much easier saying what you think should happen when you're on the back benches with no responsibility for making it happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

He said all the right things when he was powerless, but did nothing about making it happen when he was in powerful cabinet positions. Maybe he found it impossible, but it's much easier saying what you think should happen when you're on the back benches with no responsibility for making it happen. 

Fair point, but he was actually a Cabinet Minister (Business? Technology? I can't remember, I could Google it but it's 2am and I'm off to bed). He just came across as a credible MP that spoke his mind whether or not he had any direct influence. 

What I mean is,  he wasn't the 'career' MP that most are now. Maybe I'm of an age where I'm a bit cynical, but it  seemed to me like he genuinely went into politics with the intention of making things better. 

That's not Populism. 

Edited by oldbitterandgrumpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I see Salmond and Galloway as very similar, bit like Tony Benn. Very good in debate, great in opposition, but a bit weak in critical moments or in power. Very clever in soundbites but not so good at the nitty gritty, compromise and hard slog of making things happen. Populists basically. 

Surely we are not talking about the same Alex Salmond that made the modern SNP, that led the SNP from successful minority government  to the outright majorities they still retain today.....and made  independence for Scotland a reality.(and a likely certainty if the current mob ever get the finger oot.)

Nah........Can't be that Alex Salmond.

I'd suggest the phrase "weak in critical moments or in power" is currently more fitting of his successor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldbitterandgrumpy said:

Fair point, but he was actually a Cabinet Minister (Business? Technology? I can't remember, I could Google it but it's 2am and I'm off to bed). He just came across as a credible MP that spoke his mind whether or not he had any direct influence. 

What I mean is,  he wasn't the 'career' MP that most are now. Maybe I'm of an age where I'm a bit cynical, but it  seemed to me like he genuinely went into politics with the intention of making things better. 

That's not Populism. 

Tony Benn( my hero) Was Postmaster General in the 60's and Energy Minister when oil from the North Sea first came ashore. And when I was 14 I wrote a letter to him when he was Energy Minister and got an official reply from him. One ecstatic pubescent lad.

Edited by Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Salmond and Galloway as very similar, bit like Tony Benn. Very good in debate, great in opposition, but a bit weak in critical moments or in power. Very clever in soundbites but not so good at the nitty gritty, compromise and hard slog of making things happen. Populists basically. 
There is at least one very fundamental difference; unlike Galloway, Alex Salmond is not a bitter religious bigot, something that George's cheerleaders tend to overlook.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Surely we are not talking about the same Alex Salmond that made the modern SNP, that led the SNP from successful minority government  to the outright majorities they still retain today.....and made  independence for Scotland a reality.(and a likely certainty if the current mob ever get the finger oot.)

Nah........Can't be that Alex Salmond.

I'd suggest the phrase "weak in critical moments or in power" is currently more fitting of his successor.

I liked Alex Salmond and was always a supporter of him and obviously his policies, then some time before the sexual assault stories broke I heard of an incident involving him in Edinburgh Airport's lounge and apparent banning from the area, and of course the other problems started to filter through, I put it all aside and continued with my esteem to him and financial support to the party and was glad to see him acquitted of all charges.

However his reputation was tarnished as has happened to many politicians in the past and I honestly cannot see any way back for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:
8 hours ago, welshbairn said:
I see Salmond and Galloway as very similar, bit like Tony Benn. Very good in debate, great in opposition, but a bit weak in critical moments or in power. Very clever in soundbites but not so good at the nitty gritty, compromise and hard slog of making things happen. Populists basically. 

There is at least one very fundamental difference; unlike Galloway, Alex Salmond is not a bitter religious bigot, something that George's cheerleaders tend to overlook.

Never heard that one, tell us more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing Salmond to Galloway 😂

One of them was the FM of Scotland who nearly steered our country to national sovereignty, even without a currency plan. 

The other is a pissed up jakey who will do or say anything in his desperate pursuit for relevance. He won't be around here long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I see Salmond and Galloway as very similar, bit like Tony Benn. Very good in debate, great in opposition, but a bit weak in critical moments or in power. Very clever in soundbites but not so good at the nitty gritty, compromise and hard slog of making things happen. Populists basically. 

Salmond was very successful in government and was the only party leader to secure an outright majority after 4 years of government in a system designed to prevent majorities. The majority of the SNP's best achievements were cemented under him. 

8 hours ago, oldbitterandgrumpy said:

Fair point, but he was actually a Cabinet Minister (Business? Technology? I can't remember, I could Google it but it's 2am and I'm off to bed). He just came across as a credible MP that spoke his mind whether or not he had any direct influence. 

What I mean is,  he wasn't the 'career' MP that most are now. Maybe I'm of an age where I'm a bit cynical, but it  seemed to me like he genuinely went into politics with the intention of making things better. 

That's not Populism. 

I don't think populism is necessarily a bad thing. Salmond was a populist and did a lot of good policy wise from just trying to win people over to the SNP and it's worked. A lot of his early populist gambits kept me on board far longer than Sturgeon's party would've. 

2 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

What do you suggest Sturgeon's SNP does? What does pulling the finger out look like?

This is the £1,000,000 question innit. Nobody really wants to have the discussion over how we actually get a referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

What do you suggest Sturgeon's SNP does? What does pulling the finger out look like?

I understand the reluctance to discuss the issue during the current pandemic. That is sensible.

However we have had six years of little activity from the SNP as far as building the case for independence goes .

There has been an almost complete disassociation between the SNP and the wider yes movement. This is surely dangerous for the party and the maintenance of their thumping majorities. There is a real risk of vote apathy.

Apart from the disappointing growth report, (with which there was zero argument from the leadership) there has been little done in the way of research to provide credible alternative economic visions.

They still rely on GERs (although MacKay was muting an alternative prior to his resignation)

The currency policy is still not credible and is an easy target to be shot down.

Since the start of the year polls have started going our way. But whenever the SNP do finally get "granted" a referendum, we need to be able to sell a credible vision.

That credible vision is still not in place.

6 years post indyref1 !!

The leadership has allowed factions and cliques to rise within the party to positions where they now have power to effectively cancel out extremely capable and senior colleagues.....for the crime of disagreeing with them on what are difficult contentious issues, but totally unrelated to independence.  

They are introducing controversial legislation which has been openly criticized by a wide sector of Scottish society from law bodies to religious groups. I claim no great knowledge in this, but surely, given the criticism, it is an act that threatens to divide the nation (and the independence vote) even further.

Why are they doing this.... at this time?

Why the inactivity in preparing the economic case for independence?

The generous part of me me puts it all down to governing party fatigue.

The less generous thinks that some folk high up, may have become a bit too comfy with devolution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NotThePars said:

I don't think debates in themselves are the major game changers people insist they are but the currency issue did give Better Together a wedge they desperately needed to start sapping the momentum of the Yes campaign. Getting bogged down in arguments like this was a big factor in failing to get over the line, imo.

Yep. That's the way I see it. I don't think currency itself was the big factor people make out. How many genuinely Yes leaning people decided to vote No off the back of that issue or that debate. Not too many I'd bet. It was more the 'hot topic' of folk that were always going to vote No.

The real damage was how bogged down the Yes side got in dealing with it. BT really did well in getting it to become th emain issue for a good portion of the crucial stage of the campaign where the Yes side had to constantly field questions about it and it's clear they didn't have a strong enough position on it to make it go away.

It's one of the big lessons that need to be learned for next time.

Edited by Gordon EF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Yep. That's the way I see it. I don't think currency itself was the big factor people make out. How many genuinely Yes leaning people decided to vote No off the back of that issue or that debate. Not too many I'd bet. It was more the 'hot topic' of folk that were always going to vote No.

The real damage was how bogged down the Yes side got in dealing with it. BT really did well in getting it to become th emain issue for a good portion of the crucial stage of the campaign where the Yes side had to constantly field questions about it and it's clear they didn't have a strong enough position on it to make it go away.

It's one of the big lessons that need to be learned for next time.

"Genuinely Yes leaning people" were not the ones that we ever going to decide the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, strichener said:

"Genuinely Yes leaning people" were not the ones that we ever going to decide the outcome.

Appreciate that but the currency issue would only have lost the vote for Yes if people who would otherwise have voted Yes voted No because of it. I meant Yes leaning in the sense that they would have voted Yes were it not for the currency issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

This is the £1,000,000 question innit. Nobody really wants to have the discussion over how we actually get a referendum.

I think the current patient strategy on referendum is the correct one. We are effectively giving the unionists enough rope for their argument....and they are doing the job just fine. If the UK is to remain a democracy, eventually even Westminster will have to crack on the issue.

Of course the danger with that is it hands them the initiative.

There should then be scope in the party for those wishing to explore alternative routes. It keeps UK gov on the back foot.

Further....what happens when we have the rederendum. The problem appears to be that there has been a lack of planning re independence and the vision to sell to the public.

Policy positions should have been worked out on important financial topics backed by credible academic research. A decent public revenue accounting system should have been implemented and papers varying differing economic futures released for discussion.

In 6 years none of that has been done and we have barely moved on from the white paper. Why is this? Questions should be getting asked.

Who wants to be set up to fail again?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

I think the current patient strategy on referendum is the correct one. We are effectively giving the unionists enough rope for their argument....and they are doing the job just fine. If the UK is to remain a democracy, eventually even Westminster will have to crack on the issue.

Of course the danger with that is it hands them the initiative.

There should then be scope in the party for those wishing to explore alternative routes. It keeps UK gov on the back foot.

Further....what happens when we have the rederendum. The problem appears to be that there has been a lack of planning re independence and the vision to sell to the public.

Policy positions should have been worked out on important financial topics backed by credible academic research. A decent public revenue accounting system should have been implemented and papers varying differing economic futures released for discussion.

In 6 years none of that has been done and we have barely moved on from the white paper. Why is this? Questions should be getting asked.

Who wants to be set up to fail again?

 

Problem is, any vision they put forward is just that, a vision. The opposition know this. They demand answers to questions that can't possibly be answered before a certain point in the independence process is reached. A process that can't start until we actually vote for it to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument's been won and I think actually winning the referendum is the easier part now. Getting that referendum is the problem and I think people are confusing inertia and uncertainty for patient politicking.

12 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

I think the current patient strategy on referendum is the correct one. We are effectively giving the unionists enough rope for their argument....and they are doing the job just fine. If the UK is to remain a democracy, eventually even Westminster will have to crack on the issue.

The UK has proven itself over the centuries to be pretty elastic and I don't think denying Scotland a referendum is going to change that especially if the SNP don't do anything to make the UK dysfunctional in the meantime. Ofc the problem is that anything they do to force the issue risks turning off undecideds but then that potentially plays into the Tories hands because then they can continue to ignore the issue or deny the obvious like they are doing. 

Who knows. Maybe a thumping win next year will be enough but I'll be amazed if Johnson doesn't just file that mandate safely in the bin along with all the others.

Link to comment
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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...