Scottish Parliamentary Elections May 2021

[101]

The vote for the list in the Parliament elections is that still a cross in the box or is it a numbered choice of preference?

[Saltire]

22 minutes ago, 101 said:

The vote for the list in the Parliament elections is that still a cross in the box or is it a numbered choice of preference?

It's a cross, it's not a single transferrable vote.

[Dunning1874]

An enjoyable exchange at an Edinburgh hustings here.

 

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, 101 said:

The vote for the list in the Parliament elections is that still a cross in the box or is it a numbered choice of preference?

 

1 hour ago, Saltire said:

It's a cross, it's not a single transferrable vote.

A cross in the box?  That’s us Arabs fucked then.

[Salt n Vinegar]

There's a story today in the National suggesting that some "senior ministers" are telling Boris to force a quick indyref because they think it would be a "no" due to Covid. No word in the article of the views of the Scottish Conservatives, who are presumably in a collective state of shock.  I really can't take the story seriously.  Regardless of anyone's views on independence, if true it would make the next Scottish Conservative election leaflets and party election broadcasts absolutely hysterical. 

[SandyCromarty]

3 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

There's a story today in the National suggesting that some "senior ministers" are telling Boris to force a quick indyref because they think it would be a "no" due to Covid. No word in the article of the views of the Scottish Conservatives, who are presumably in a collective state of shock.  I really can't take the story seriously.  Regardless of anyone's views on independence, if true it would make the next Scottish Conservative election leaflets and party election broadcasts absolutely hysterical. 

What you make of the Greens wanting to abolish the Queen, are you in favour?

[Salt n Vinegar]

8 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

What you make of the Greens wanting to abolish the Queen, are you in favour?

Absolutely.  I've no time for the very idea of monarchies.  Most countries seem to get along without them. 

Edit... I'd be content to let the present one serve out her time, but the idea of King Charles? Boak. 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Salt n Vinegar

[SandyCromarty]

39 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Absolutely.  I've no time for the very idea of monarchies.  Most countries seem to get along without them. 

Edit... I'd be content to let the present one serve out her time, but the idea of King Charles? Boak. 

I'm on the fence with it, I see the Trumps and Sarkoz's etc etc etc and see the corruption and idiocy that goes with it.

Would a committee work instead of just one figureheed as Heed of State,  a female committee possibly but that might lead to a lot of tension once a month, but then again we wouldn't have wars.

Mind you State visits would be a nightmare with them all trying to get into one car or the best seat at a State Dinner.

Or maybe a Chance the Gardener type guy, everything would be coming up roses.

Who knows.

Edited April 11, 2021 by SandyCromarty

[Antlion]

50 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

I'm on the fence with it, I see the Trumps and Sarkoz's etc etc etc and see the corruption and idiocy that goes with it.

Would a committee work instead of just one figureheed as Heed of State,  a female committee possibly but that might lead to a lot of tension once a month, but then again we wouldn't have wars.

Mind you State visits would be a nightmare with them all trying to get into one car or the best seat at a State Dinner.

Or maybe a Chance the Gardener type guy, everything would be coming up roses.

Who knows.

Trump and Sarkozy could only dream of achieving the kind of creative tax arrangements that Lizzie Windsor has got away with over the years - and rather than criticism, she’s pretty much roundly praised by the media as selfless, having served her country tirelessly, never having put a foot wrong, knowing her duty, etc.

Contrast the (rightful) raking over the coals that MPs got for expenses a few years back with the total silence on Windsor tax and funding arrangements to see the blind spot the UK has for royalty when it comes to corruption. I can’t, for example, recall anyone defending that Tory w****r’s taxpayer-funded duck island on the grounds that it only cost us 0.00000001p each (which is how royalists routinely defend royal expenditure). Nor do folk claim that without selfless politicians and their expenses, tourists just wouldn’t visit the Palace of Westminster...

[Salt n Vinegar]

17 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Trump and Sarkozy could only dream of achieving the kind of creative tax arrangements that Lizzie Windsor has got away with over the years - and rather than criticism, she’s pretty much roundly praised by the media as selfless, having served her country tirelessly, never having put a foot wrong, knowing her duty, etc.

Contrast the (rightful) raking over the coals that MPs got for expenses a few years back with the total silence on Windsor tax and funding arrangements to see the blind spot the UK has for royalty when it comes to corruption. I can’t, for example, recall anyone defending that Tory w****r’s taxpayer-funded duck island on the grounds that it only cost us 0.00000001p each (which is how royalists routinely defend royal expenditure). Nor do folk claim that without selfless politicians and their expenses, tourists just wouldn’t visit the Palace of Westminster...

Some try the tourism pish argument with me as well. They tend not to have much of an answer when I point out that the Palace of Versailles has about 10 million visitors a year and they "abolished" their monarchy a while ago. Must be hellish for the USA as well, the royalty desert that it is! 

[Antlion]

1 minute ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Some try the tourism pish argument with me as well. They tend not to have much of an answer when I point out that the Palace of Versailles has about 10 million visitors a year and they "abolished" their monarchy a while ago. Must be hellish for the USA as well, the royalty desert that it is! 

Aye, it’s a bizarre argument anyway, given that “attracting tourists” wasn’t and never has been part of the monarch’s coronation vows. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of any head of state anywhere, actually, to be a glorified Mickey Mouse. I’m pretty sure auld Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI would be raging if they knew their sycophants had abandoned any constitutional arguments in their favour and been reduced to defending them on the grounds that they’re Britain’s last remaining freakshow. 

[SandyCromarty]

1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Some try the tourism pish argument with me as well. They tend not to have much of an answer when I point out that the Palace of Versailles has about 10 million visitors a year and they "abolished" their monarchy a while ago. Must be hellish for the USA as well, the royalty desert that it is! 

Avoid at all cost Vesailles in the summer months you are virtually shoulder to shoulder with hordes of other tourists and it is not fun, the operator just keeps cramming people in with no count or control, god knows what it would be like if a fire broke out.

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

Aye, it’s a bizarre argument anyway, given that “attracting tourists” wasn’t and never has been part of the monarch’s coronation vows. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of any head of state anywhere, actually, to be a glorified Mickey Mouse. I’m pretty sure auld Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI would be raging if they knew their sycophants had abandoned any constitutional arguments in their favour and been reduced to defending them on the grounds that they’re Britain’s last remaining freakshow. 

Anyone reading the Coronation Oath might be surprised at what it says. It includes the Archbishop asking "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" The monarch is expected to reply... "All this I promise to do." 

The oath therefore enshrines religious discrimination in the Monarchy - the head of state is obliged to favour one particular branch of one particular supernatural belief system over all others.  There is absolutely no room for such tripe in anything even pretending to be a modern democracy.  All in my opinion, of course! 

[SandyCromarty]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

Trump and Sarkozy could only dream of achieving the kind of creative tax arrangements that Lizzie Windsor has got away with over the years - and rather than criticism, she’s pretty much roundly praised by the media as selfless, having served her country tirelessly, never having put a foot wrong, knowing her duty, etc.

Contrast the (rightful) raking over the coals that MPs got for expenses a few years back with the total silence on Windsor tax and funding arrangements to see the blind spot the UK has for royalty when it comes to corruption. I can’t, for example, recall anyone defending that Tory w****r’s taxpayer-funded duck island on the grounds that it only cost us 0.00000001p each (which is how royalists routinely defend royal expenditure). Nor do folk claim that without selfless politicians and their expenses, tourists just wouldn’t visit the Palace of Westminster...

George the III gave up the crown estate and instead started to receive money from what we now call the civil list, this meant that George no longer had the burden of paying the civil service, defense costs, the National Debt and his own debts, the crown estate sizeable income was then received by the treasury and parliament assumed all previous payments made by the monarch.

Every monarch since then has vehemently protested against this arrangement of what they saw as their entitled income, every government since mad George has refused to hand back to the monarch any monies raised from the Crown Estates and instead put the money into the country to the benefit of the people.

However things have changed and last year the government relented to this Queen and have committed an annual sum be given to her, the first payment to the crown was £15 Million and each year the sum has to be larger than the previous year, excuses from the government was that the monies would be used to refurbish palaces etc, Aye Right.

Another dodge is the Head of States position on foreign visits, until recently the Queen did them and now I suppose Charles will assume the role, on these visits as Head of State the Queen or Charlie will receive gifts from the countries visited, some are small but the Arab countries can be very generous, by right on an official visit as HoS all gifts received  belong to the state (us), but this Queen and previous monarchs have steadfastly refused this stating they are personal gifts, which of course they are not.

Charlie was caught out some years back when he laid out small gifts he didn't want on tables in his garden for his staff to take their pick.

[Antlion]

20 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Anyone reading the Coronation Oath might be surprised at what it says. It includes the Archbishop asking "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" The monarch is expected to reply... "All this I promise to do." 

The oath therefore enshrines religious discrimination in the Monarchy - the head of state is obliged to favour one particular branch of one particular supernatural belief system over all others.  There is absolutely no room for such tripe in anything even pretending to be a modern democracy.  All in my opinion, of course! 

Don’t worry - Charlie boy has already openly taken a CofE oath in church with his fingers crossed behind his back. Clearly, these “heads” (or supreme heads, or supreme governors, or whatever fanciful title the law gives them) of the Anglican church have as much respect for their faith and its oaths as medieval popes did when they were given their mitres. And the CofE clergy won’t say a word, of course. The fact that their next supreme leader is a lying hypocrite will of course be completely ignored when they’re drowning us all in the arsery of his cultish coronation and all its paternalistic, discriminatory nonsense.

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

I'm on the fence with it, I see the Trumps and Sarkoz's etc etc etc and see the corruption and idiocy that goes with it.

Would a committee work instead of just one figureheed as Heed of State,  a female committee possibly but that might lead to a lot of tension once a month, but then again we wouldn't have wars.

Mind you State visits would be a nightmare with them all trying to get into one car or the best seat at a State Dinner.

Or maybe a Chance the Gardener type guy, everything would be coming up roses.

Who knows.

They're a different model of President than I would assume we'd have, they're the head of the executive branch of government. Ours would presumably be more ceremonial, like the Presidents of Ireland or maybe Germany. I doubt we'd elect anyone as good as the Irish have done, though. 

[Crùbag]

Gerry Hassan calls out Salmond and Galloway's vanity trips for what they are.

https://todaynewspost.com/news/world/uk-news/how-alex-salmond-and-george-galloway-fit-into-politics-of-populism/
 

Quote

 

Salmond and Galloway both present their current projects not as conventional parties but as entities which transcend such concerns as democratic processes, members running their party or even having a say, and instead are top-down creations of the leader. Both announced with no consultation their candidate lists for the Scottish Parliament. They are both borrowing from Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party – created without the constraint and input of democratic decision-making. The leader is all in this form of politics, the embodiment and interpreter of the imagined will of the people.

Both Salmond and Galloway have embraced the Russian connection in UK politics and broadcast on the Kremlin-backed channel RT (formerly Russia Today). Both are uncritical of Putin and the Russian state. Only last week Salmond on the BBC three times refused to say that Russian authorities undertook the Salisbury poisoning in 2018, also declaring that there had been “very slight” Russian interference in US elections. Galloway has made similar comments on Salisbury and made pro-Trump comments after the US election of 2020.

Is there more to Galloway and ­Salmond than political opportunism or two huge egos who cannot bear to leave the limelight? Could this just be about once bright political ­talents struggling to adapt to the world ­after the parties which gave them ­sustenance and support have long left them? And should we take seriously what are ultimately micro-political parties?

The answer has to be that we should not take either man or their latest enterprises at face value. Instead we should see them as a warning about the state of our politics and public life – that men with such chequered pasts and questionable behaviours feel they have the right to command our attention, be taken seriously and ask for our votes.

 

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

I'm now waiting for the inevitable anti-SNP/anti-independence "news" stories.  A banger in a crisp poke in a deserted building being dressed up as a 'Scottish National Liberation Army' terrorist plot, a 'Sturgeon ate my hamster' headline in the Sun/Daily Mail, or a 'Scottish Pound to be tied to the Iranian Rial' front page story in the FT.  It's only a matter of time!

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Surely an Express headline saying "SNP supporters MOCKING Prince Phillips's DEATH OUTRAGE"

[Granny Danger]

8 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I'm now waiting for the inevitable anti-SNP/anti-independence "news" stories.  A banger in a crisp poke in a deserted building being dressed up as a 'Scottish National Liberation Army' terrorist plot, a 'Sturgeon ate my hamster' headline in the Sun/Daily Mail, or a 'Scottish Pound to be tied to the Iranian Rial' front page story in the FT.  It's only a matter of time!

Sturgeon DID eat my hamster but what’s worse is she didn’t finish it all.  When you think of all the starving children in the world you realise how callous that is.  She’s a bástard.