Thread: The 2017 UK General Election

Originally Posted by Passing Through

^^ That kind of Hun in the sun view is how you see the EU because that's your ideological stance but it hardly counts as some kind of objective truth about the world which everyone is going to agree on. And clearly, vast numbers of people don't agree with you so it's not a problem. Do you really think that pro-EU nationalists (of which there are millions) haven't thought this through? How ridiculous.

Of course they have. Most nationalist voters don't want to leave the EU, because of my aforementioned reason.

Oh, what's the fucking point. The idiots won years ago. Enjoy life in the brave new tabloid world of post-Brexit Britain. Stupidity is the nation's new king and venality is your queen. Long may they reign over you.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Immigrunt

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Immigrunt

Get real. The only reason she is pro-EU is because leaving both the UK and the EU would fuck Scotland, and every voter knows it. The EU is thus the lesser of 2 evils.

The SNP have been strongly pro-European integration since the 1988 party conference. They expressed strong EC support in the early '80s, abandoning the anti-EEC stance they'd taken in the late '60s and early 70's. That have, for most of their history, been pro-EEC, pro-EC, and pro-EU. It would be surprising if they'd changed their stance but they haven't done that. In fact being pro-EU and pro-Scottish independence has been their party platform for years.

Thanks for agreeing.

I didn't agree with you, you bufoon. As usual almost everything you say is inaccurate.

You've clearly spent as much time looking at why the SNP is pro-Europe, including its muddled currency policy, as you have the CETA chapters i.e. none. Hence you're back to your tough guy insults to fill the void in your head.

Originally Posted by Passing Through

There's no contradiction in being pro-Scottish independence and pro-EU.

Of course there is, you are not independent if you are part of any superstate, especially one that is centralising power.
its like saying you can be single and married at the same time...

EU would not give Scotland as much cash as they get now either.
The only benefit is they can move out of Scotland and live in mainland Europe-
some nationalists....

why is there no Scottish flag in smilies ?

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by Passing Through

There's no contradiction in being pro-Scottish independence and pro-EU.

Of course there is, you are not independent if you are part of any superstate, especially one that is centralising power.
its like saying you can be single and married at the same time...

Is that a fact? What do you say to this?

Over time, many minority nationalist parties have tied their main goal of selfdetermination
to the European integration process. National and regional autonomy
have been redefined in order to include the European dimension [Lynch 1996a]. For
this reason, they have started to develop strong links with the EU and, in comparison
with other parties, have reserved a broader space to the European issues in their
political agendas and programme. Although theoretically any kind of nationalism
should be opposed to supranational integration processes, because of the difficulty to
reconcile the request of self-determination with the sharing of sovereignty, many
minority nationalist parties actually seem to show positive attitudes towards the EU.

In the related literature they are usually described as strong European supporters. Ray,
for example, through the comparative analysis of the parties’ European attitudes,
arrives at the conclusion that the minority nationalist parties are one of the most pro European
party families [Ray 1999]. Similarly, Hix and Lord define the minority
nationalist parties as the most pro-European party family [Hix and Lord 1997].

The scholars have identified various reasons that explain the adoption by minority
nationalist parties of pro-European positions. First of all, minority nationalist parties
can consider the EU as an “ally” [Elias 2009] in the deconstruction of the traditional
state order. In fact, if minority nationalism challenges the state from below, because it
induces the state to transfer some political responsibilities to the sub-state actors, the
European Union challenges the state from above, determining the cession of
sovereign competences to the supra-national level. According to Keating, European
integration “…undermines the traditional identity among sovereignty, territory,
nationality, and function that is the essence of the traditional nation-state and opens
the way to other conceptions of political authority and of public action” [Keating
2004: 368]. The European Union, not only involves the reduction of exclusive state
competences, but it also changes the meaning of state sovereignty, because it creates a
new constitutionalist pluralistic order. Furthermore, the supra-national integration
offers minority nationalist parties a “third way between national separatism and
regional devolution”, because it allows them to leave the traditional conceptualisation
of exclusive sovereignty and favours the adoption of a “post-sovereignty” position.
This concept is not the exclusive dominion of the state, but permits minority
nationalist parties to pursue the achievement of a particular kind of sovereignty, based
on the sharing of authority [Keating 2004: 368-369].

Furthermore, according to the scholars, minority nationalist parties tend to adopt a
pro-European position because the European Union has offered them new opportunity
structures useful for pursuing national self-determination [Lynch 1996, Keating 2001,
De Winter and Gomez Reino Cachafeiro 2002]. The EU constitutes a large economic
space that consents sub-state communities to develop economically, without losing
their territorial autonomy. Finally, it allows the access of minority nationalist parties
to the supranational level through representation in several institutions.

However, not only is the pro-European attitude not a totally common feature of all
minority nationalist parties, but it is also not a permanent component in the history of
single minority nationalist parties. According to Hepburn “European integration is
interpreted differently, often inversely, in different contexts and at different times –
either as a set of opportunity structures or constraints for realizing territorial interests.

Most remarkably, whilst some regional parties viewed Europe as an alternative
framework to the state to advancing their autonomy, others perceived integration as a
threat, and sought to strengthen the state to prevent Europe from encroaching on their
competences” [Hepburn 2008: 552]. She suggests four factors that shape their
strategies towards Europe: access to the European institutions and organisations; local
party competition; economic resources and constraint of state structures [Hepburn
2008: 549-542]. Finally, Elias explains that the differences between the positions
assumed by various minority nationalist parties towards the EU as well as their
changes over time are determined by party features such as ideology, as well as by
elements linked to their domestic political systems. In addition to this, he also
recognises the influence exercised by the evolution of the European Union and by
supranational cooperation [Elias 2008].

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gat...g-paper-22.pdf

And, once again, as none of you boneheads seem to be able to deal with this concept, the UK was already exempted from the "ever-closer union" deal.

The bonehead is the one not only lapping up an academic abstract as if it's gospel, but believing the EU's word as if it's gospel. Presumably you didn't benefit from a university education.

The SNP sees the EU as currently being useful to achieving its aims. That's it. I think the voters will see through it and they'll lose seats.

Originally Posted by Immigrunt

The bonehead is the one not only lapping up an academic abstract

Abstract? Do you have anything of any substance to say about the content of the paper or not?

I'm a bigot that's what I say to it
it takes more than Orwellian flowery verbose shite to budge me

Originally Posted by DrB0b

“post-sovereignty” position. ... but permits minority nationalist parties to pursue the achievement of a particular kind of sovereignty, based on the sharing of authority [Keating 2004: 368-369].

Replace 'post- ' and ' a particular kind of ' with
NON, to get the full gist of lost independence.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Immigrunt

The bonehead is the one not only lapping up an academic abstract

Abstract? Do you have anything of any substance to say about the content of the paper or not?

It's academics trying to explain why nationalists see the EU as useful to their aims. Nothing more. I agree, they do, but not because they like the EU per se.

Originally Posted by blue

I'm a bigot that's what I say to it

Good for you. At least you're honest about it.

Originally Posted by Immigrunt

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Immigrunt

The bonehead is the one not only lapping up an academic abstract

Abstract? Do you have anything of any substance to say about the content of the paper or not?

It's academics trying to explain how nationalists see the EU as useful to their aims. Nothing more.

It's a fully-referenced paper (not an abstract) on the history of the SNP's relationship with the EU and its predecessors. Given that, as it's full of facts, quotes, citations and other verifiable references which completely contradict what you say it's no wonder you're avoiding dealing it with it.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

It's a fully-referenced paper on the history of the SNP's relationship with the EU and its predecessors. Given that, as it's full of facts, quotes, citations and other verifiable references which completely contradict what you say it's no wonder you're avoiding dealing it with it.

I'm avoiding nothing. As I said, I agree that they do like the EU, but not because they like the EU per se. The EU is convenient to their aims.

The ability to question such papers and apply your own reasoning instead of clinging to them as gospel is the difference between the educated and the uneducated.

Originally Posted by Immigrunt

Originally Posted by DrB0b

It's a fully-referenced paper on the history of the SNP's relationship with the EU and its predecessors. Given that, as it's full of facts, quotes, citations and other verifiable references which completely contradict what you say it's no wonder you're avoiding dealing it with it.

I'm avoiding nothing. As I said, I agree that they do like the EU, but not because they like the EU per se. The EU is convenient to their aims.

The ability to question such papers and apply your own reasoning instead of clinging to them as gospel is the difference between the educated and the uneducated.

Hmm. As you thought the 60-page paper was an abstract I'd have to question how much of your own reasoning you applied to a paper you clearly haven't read. Did you also work your way through the bibliography in the 10 minutes between me posting the link and you responding to it?

I applied my reasoning to the words you presented. Suggest you paste the 60 pages if that's what you want discussed. If you expect people to open links to see how long the article is it was taken from, you're wasting your time, and are reinforcing your uneducated appearance.

Mr austerity (but only for the poor) has quit as MP

George Osborne will not run to stay as Tatton MP in the snap election on June 8

The MP earns £76,000-a-year representing his 65,000 constituents in Tatton. From next month, he will edit the Evening Standard four days a week.

only 65 K people? just a small towns worth.

Payback time for being a good little globalist

1. Consultant - He also pockets £650,000 for four days-a-month at the American financial giant, BlackRock.
2. Editor - It was sensationally announced today he will become editor of the Evening Standard. His salary has not been revealed.
3. Academic - He also took an estimated £120,000-a-year academic position as the first ever Kissinger Fellow at the Arizona-based McCain Institute for International Leadership
4. Chairman - He was given the unpaid role in charge of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, a body aimed at creating jobs in the north of England.
5. Public speaker - The 45-year-old has made £786,450 from 14 speeches given mostly to banks and other City institutions since leaving Number 11.

Read more: George Osborne QUITS as an MP before Evening Standard job | Daily Mail Online

SNP MPs will abstain in the House of Commons vote on whether there should be a snap general election, the party's leader at Westminster has confirmed.

Angus Robertson said his party believed in fixed-term parliaments, but would not stand in the way of an early election. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have already said they support the move.

The next general election had been due to be held in 2020, but the Fixed Term Parliaments Act allows for one to be held earlier if two-thirds of MP are in favour.

Theresa May has urged Scottish voters to use the election to reject the SNP's calls for an independence referendum

Speaking on the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Robertson accused the prime minister of putting her party before her country by holding a general election just two years after the last one.

He added: "We are supporters of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and that means that parliaments should go their term. "But we are not going to stand in the way of the election because the election is going to happen.

"The Labour Party is going to vote with the Tories. We are not going to vote with the Tories, we are not going to make life easy for them, we are here to hold them to account." The decision to abstain in the Commons vote was made at a meeting of SNP MPs on Tuesday evening.

Mr Robertson insisted he "absolutely" relished the prospect of an election, and said the SNP would be contesting every seat in Scotland with the intention of winning them.

He said the vote "will be an opportunity for us in Scotland to at least get some insurance against the worst excesses of a hard-right Brexit, which is what the UK government is steering towards".

Mr Robertson also confirmed that the SNP winning a majority of seats in Scotland would not be enough for the country to become independent - with a referendum needed to decide the issue.

But he would not confirm whether or not the party's manifesto would have a commitment to an independent Scotland seeking EU membership - which is the SNP's current policy.

First Minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon joined Mr Robertson and the party's other MPs outside Westminster ahead of the Commons vote.
She told journalists that the UK government's arguments against holding a second independence referendum would "crumble to dust" if the SNP won the election in Scotland.

The SNP won 56 of the country's 59 seats in 2015 - making it the third largest party in the Commons - with the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats winning one each.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-...itics-39640394

YES 522
NO 13

Election goes ahead.

Fairly decisive.

Originally Posted by Digby Fantona

YES 522
NO 13

Election goes ahead.

How was the SNP vote?
Did Scotland exert her mighty power in this vote?

The SNP don't want an election because they May lose their seats back to Labour.

Originally Posted by wasabi

Originally Posted by Digby Fantona

YES 522
NO 13

Election goes ahead.

How was the SNP vote?
Did Scotland exert her mighty power in this vote?

The SNP don't want an election because they May lose their seats back to Labour.

Can't see Labour winning many seats back as they are currently more despised than the Tories in large parts of Scotland, in fact the Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davison is actually quite well liked and respected (for a Tory in Scotland anyway). A more likely scenario is people who are fed up with the SNP of which there are many but can't bring themselves to vote Tory (or Labour) will vote LibDem as they used to have a fair few seats in Scotland before the last election and I can see them getting some back.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

can't bring themselves to vote Tory (or Labour) will vote LibDem

I think that's going to be the case in England too. Much as it makes me feel queasy I'm probably going to vote Lib Dem - a vote for Labour is just wasted vote IMO and I know a lot of people feel totally let-down by Labour's inactivity over the last year or two. I agree that Scotland will stay pretty much solidly SNP, it'll be a long time before labour are trusted again there.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I'm probably going to vote Lib Dem

The Liberal Democrats are a slimy shower of shit. Despicable twats who cannot accept democracy.

sounds like you guys are stuck with bad political parties

makes LePen a credible political party next to your clowns

Originally Posted by Digby Fantona

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I'm probably going to vote Lib Dem

The Liberal Democrats are a slimy shower of shit. Despicable twats who cannot accept democracy.

It's interesting how the lib Dems have watered down their position from ignoring the outcome of the referendum as stated immediately after it to their election position of only wanting to stay in the single market. Their leader is a pillock for saying there is no mandate to leave it. It's a core part of the EU.