General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Andy Monaghan
Richard J Murphy
comments

Comments by "Andy Monaghan" (@229andymon) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

I am a socialist. I hate the Labour Party.
55
Governments are fond of targets. Well, the Labour government that sets itself targets to do such as; reduce the gap between rich and poor, reduce child and adult poverty, increase the atrocious Brit state pension, increase minimum wages, properly fund the NHS and eliminate Brit tax havens will get my support. Until and unless Sir Keir’s government starts doing things like that, they will not.
21
When Labour won't even acknowledge the inherent and gross unfairness of how they gained their massive majority far less plan to do anything about it, I reckon it's not being cynical to doubt their capacity to do what Murphy is suggesting.
19
I expect the best way to make banks go bust is to pay off our overdrafts and keep in credit.
19
For me, the most important political issues in UK right now (apart from the denial of basic democracy in Scotland) are - the ending of the unfair and undemocratic FPTP voting system and the ending of the practise of buying influence in Parliament through donations to parties and politicians. Another issue, far more tricky to resolve, is how to end the inbuilt right wing bias of much of the UK media. Criticising any particular party comes a distant second to those.
16
English independence! It’s there for the English people anytime they want, for whatever reason they choose. They have no-one to persuade other than themselves and no-one to ask “permission” from. What an excellent position to be in. The rest of us are in a different situation.
16
@RobertMustoe Labour used to *be* that….
11
I don’t see why we can’t do both, Richard. Given the wealthy are getting obscenely more wealthy and the gap between rich and poor is now at Grand Canyon level we clearly have a problem that is getting progressively worse. Why? Why can’t we reverse the trend? So we would have to employ an army of tax inspectors? Fine..! Let’s employ them. After all each “soldier” in this army would be earning us money. Let’s start with a few divisions and see what the results are, if they fight the good fight and reverse this sickening trend of haves and have nots, reinforce them with a few more. We *must*, at the very least, try to stop the rich dictating to us what they’re prepared to contribute.
11
Given us Scots had the temerity to use devolved power to chuck Labour out of power in Scotland, I’m not surprised Labour is “hesitant” regarding further devolution.
8
@stephfoxwell4620 Agree completely. The problem in the UK is neither of the 2 establishment political parties that monopolise power is even interested in taxing wealth.
8
Well, yes, but PR is nonetheless a better system than first past the post, as we have in UK. Where the present govt got 2/3rds of MPs with 1/3rd of the votes.
6
 @jim-es8qk Sure, I don't know how someone didn't come up with the clever idea of levelling UK manufacturing and consigning entire communities to the scrapheap before. It had winner all over it.
5
And power is all about politics. Politics trumps every other source of influence in every society (now that religion is no longer influential). Even where corporate influence is huge, especially in the US for example, power has to be channeled through politics. People sometimes confuse power with the law - not so, laws are made (and unmade) by politicians.
5
OK, so what is it you know that legions of scientists don’t..?
5
Not sure what the difference is between MMT and good old fashioned Keynesian pump priming?
5
@julianshepherd2038 For me it beggars belief how some people oppose the transition to viable renewables. Why on earth not move to energy sources that will be forever free, forever clean and forever local?
5
@rfrisbee1 Stopping, or at least limiting, the blatant corruption of politics in UK and elsewhere via private funding and donations is not only IMO a moral imperative, but also very doable. Unlike “educating” the public better, which is very problematic. Labour has a stonking majority and may never get another chance to improve UK democracy as easily as they could now. They should implement changes that would prevent any funding being able to influence the people or parties it goes to. Say, limit donations to around £5k or so. Even UK politicians aren’t that cheap. But they won’t, same as Starmer won’t contemplate PR. Cowardice and hypocrisy is sadly a feature of Starmer’s reign.
5
Yes, but what has being the third party in Westminster actually got Scotland? I can’t think of a single thing. Isn’t it rather the the case that Westminster representation is as useful as a cat flap on a submarine to the Scottish independence cause? Westminster is the graveyard of Scottish ambition.
5
@MisterBethany There would be far more practical effects as well. England would have to renegotiate all its relations with other countries and organisations, and would probably lose much of the benefits it gets as UK. Westminster will cling on to the Celtic nations for grim death. We’ll have to prise the dead hand of Westminster rule off finger by finger.
5
Why not end the cap on council tax bands?
5
Not necessarily. So long as it can be ensured no attempt will be made to influence an outcome by means that will benefit the person or agency being lobbied. In other words, if I or my company have for example a new battery technology, there should be nothing stopping me promoting that to an Energy ministry. But… if I offer something of benefit (money, shares, a job etc) to the minister or similar, that should be illegal. Right now you only need to declare any interest and in the case of say a job afterward, poorly policed. Persons being lobbied in these circumstances should be legally prevented from receiving benefits and shouldn’t be able to work for any company they help, inc any group companies, for, say, 5 years. Not difficult to set up and police, I’d say.
5
@helenheenan3447 I remember a wonderful cartoon a while back pictured in a lecture hall where a guy was lecturing about the effects of climate change and someone in the audience is shouting “but what if you’re wrong and we’re just improving the world- for nothing!” :)
4
And even then, per capita doesn't take the disparity between rich and poor into account. UK is a very unequal society.
4
Because it should trouble Labour’s conscience a wee bit more because they’re children? To be treating the most vulnerable in our society in such a barbarous way should make us want to act a bit more than if they were adult. Labour used to have both courage and principle. And I’m old enough to remember when.
4
@stephfoxwell4620 And ignorance. They’re routinely ignored too.
4
Given it’s New Year’s Day I’m going to try to look for something positive about Reform. And, difficult as that is, I reckon I’ve found one. If Reform starts to seriously threaten the Tories domination of right wing politics in UK, then we may see the Tories consider supporting PR.
4
I reckon credibility went out the window of UK politics before the invention of glass.
3
If you want to evaluate the NHS, try living somewhere that doesn’t have one. If you’re wealthy, you’re fine - ignore this. If you’re not, prepare to be very worried.
3
@ChrisJones-ht9zn And many, many more not rich ones (were) that *do* need it. Thanks, “People’s Party”….
3
Yes, isn’t the Scottish Parliament working for Scots far better than your rubbish one is working for you? Anyhow, what did I say that made you come to the impression I was “feeling sorry for myself”? I said we used Holyrood to chuck Labour out (which we did). That’s not me feeling sorry, it’s me feeling happy and glad!
3
@alanhat5252 it’s possible to be wrong about one thing and right on another. We’re human, it comes like that.
3
@loc4725 No, you didn’t “explain” anything. You attempted to justify a craven and cynical veto on Scottish democracy and failed. If the conditions allowed for (according the Parliament you pledge allegiance to) a referendum in 2014, what is the difference now? The Scottish people, via their elected representatives, wanted indyref1 - and now, via the same mechanism, we want Indyref2. Westminster decided (since it was supremely confident it would win hands down) to “allow” Indyref1, but, because it’s running scared of Indyref2 has decided we’re to be denied another choice as to whether we want to be in your unequal, unfair and involuntary union. Let me “explain” to you what the situation is, it’s far simpler than you think. Big brave Dave Cameron thought he’d shoot the Scottish fox by “allowing” Indyref1 - when you lot were 70/30 up. Now that’s it’s far more even, Westminster has no stomach to test Brit “unity” in Scotland. It’s basic Brit political chicanery, cynicism, cowardice and fear, nothing more, nothing less.
3
Blacklisting has been, and I suspect still is, a potent and horrible tool employers have used in UK and elsewhere for a very long time.
3
@edbop I’m fairly sure my local takeaway would insist on getting money. I could try telling him money didn’t exist anymore, but I reckon his response would be - then the curry doesn’t exist either.
3
Sunack somehow managing to be both ridiculous and sinister. But, he’s not the first swivel-eyed right wing bampot the Tories have produced. Let’s not forget Margaret “Year Zero” Thatcher’s describing of the miners union as “The enemy within”. Yours, a proud (as defined by the Tories) extremist.
3
@jim-es8qk No, it would lead to a radical change to the country. Something I believe is decades overdue.
3
Do you really see doommongering? I see hope and vision. Perhaps we're so used to Tory graft, cronyism, sleaze and incompetence we think good sense is somehow radical.
3
@nitsujism What has Labour done re railways? It has said it will take back into public ownership rail franchises currently operated by the private sector. Sounds great, right? But - firstly, it was already happening, some have already been transferred under the Tories due to catastrophic performance and other issues. Labour’s only alternative would’ve been to continue the Tory policy and re-issue licences to obviously failing and incompetent private companies. Not exactly manning the barricades, eh? On the other hand we could discuss what Labour *aren’t* doing, like taxing the wealthy, tackle UK offshore tax havens or nationalising Water etc. If you follow the excellent Richard Murphy, as I do, you’ll see he’s created a long list of sensible, un-radical and viable things Labour could, should, but won’t do. Free breakfast clubs - yeah, a nice gesture, but what about Labour’s voting to continue the Tory 2 child benefits cap? Maybe if Labour wasn’t making so many poor people poorer, they wouldn’t need breakfast clubs, eh?
3
@adenwellsmith6908 A lot, thanks to the economically illiterate Tories. Start taxing more those that can pay and ensure Brit tax havens are ended. That'll do for a start.
3
The Greens have vision, bravery and principles. Everything Labour should (and used to) have but doesn’t anymore.
3
How so, Rishi?
2
To vote independent, you’d have to know your persons views on every matter that means something to you, and even then, they could change their mind. When you vote for a party, as most of us do, you vote for a manifesto or a party with a certain tradition of support for certain issues that you agree with. Much better system.
2
@alanhat5252 I posted that precisely because there are those that would destroy the NHS as we know it. Left to the Tories and other right wing barbarians, we would slip into the kind of devil take the hindmost hell they think passes for society.
2
I find it depressing, if typical, that many Western leaders were happy to denounce Trump’s attempt to subvert democracy after losing the election before last in USA, but are strangely silent on the Georgian opposition trying to do the same thing. Principles bow down before geopolitics.
2
@ScottishRoss27 They won’t offer the English a Parliament, because the English would never accept any limitations to it. Not that they’d have to - who tells the English what they can and can’t do?
2
@ScottishRoss27 I’m struggling to think of a people more self confident than the English. I wish us Scots had their confidence in their own merits.
2
@stevenwilliamson6236 I have nothing against the English people. My argument is with their elected politicians and the Westminster system. The English wouldn’t put up with the “stuff” we are for example…
2
@therealrobertbirchall As a committed indy supporter since the 80s, for me Scotland is, most definitely, a nation. But... not a sovereign one. We are sadly a nation in name only, technically we are, as yet, part of UK. We are not in a voluntary union. If we were, would we be in the position we are now, with Indyref2 blocked by Westminster? The only nation of UK that can be said to be in the union voluntarily is England, since the English could leave when they please.
2
@col.hertford9855 For interest, it can be questioned whether a second chamber is needed at all. In Holyrood, there is none, albeit the main levers of power in UK as yet reside with Westminster. Instead there is a system of committees, formed of a selection of MSPs from each party according to representation in the main chamber. No system is perfect, and Holyrood generally has its critics (especially from outwith Scotland) but the committee system is rarely criticised.
2
@col.hertford9855 I agree about Scottish democracy being more “alive” than UKs. In UK its all about whether Labour will beat the Tories or vice versa. In Scotland we’re seeing PR bring new parties into the mix, since there’s a feeling there’s no such thing as a “wasted vote”. Coalition politics is, imo, much fairer and much more representative and dynamic, with less chance of one party getting a big majority and then we can all go to sleep for 5 years. The UK establishment parties (Lab and Tories) will hold onto undemocratic FPTP like grim death, because they don’t want vibrant politics. They want the “shots each” system. I have little regard for British politics.
2
@mypointofview1111 it does if they’re British. Have you seen what’s running the country now?
2
@adenwellsmith6908 So what do we do? Nothing? Give up? Drink heavily? Give solutions, not problems.
2
@adenwellsmith6908 Yeah, then Farage made the Tories take us out of the EU against our will. The same Tories Scotland last voted for in 1955. We’ve changed our minds. Aren’t you allowed to do that in democratic UK?
2
@adenwellsmith6908 Scotland voted 62% to stay, England voted 52% to leave. Scotland left. The UK union is undemocratic, unfair, unequal and, given the ongoing blockade of Scottish democracy by the current Westminster regime (run by a party Scots last voted for in 1955) you can add involuntary to that as well. There is only one nation in the “United” Kingdom that can leave the UK union whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. The rest of us can’t. Hint - it’s not Scotland.
2
Murphy as usual talking principled, good sense. But… let’s face it, there’s zero chance of the zero principle Tories ever agreeing to this. Labour on the other hand not only could, but most definitely should Labour could clean up rotten Brit politics easily by doing 2 things; Implement Murphy’s suggestions regarding individual and corporate donations to political parties and representatives. I actually think £10k is too much, even these days £10k has the power to tempt. My sum would be £5k, that would be a bit too cheap to sell their soul for. Secondly, lobbying should be permitted, but, linked to the above restrictions, only where no tangible benefits will accrue to the party or person being lobbied. Lobbying should be permitted on the merits of the goods or services alone. Murphy is also correct to highlight public funding of political parties and people should be done on the basis of how much they need rather than how much they want.
2
@Banjo2030 I think Labour (and the Tories) need to give up their craven, cynical and opportunist support for FPTP and let a real left wing party emerge.
2
@kevinwilde Labour is not a left wing party anymore, and I say that without a hint of exaggeration. They are a centrist party. Left wingers do not represent or control that party and I doubt ever will. The fact is there is no mainstream left wing party in UK.
2
@sonny1987100 There are those in UK that *need* taxed to hell. It’s just a pity that Labour have ruled out doing that. Labour has only one thing going for them in my book - they’re aren’t Tories. However, I reckon people who voted for them voted for far more than just that.
2
@puckinhell622 Yes, of course. Would you like a full manifesto or say, 50 or so? You know this isn’t the Oxford Union debating chamber, right?
2
What about the "Peoples Party" pledging to reverse the growing gap between rich and poor?
2
I voted SNP, but I don’t support them, I support independence. OK, I hear you about independence and the SNP, but, let me ask you, what (realistically and viably) do you think they should do to get us independence?
2
They may have fallen temporarily out of love with the Tories, but England is a Tory nation.
2
For the same reason Labour aren’t going to do lots of things they should. Coz they’re past masters at doing nothing. They excel at nothing. They are Lords of the Void.
2
 @111dddcca For payment from which they made profit. You make it sound like they're doing it for our good...
2
@keithparker1346 As a Scot, and therefore now used to both FPTP and PR systems, I’ve become very negative about FPTP. It’s a truly terrible way to elect representatives. We’re a generation in now and Holyrood is still evolving, with people now starting to vote for a bigger range of parties that represent, and express, their views more closely. It’s great to think you can do so without “wasting your vote” as the supporters of unfair FPTP tell you you do if you don’t vote either Labour or Tory.
2
@keithparker1346 Even given the SNP has (recently) been a big beneficiary of unfair FPTP in Scotland, they’re nonetheless against it. Labour and the Tories still cynically defend it.
2
All the way to a better, fairer future
1
Difficult to imagine a worse result for UK than another round of the hopeless, corrupt Tories, but the prospect of those swivel eyed, alt-right bampots from Reform gaining any influence doesn’t bear thinking about.
1
@RobinHarris-nf4yv You prefer not to choose?
1
@mynameisnobody5295 During the last UK budget I saw a really funny, but also striking, tweet. Someone posted a photo of Charles Windsor sitting on the throne in all his ermine and finery. Underneath it said… “Man sitting in a golden chair wearing a diamond hat talks about poverty”. The Brit monarchy is the pinnacle of the elitism and the class plagued nature of this highly unequal and non egalitarian country. It’s time UK dragged itself into the 20th century.
1
@RobinHarris-nf4yv Depends on the powers exercised by a President. These range from big to symbolic. Basically presidents don’t get their position through “lucky sperm”, but rather have to earn the position. Down to whether you believe in meritocracy or the continuation of an antediluvian successor to the “divine right” of kings. Most nations don’t have them and I can see no evidence they want, or need, them either….
1
UK will never thrive as long so England as keeps voting Tory.
1
@edbop So, you don’t need to worry about what they might think of an issue, or what their decision will be, as long as you’re happy they’re “moral”. And how do we know if they’re “moral” and how do we know how their morals will tell them to vote on often complex issues? Will your moral person vote for a national energy company or against it? Presumably you don’t care as long as they convince you of their morality. Alternatively, we vote for a party that we know represents what we believe in and we don’t worry about the morality (or not) of whoever it is wearing the rosette. I’m very unconvinced by your touching faith in “morality”.
1
@shtarpark7938 OK not all, but some do. I spoke to one last week who went on about how “lucky” I was to live in my generation - until I told him I was 7 before we had an inside toilet..!
1
@shtarpark7938 Did you miss where I said “OK, not all, but some”..? Personally, I don’t think this generation is any better or worse than mine, and they face challenges I didn’t. But do some have a warped sense of what my time was like? Sorry, but yes.
1
@shtarpark7938 I hope you have the maturity to understand that any decisions we made were what we considered sensible and obvious - at the time. Now some of them appear wrong and stupid, but back then they made sense. In fact I’d say in general we hoped and assumed we were working to pass on a brighter future to the next generation. I find it depressing when a young person tells me, in all seriousness, they consider me lucky. I don’t envy the young. They have materially far more than i could dream of at their age, but my generation seemed happier.
1
@ChrisJones-ht9zn They’re £500 quid down pa. I’d call that affected. I know, I’m one of the not rich pensioners affected Why are they doing this but deliberately *not* increasing taxation on the ever growing number of wealthy people instead?
1
@ChrisJones-ht9zn I live in hope they change their minds on that, but Sir Kid Starver has stated they won’t increase income taxes, including for the wealthy.
1
Nonsense. A referendum offering a good PR system would trash FPTP, which is only supported by the 2 “shots each” parties (Labour/Tories) because it ensures the undemocratic shots each system persists.
1
Until today, Labour has had 30 years of Westminster power, most with a majority. Why hasn’t “the People’s Party” done so years ago, is the actual question. Labour - doing nothing at Olympic level.
1
So, democracy only if you can ensure the “right” results then? You realise that’s not democracy, eh?
1
@leeallen463 OK, I prefer my democracy, you know… democratic, but each to his own. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Voltaire.
1
Absolutely! Places like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Spain, Netherlands… the list goes on and on. All racked with mad extremists and political gridlock. Much better to stay with the minority of countries still using the antediluvian FPTP system. Who cares if it ensures a fair distribution of representation for support given? Is that important? Surely not.
1
Londoncentrism is a sin of both right and left in UK and has been for generations.
1
And, infuriatingly, that would be reasonably easy to fix, or at least reduce. Stop corporations and wealthy individuals funding to political parties and politicians. Let’s face it, why are they doing so? Reduce political contributions to those, from individuals, that are too small to have the power to bribe.
1
Are you sure? For me a constitution ensures, on some issues, the minority beats the majority. In some cases it’s a recipe for atrophy.
1
In a Holyrood election, yes. In a UK one, they’re an alternative to independence supporting MPs.
1
Catalonia?
1
@ScottishRoss27 Why? I’m sure the Catalonian nationalists would disagree since they consider themselves a nation too.
1
@ScottishRoss27 The UK unionist argument is that Scotland is technically not a nation (true), but a part of another (UK). Besides, if such a precondition for independence was a prerequisite, wouldn’t that have prevented many examples of previous successful independence movements? Quebec has never been a nation, would you disagree they have the right to independence if they choose? I disagree with you generally around this. For me every independence movement’s case must be taken on its own merits.
1
@ScottishRoss27 They’re unionists because they consider their country to be the United Kingdom, which they disagree Scotland should leave. I used the term “technically” for a reason. Because while in the eyes of the world, and the UK govt, Scotland is perceived as a “nation”, technically that definition has no foundation in practical reality or legal status. There is no technical Scottish “nationality”, Scotland has no sovereign power, has no rights or representation on international bodies and *on paper* Scotland is simply a part of the UK. As far as the EU is concerned for example, they refuse to formally comment on Scottish independence as they regard UK as the only party with which they can officially talk. Scotland, I’m afraid to say, is a nation in name only. But… while indyref1 was generally a loss for the Indy movement, it did have 2 positive outcomes, it lifted support for Indy to impressive, consistent and viable levels and through it, the UK govt conceded Scotland had a right to secede. This differentiates us from the Catalonia situation, where Madrid refuses to concede Catalonia has that right. Of course, there would be nothing stopping UK from walking back their stance, but I doubt that would happen. As for “appealing to Westminster’s better nature” regarding their UN “obligations” - good luck with that. I’m sure they’re already well aware of those - while blocking Indyref2.
1
@ScottishRoss27 I’m surprised UK makes it to 20th! Incidentally, UK spends more on its military than France, Germany or Japan. We spend too much on military, not too little..! Less guns, more butter. Use any funds saved to increase the shameful UK state pension instead.
1
@thefastandthedead1769 isn't it the same question?
1
@therealrobertbirchall Yes, but their aspiration is exactly the same Scotland's.
1
@therealrobertbirchall its not “nonsense”, it’s realpolitik. If we are as sovereign as you claim, how come we can’t even classify movies…? Scotland has zero sovereignty. What little “powers” we have via devolution are “outsourced” by Westminster, which has the de jure power (de facto would be another story…) to withdraw them as they choose. I’d love to agree with you, but our only official status, nationally and internationally, is subject of the UK. The EU won’t even speak to us about anything that Westminster doesn’t agree with, including of course independence. We do have the option of UDI, which Westminster may force us into, but only if we can carry the Scots with us. Is that “sovereignty”? I don’t believe so.
1
@therealrobertbirchall “let (the English) leave”. No one’s stopping them. However, just like we can’t stop them leaving if they want, nor can we make them go. I’m afraid wishes don’t count.
1
@gio-oz8gf But England does. Now that Scotland rejects both Brit establishment parties, we never get what we vote for. Scottish Tories are in a small minority and get what they want often. SNP voters vote for the most popular party and never get what they want.
1
As a Scot I don’t want to “feel represented” I want the power to change Scotland even if England disagrees. Will your system facilitate this? If not I’m not interested in meaningless fig leaves.
1
@barerfont In the case of Scotland’s position in the UK, local (Scottish) representation is nothing but a fig leaf. But I thank you for allowing us the right to choose whether to stay in the UK union or not. Out of interest, if England were to find itself in the position Scotland is in, who would it ask for permission to leave?
1
@barerfont Not a problem. Thanks for the clarification. But - I’d be interested in your answer to my question.
1
@barerfont Indeed, that is exactly what happens now. Scotland needs the approval of the British Govt. But… the difference for England would be - they would be the British Govt. In effect, there is only one nation in UK that can leave the UK union whenever it chooses and for whatever reason it chooses. The rest of us can’t.
1
@col.hertford9855 I agree with some of your thoughts, but am strongly of the opinion federalism will never work in UK. The reason being that England is too big and dividing it into “states” isn’t feasible, or I suspect would be supported. England outnumbers the Celtic nations several time over. Do you seriously see England accepting that something it wants could be vetoed by Wales? Why on earth would the English agree to that proposition?
1
@RobinHarris-nf4yv Why? Apart of course for the opposition of the only 2 Establishment UK parties to benefit from it? I say UK coz the SNP also benefit greatly from it in Scotland, but they oppose it nonetheless. Labour and the Tories have settled into a comfy “shots each” arrangement, where FPTP ensures they swap Westminster power with each other.
1
@loc4725 You put it far too simply. The way you explain it, Scotland has no more right to determine our own future than, say, Yorkshire. That is not the case, like it or not, and the reason why is what undermines your POV. The union was, like most unions are when created (including the many that have disintegrated) assumed to be forever and no scenario was envisaged, or plan allowed for, dissolution. If we take the Soviet Union for example, they had no route for its constituent states to secede either. But they did. There was no accepted route for Norway to leave union with Sweden, but it did. In fact history is replete with such examples of states that did precisely what you insist Scotland can’t. Thankfully. Because each claim for independence must and should be taken on its own merits. For example, although the debate must be an English one, and not for Scots, were Yorkshire to claim independence, I assume the attitude of Westminster would be very different to that toward Scotland, and would be exactly that of Madrid’s attitude to Catalonian independence (that it has no “right” to it). It’s the same attitude you share towards Scotland. But we are *not* Yorkshire and Westminster has accepted that we are different and must be treated so. The 2014 referendum established that very clearly. This is not disputed by Westminster. Westminster’s attitude currently is that we *do* have the right to secede, but they are not currently inclined to allow us to begin executing that right. It is not the same as Madrid’s attitude to Catalonia, or yours to Scotland. Therefore - your “Catalonia comparison” is basically wrong, it doesn’t fit the current reality of where UK and Scotland currently are - becalmed in a cynical and cowardly democratic morass of Westminster’s deliberate making. Besides, let me paint a very possible (I would say probable) outcome of your attitude if writ into statute (perish the thought) - either Westminster walks back it’s acceptance of Scotland’s right to self-determination, or, runs it’s own all-UK referendum, which would result in a rejection of Scottish independence. Both would establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, we are kept in the union with no means to escape it, if we chose. What a nightmare for *all* of us! Do you believe that viable? Do you believe me and those like me would accept that? Do you believe England wants that - would you want it? No one with any sense would. You haven’t thought this all the way through.
1
@loc4725 Again you come back with "you signed up for this" when that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the current UK govts attitude to whether Scots have the right to self determination now , regardless of what we signed up for or not in 1707. PM M Thatcher was unequivocally clear that Scotland has such a right, and stated so, a view backed by PM J Major. Following the 2014 ref, the all party Smith Commission, established by the UKG, concluded nothing in the ensuing Edinburgh Agreement could stop Scottish independence in the future - if the Scottish people so choose. Again that is crystal clear. If that's not acceptance of a right to self determination I'm struggling to know what is. But .. please show me your evidence it is the position of the UKG that we do *not*, rather than the current situation is not suitable for it. The SC judgement you refer to does not, incidentally, it refers to a specific legal position, not on the right of self determination. Incidentally, have no fear of us hanging on and "bothering" you (like wayward children) after we foxtrot oscar from the awful Brit union. Why on earth do you think we want to leave it..? We won't be looking back....
1
@loc4725 Your argument is essentially, and exclusively, de jure, mine is de facto. I concede yours, you reject mine. You say there is no constitutional right, within the UK framework, that Scotland can draw on to secede from the UK union - that is true. If you regard that alone as the “winning factor” for you - well done! You win. Indeed I have said as much in a past comment where I say the UKG can at any time walk back it’s de facto acceptance of Scotland’s right to self determination, established via the 2014 referendum debates and outcomes. Whether Westminster accepts Scotland has the right to secede or not is, and will be until we leave, entirely up to it. The same applies to N Ireland incidentally, where the UKG, at this point, has formally accepted NI could secede. It could simply reverse that position too. It won’t though, because, again, de facto in this case also trumps de jure. However, you cannot deny the UKG accepted then (2014) the principle of Scottish independence, and you cannot now prove it has subsequently reversed that position. The Edinburgh Agreement nowhere states, or even alludes, to this precedent being unrepeatable, which it would have to in normal circumstances were that to be it’s position. But, again, regardless of it’s current position, it could at any point, do as it pleases, “proving” your de jure case. If Westminster wanted to establish your position, all it has to do is formally state that Scotland does not have a right to self determination. Why does it not do so, and instead fannys about with pathetic excuses for a real position such as mooting the statements by Sturgeon and Salmond (“once in a generation”) that you so accurately describe as meaningless? The SG could appeal directly to the UN on the basis of self-détermination, but that response would be by no means certain and in any case, even if successful, UK could simply disregard. It is in control of its position on the question, not the UN. Personally I expect such a case would fail, but by that point it wouldn’t be de jure rights that would be the driving force, rather de facto. If we ever get there, I suspect the UK would be (effectively) over. Could we get there? Until the recent cowardly and cynical Westminster blockade against indyref2 I would’ve said no, but now that Westminster is deliberately painting the SNP into a corner, I’m not so sure. Instead where we are now is a position where the Indy movement has been forced by Westminster arrogance and fear to consider other routes. Would a successful SNP appeal to make the next Scottish GE a mandate to begin secession talks with UKG a de jure right? No. Would the UK union therefore be safe? No. De jure vs de facto. Westminster is raising the stakes, but independence is by no means cardless. Our strength is in the fact we only need to win once, and (in spite of short term Brit propaganda to the contrary) we aren’t going away.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Give me your solutions. This should be good……
1
Labour has had Westminster power, mostly with a majority, for 30 years. In that time they were more interested in filling the HoLs than ending it. What on earth makes you think Sir Keir’s marshmallow soft left will do what previous Labour governments have failed to. Labour does nothing, it’s what it does best.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Wait a minute - my country votes 62% to stay and yours votes 52% to stay, then you force us to leave- and I'm "racist" Aye, that makes sense - said no Scot ever. Being Scotland in your unequal union is like 10 wolve and 1 sheep having an equal say on what's for dinner. Stop blaming the victim.!
1
@adenwellsmith6908 So, my nation votes to stay in the EU and yours stop mine - and it’s my fault? I suppose I’m to blame for Tory UK governments we last voted for in 1955 for that reason too then. I want Scottish votes to determine Scottish outcomes, instead of our votes counting for nothing in this horribly unequal UK union. You can imagine anything else into that equation all you like, it won’t change anything.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Blame away. In fact I’d get shot of us if I were you.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 So, if “all count equally” how come your country can leave the UK union when it likes and mine can’t?
1
@adenwellsmith6908 So how come England can leave when it likes and Scotland can’t? Why, as a Scot, should I consider that fair?
1
@adenwellsmith6908 But the democratically elected Scottish govt wants to give Scots the right to hold Indyref2, as we mandated them, to decide whether we still want to be part of your nation or not. If you get to decide whether we have that right , is that fair? You’re talking of Scottish votes counting more than English - they don’t count at all! If Westminster blocks the only legal means to us becoming independent, is not the UK union an involuntary union? Does that not make the term “United Kingdom” a sick joke. Only United coz Scotland is prevented from leaving. Seriously - that’s the kind of place you want to call home?
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Oh yes you can. Who do you have to ask? Think about it…..
1
@adenwellsmith6908 It’s almost inconceivable that the English would want to leave the union, given they already have a de facto sovereign parliament in Westminster. But - if they found themselves in the same position the SNP is in with Scotland m who could stop them simply taking England out the union?
1
@adenwellsmith6908 You’re running out of rope. The statements made at the time by 2 ex SNP political leaders carry absolutely zero official capacity or authority. There is *nothing* in the Edinburgh Declaration, that facilitated Indyref1, to say that must prevent us from another choice. In any case, how can it be we are offered no chance to change or minds, and who is in control of such a decision to offer us no such chance? Clearly not any amount of Scottish votes you care to mention. 10 years later, the democratically elected Scottish government was mandated to inform Westminster we want them to facilitate Indyref2. You cannot, with any seriousness, tell me, if Westminster can refuse that, we have the right to leave the UK. We simply do not. The UK union is involuntary, it’s as clear as that and I suspect you’re well aware that is the case. And to repeat, once again, if we were to swap England with Scotland in this scenario, England would be an independent country. Not because English votes are “worth more” - because there are just far more of them. If you can leave if *you* decide, and we cant, you can’t escape the inherent unfairness of that. You cant.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 In a Scottish referendum, a Scottish vote is worth 100%, while an English vote is worth 0%, that’s how this whole self determination thing works, as I would’ve considered obvious. So it’s not about Scottish votes vs English votes as to whether we get a referendum or not - because, as should be equally obvious, Scotland cannot make that decision since we’re outnumbered 11 to 1 in Westminster. The analogy of the 10 wolves and 1 sheep having an equal say on what’s for dinner then applies. Either Scotland can choose to leave (without external interference) or not. We can *not* Could England if the tables were turned - *yes* This is stone cold fact - own it.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 But this isn’t a UK referendum were discussing, it’s a Scottish one, it’s indyref2, the one Westminster is blocking. You can’t even face up to the undeniable fact of there only being one nation in UK with choice. We live in an involuntary union, that should be considered shameful and unacceptable by fair minded people. I’m not surprised you’re unaware, incidentally, very few English people I discuss this with realise this reality.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 why don’t we give the rest of Uk the choice as whether they want us in the UK union? 2 reasons. 1. The whole idea of independence is *us* getting the right to choose what we want for our country. Having other people (we never vote for) decide for us is what we’re trying to get *out* of. Surprised you didn’t pick that up. 2. We couldn’t - because, as I’ve been trying to explain for a while now, we can’t decide anything. Only Westminster can, where Scottish votes are ignored and our democratic choices blocked.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 I “capiche” the UK union, and how it operates, very well. It’s why I will never stop wanting out of it. It’s why I, and increasingly more Scots, realise we will never get anywhere or anything from Westminster. It’s a dead end for us, where we cannot win. UK democracy doesn’t apply to us. What I don’t understand is - why do people like you *want* us?
1
@adenwellsmith6908 And we’ve changed our minds. Are you saying we can’t do that? And if so, who are you speaking for?
1
@adenwellsmith6908 We did, where was the Scottish revolution? We are now, a decade later, exercising our democratic right to change our mind. Why won’t *you* accept *that*
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Since when can you not change your mind? No political decision can ever be made that can’t be unmade in a functioning democracy. No group of politicians can make decisions that later politicians can’t change or end. If any politician ever tells you they can decide something which must last or can’t be changed for 25 years (or 2) don’t believe them, coz it’s not in their power. Which is something we should all be thankful for. Anyway, why do you consider statements from 2 ex SNP political leaders to be cast in stone and cannot be questioned, while later leadership decisions and statements mean nothing? Couldn’t be your just picking what you prefer, is it? You surely know politics doesn’t work like that, eh? Seriously, why are you so hellbent on keeping us? I really don’t get it.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Nope, the “rules” are those created by Westminster, the ex SNP leadership had “views”. But… even if that was true, if one SNP leadership thought something 10 years ago you still haven’t even tried to explain to me why later leaders can’t change that. What political party ever operated any other way? It’s a ridiculous notion. Is this all you have to justify imprisoning Scotland in your horrible union? Look, it’s very simple, if we’re not allowed to change our mind, it’s not a functioning democracy, that goes without saying. If we’re not allowed to change our mind, it’s not a voluntary union. If we’re not allowed to change our mind, the union is undemocratic, unfair and unequal. Just admit it and say you want to keep us - coz you don’t want to lose us and don’t give a flying fandango whether it’s fair or democratic or whatever. Just be honest, it’s not like you’re making a decent argument or anything.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 I’m well aware what Salmond did, you don’t have to tell me, I was here at the time. So, you obviously have no intention of explaining why we’re unable to change our mind on this political issue, in spite of us telling you in no uncertain terms that’s exactly what’s happened. Any other party can obviously do so, on any other issue, but on this issue we, uniquely, can’t. It’s a unionist mystery. We must just suck up this Westminster diktat, that all. End of conversation, it’s been a wonderful exchange of views, you’ve been a hugely informed, fair and convincing champion of the unionist cause. In conclusion, I’m just wondering if you’d be happy accepting our independence in the event Indy parties do actually manage to get a majority of Scottish MPs. Yes, I know you can’t see that happening, but I also reckon you’d be very reluctant to accept *any* circumstances where we cast off tne dead hand of Westminster misrule, so pardon me for being very sceptical on that account. We’ll have to prise your fingers off us one by one, won’t we?
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Ah, some actual points rather than the tired old “once in a generation” stuff. Good. Firstly, the English will never be given the chance to vote us out. If Westminster is running scared of Indyref2 (oh yes it is) you think they’d risk asking you? Not a chance, my friend. This may surprise you, but I have a lot of respect for the English people and I believe if you asked them if they want to “get rid of us” they’d say no, but… I also reckon if you asked them if they should interfere (unlike their leaders) in our decisions regarding independence they’d also say no. Go ahead with that question instead, would be my advice. Now let’s get to your “negotiation”. The SNPs position on currency is that we move to a Scottish currency as soon as practically possible and use the UK£ in the meantime but not in a monetary union. You can’t stop that, btw… You will not be required to insure Scottish banks. RBS has said when we go Indy it will relocate it’s HQ to London so you will insure that. Sadly, because England voted to leave the EU and Scotland will rejoin it once we escape the UK union, freedom of movement will be ruled via those channels. Until then I expect you’re wrong and we’ll have freedom of movement as that will suit both countries. I’ll remind you Scotland buys more from England than sells to it and our imports from England will make us one of UKs top export markets. I don’t think market hungry Jimmy no mates Brexit UK will choose to damage that relationship, certainly not for petty spite. The Scottish government will pay Scottish pensions. This wouldn’t be the case if UK had a pension pot, like sensible countries, but rather pays their unfortunate pensioners the pittance it does from current account. You’ll be aware I’m sure just how atrocious the UK pension is - one of the lowest in Europe. That’s not a bar that’ll be difficult to get over, eh? Any other questions?
1
Doesn’t a constitution ensure that, on the most important matters, the minority normally beats the majority?
1
@zebop917 . As an example, look at the mountain any group campaigning against the “right to bear arms” has to climb to stop Americans mowing each other down with military level assault weapons. Would any British constitution place similar obstacles against any of the constituent nations seceding? I think we know the answer to that. Constitutions are political documents written by politicians for political reasons, not divine revelation brought down on tablets of stone. Supermajorities are deliberately difficult to overcome, set as they are at 2 thirds or so. Meaning you mount a campaign to change something and 6 out of 10 agree with you, but the 40% win. I don’t believe in rule by the minority.
1
@phosferrax Not me, I’m not suggesting he said do nothing, I’m saying yes, do what he’s saying, but we shouldn’t write off the “traditional” ways to tax either. I’d like to see a more concerted and enthusiastic effort to even start taxing them more. As I say, perhaps not with an “army” right away - build up capacity, hopefully on the back of positive results (more tax gained) from the first cohort. Implement a higher rate of income tax, at the same time as ensuring loopholes are plugged and other ways to avoid are tackled rigorously. Of course I totally realise I’ve more chance of flapping my arms and flying to the moon to expect the Tories to even contemplate such actions, but the self-termed “People’s Party” could at least pretend to be interested.
1
@garyb455 Let them, it’s probably offshore already anyway. Then replace them with people who can’t.
1
And of course Labour know this and play to that gallery. Then when they get “their shot” they ensure the undemocratic FPTP stays in place so that they can do it all over again later. The Tories are the same. UK democracy - it’s a joke, eh?
1
@edbop So how would you pay for stuff?
1
@edbop Sorry I’m not getting it. If I want a curry from my local takeaway, what do I give the owner in return?
1
@WarrenPeaceOG Thanks, it’s so tempting to regard national finances/economics as akin to those of the corner shop. But when the shop owner gets a bill from a supplier, they can’t go in a back room and print money to pay it. So, I’m reading that, if/when we see a new BRICS currency it’ll be gold backed, would that mean they couldn’t “do” MMT? I don’t agree economics is the dismal science, I find it quite interesting, but I’d call it the confusing science.
1
@abody499 Either banning or restricting to £5-10k - would have same effect.
1
Try being Scottish. We last voted Tory in 1955. Being Scotland in the UK is akin to 10 wolves and 1 sheep getting an equal say on what’s for dinner.
1
PR (assuming done via a sensible system) ensures a fair distribution of representation according to support given. “Seek and ye shall find” and you’ll find instances where it may not work as well as it should, but all that proves is you’ve searched well. It’s a system that should be fairer that the unfair and undemocratic FPTP? And is, normally.
1
“Reform”..? Surely end this antediluvian anachronism? Second biggest legislature on earth - full of unelected nobodies have a kip at our expense. Federalism - won’t work in a UK overwhelmingly dominated by one nation.
1
Federalism won’t work in UK. England is too big.
1
@abody499 Yes. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Murphy say anything I’m not in agreement with, apart from that Scotland shouldn’t consider a (slightly) lower corporation tax level than England. But I’m happy to disagree with him on that point. :)
1
@Talentedtadpole Perhaps 14 years of Tory rule has exacerbated that. The “Nasty Party” has surely gone beyond mere nasty by now. No money for child poverty, but plenty for taking us back to the 1950s with conscription. There’s your Tories, right there.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Eh... ?
1
@colincampbell4261 The Lib Dems attempt to introduce PR was a case study on one party getting totally stitched up by another. "Credit" has to go to the Tories, who managed to degrade the option that was eventually offered to the point that even the Lib Dems themselves called it "a miserable little compromise". The Tories were determined to prevent us being offered real PR, and sadly succeeded. Labour and the Tories are both terrified of PR, coz it'll stop the cozy "shots each" Westminster system where they get huge electoral advantage. They'll both try all they can to prevent a real referendum offering real PR. Why? Coz they know we'll vote for it.
1
@RobinHarris-nf4yv Yes, only 5 seats. But… only because of the iniquitous, anti-democratic FPTP system still favoured by the Tories and Labour only because it suits them. In a much fairer PR system, they would have around 90 seats. I wish only failure for Reform and lament their existence, but we can’t ignore the stone cold fact that FPTP is a ridiculous, stupid and fundamentally unfair system of selecting a government.
1
@col.hertford9855 Yes, correct. Especially given Clegg himself knew AV was terrible. He even referred to it as “a miserable little compromise”. That guy made a massive blunder. Never trust a Tory.
1
@martinmcdonald4207 Which ones?
1
@kevinwilde Isn’t that what many left wing voters in UK just did? Didn’t work, eh?
1
@puckinhell622 A party that plans for and enacts policies that can clearly be identified as left wing.
1
@puckinhell622 One that plans for and enacts policies that are clearly left wing.
1
@kevinwilde Where can I find true, left wing Labour?
1
@nitsujism Well, far, far more than that. How about *not* voting *to continue with* Tory child poverty measures or refusing to increase taxes on the wealthy to reduce the obscene (and widening) gap between rich and poor? How about cracking down on UK offshore tax havens, how about increasing corporation tax, how about a long list of completely viable and sensible left wing things RIchard Murphy has highlighted Labour could, should, but will not, do? Free breakfast clubs and not replacing private sector rail operating franchises (not nationalising rail infrastructure) with new ones cut it for you? You’re easy pleased.
1
@nitsujism He’s a professor of accountancy, written books on taxation policies and one of cleverest guys not to be listened to by Labour. So you’ll pardon me I hope for preferring to listen to him rather than Labour sellouts, apparatchiks and apologists. Transpennine Express and Southeastern were already taken into public ownership, even the Tories couldn’t save them. You’re easy pleased. As for voting *for* the Tory child poverty bill, what was wrong with last week? Why vote FOR it? Why wait if they’ll do it “eventually”, keeping kids in deprivation? Why are you so obviously making excuses for them? Labour is showing their true colours, and there’s more Tory inspired austerity misery on the way, which you can try to excuse if you like, I won’t be. Nor will I be taken in by the nonsense about looking in the cupboard and shock, horror, found it bare. To give them their due, they at least aren’t even pretending to be left-wing anymore. They are a centrist party, and I say that without a trace of bias. It’s the truth.
1
@puckinhell622 Looks like we’re both gonna be disappointed, eh? Labour will camp firmly in the political centre. I’m also bitterly opposed to FPTP (and have been for a very long time) which is an atrocious voting system. Labour won’t end that either, which, while cynical and craven, at least has logic, since I reckon it would/will completely change UK politics, ending the “shots each” system that is only supported by the 2 parties that unfairly benefit from it. Labour has effectively cornered pretty much the entire left wing vote in England, which is remarkable given they’re not a left wing party.
1
@puckinhell622 Incidentally, you asked about left wing policies. Of your 5 I’d call the first left wing, the NHS and green tariff non political and the rest right wing Regarding green energy policy, that was actually a very rare example where I reckon the Tories didn’t do too bad a job, albeit they made some disastrous mistakes, like effectively banning onshore wind and spending oceans of taxpayers money on wasteful nuclear. Labour’s manifesto energy commitments are extremely optimistic and in my view highly unlikely to be achieved.
1
@puckinhell622 And Thatcher was a “Conservative”, but left UK a smoking ruin.
1
@johncarney9049 No, we should go, but make sure we correctly apportion the relevance and importance of Edinburgh and London for us. We should let it be known we regard Westminster as of lesser relevance and importance. The SNP don’t do that.
1
“Drill, baby, drill”. When it’s being proven month after month that renewable sources of energy are not only always clean, always free and always local, but also cheaper. We look back at history and see examples where apparently reasonable people let themselves be led by crazy and often evil people and we think - how could that happen? Well, it’s happening in front of our eyes.
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Did you compare with a list of successes? Note if you’re answer is something like “There are none” that will prove my point.
1
@mypointofview1111 Yes, coz the Mail and Express tells us….
1
@adenwellsmith6908 Ah, you really got me there. I’ll have to accept there are grounds to believe that RV may have been procured through dodgy means. Corruption at any level is to be condemned, even if on a national scale, £100k may not seem like much. Meanwhile, estimates of CV 19 corruption in UK range from around £5bn to £20bn. I reckon that would get you some RV fleet, eh?
1
@gerhard7323 I agree but would point out that what certain parties *lose* doesn’t say it all, because you omit what other parties *gain* from the reverse effect. UKIPs and the Greens representation was indeed artificially low - just as Labour and the Tories was artificially *high* Both of the establishment parties support the awful, unfair FPTP system - coz they want to *stay* the establishment parties..! Cynicism, hypocrisy and opportunism on stilts..!
1
I’m the same. A wee tip from me that sometimes works is to edit your own comment before you exit the page, that sometimes works. Otherwise copy and paste it later, since it often (bizarrely) includes it then. But I’m assuming this is done via software, it can’t be manual? Really annoying, especially as I’m not one to send inflammatory or inappropriate comments.
1
The UK govt are extremists.
1
@ecohipster7724 Technically we don’t. There’s no “law” that mandates a referendum at all since there’s no formal rules around secession. Technically the Scottish Govt could UDI tomorrow, but UK would refuse to recognise it and it’s assumed (enough of) the world would agree with them. But that’s a moot point as I can’t see any chance of that happening. The present undemocratic Westminster veto over Indyref2 has presented the SNP and the rest of the Indy movement with a major challenge. They can’t just accept Westminster can block Scottish democracy forever, but what *do* we do to free ourselves of the Brit union? If the next Holyrood election is instead clearly presented to the Scots as an “Indy mandate” as is being discussed, and is won by the Indy movement, we can only hope Westminster buckles and allows another referendum. If not, UK is taken to an altogether darker place. Would Westminster buckle? I think it could realistically do little else.
1
What is it about boomers that makes them unsuitable to make a good choice?
1
@davegubbins4428 I don’t see what’s so difficult about implementing a higher rate of income tax for the highest paid employees. Even if some manage to avoid paying some of it, we’d get a return, especially if it was rigorously enforced. I’m certain any such proposal would be met with howls of derision from those that would be in the firing line. The poor things would be apoplectic telling us how hard up they’d be.
1
@WarrenPeaceOG Would you advise the Ukrainians to surrender?
1
@BittermanAndy Fine, we deal with them differently. What we don't do is what we've been doing forever - nowt.
1
@RobinHarris-nf4yv If you feel the need to explain that…..
1
@keithparker1346 It’s Belgian, the D’Hondt system. Labour picked it as it makes getting an overall majority very difficult. Their fear was of an SNP government in Holyrood that they believed would always be outvoted by the 3 mainstream unionist parties. Which worked at the start, before the SNP started achieving what they considered impossible by getting absolute majorities. The SNP only managed this due to the consolidation of the Indy vote with them, but this has started to fragment recently with the Greens and ALBA making inroads into the Indy vote. Of course in an unfair FPTP system, this fragmentation could spell a big challenge for the Indy movement, but in Holyrood elections, it doesn’t. Any Indy vote, for whichever party, gets counted. In my case for example, I vote SNP for my local MSP and Green on the “party list “. It’s a far better system than FPTP, but that’s to insult it with faint praise. FPTP is frankly dreadful and only kept alive by the cynicism and selfishness of Labour and the Tories, who are the only Brit parties to benefit from it.
1