Scottish Election 2016
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: Scottish Election 2016
What party are you voting for fellow Scotbros?
If you're coming to this thread just to be an asshole and shit on Scotland then fuck off. This election gives us a chance to get rid of the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon.
I won't be voting. The parties are a joke up here. I'm not looking forward to more taxes.
>>69779355
Also, the SNP pretty much already have it in the bag. People in this shithole country only vote SNP because it has Scotland in its name. Retards
>>69779355
I am undecided, I would like to vote Conservative but I doubt they pose any real opposition up here thanks to all the blinded liberal sheep.
Considering voting Labour to get rid of the SNP, they are ruining this country and need to go.
>>69779722
I hate to break it to you but the Conservatives are a liberal party. What Conservative party would have a fag as the leader? It's a joke.
>>69779788
There is no damage the Tories can do to Scotland in 5 years that the SNP can outdo in a few weeks.
>>69779820
I agree with you there. We are currently running a stupid deficit. If we went independent and then rejoined the EU we would have to go under forced austerity because of the deficit.
>>69779911
Yet the SNP bleat about austerity constantly as if it is somehow unjustified, unnecessary, and being done just for fun.
>>69779355
>still pretending Scotland is a country
The UK flag next to your post just makes it even funnier
>>69780014
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Your country was populated with all our throwaways and rapists.
>>69780014
This thread is for our devolved election. We're not pretending anything.
>>69780058
Whatever you say crumpet
Btw vote for Nigel Garage, will you old chap? Cheerio.
>>69780014
We're actually trying to have a serious discussion here m8.
Holyrood will gain control of Abortion, certain parts of Welfare and taxes, the Crown Estate and other important shit.
We don't want the SNP getting anywhere near those new powers.
>>69780115
Just remember that when you see the union jack on your flag. God save the Queen.
>>69780115
Wish we could but unfortunately a Scottish vote for nige is a completely wasted vote. Will vote to get out the shithole EU though.
God speed Scotbro's. Someone has to hold back the SNP.
>>69779722
I'll probably vote Tory and hope for the best but
>Glasgow
Not much hope of that happening anytime soon
>>69780175
Why is a Scot voting for Nigel Farage a wasted vote?
>>69780175
I reckon the Uk will vote to leave, Scotland will vote overall to stay in, there will be another referendum, and Scotland will join the EU as in independent nation.
I hope it doesn't happen, but it probably will. People here, Glasgow especially, are fucking retarded.
>>69780256
Because you want to be doing tactical voting to keep other parties out. You would be better voting against parties instead of for in that instance.
>>69780256
First past the post voting system. It works on constituent majority votes rather than individual votes and there is no chance of a Scottish constituency having a UKIP majority.
>>69780283
Scotland won't be going independent any time soon, we are still trying to recover from the oil price just now.
>>69780256
Scotland is a very lefty country, where the Conservatives are despised. Well, in the central belt at least where most of the population live.
UKIP are seen as a worse version of the Conservatives, branded as racists etc. Most people think there are like the BNP.
Most people have never actually read any of their policies, or know anything about them.
A Conservative government in Scotland is extremely unlikely, a UKIP one even less so.
Will the UK be split into council areas for the EU referendum?
Can other areas with devolved parliaments post here?
>tfw live in largely unionist area in NI
>useless and unorganised Cannabis party will get more votes than Sinn Fein
Kek
>>69780394
I'd honestly be fine with being independent if scots weren't such fucking liberal socialist retards. I just have these visions of us becoming a mini Sweden and get totally turned off.
the SNP aren't going anywhere, far too much cucks wanting them to stay in power
Why are the Outer Hebrides the best place in Scotland?
>>69780394
It shouldn't have been on the table in the first place, but people are still pushing for it and the SNP are shilling hard.
Maybe I'm just exposed to more of the idiots in Glasgow but loads of people here still want independence and would vote for it regardless of the consequences because "fuck England"
>>69780521
They maintained their culture.
>>69780521
fuck off pagan go burn your wicker man else where
>>69780437
The reason people don't vote UKIP as well is that we live in a fantasy land in Scotland where only really Glasgow has really bad parts. We don't see the proper effects of mass immigration up here and that's why people are so intolerant of the right. As for going independent if we had a better populace, I totally agree with the mini Sweden image. Maybe in our lifetime, but not under the cunts we have now. I am quite a unionist at heart though.
>>69780014
I know this is b8 but just in case a burger comes across this post to clarify: the Union Jack isn't the flag of England either.
>>69780509
Too many Glaswegians want to keep them.
It's a 30 minute drive that makes a huge difference in SNP support, rural areas are more right-wing as expected from any country.
>>69780521
Highlands and Islands in general is pretty good.
>>69779355
UKIP. It's PR so you never know, but I don't think they have huge support up here.
Fuck the SNP, fuck Liebour and fuck the Tories.
>>69780523
I live in Aberdeenshire so we are oil central, Keep in mind no voters don't announce themselves like yes voters so they always seem like there's more.
>>69780566
>>69780607
I love that comfy island life desu.
Wonder if they like mainlanders.
>>69780652
Lad, don't throw your vote away. UKIP is the dream but have patience.
Honestly don't know, UKIP? but they have no chance up here.
Just nuke us already.
>>69780730
UKIP is run by a fat retard up here anyways.
Not to mention they don't run in the Highlands since they need their candidates to speak Gaelic.
>>69780656
Not sure you heard m8, oil's worth shit now...
>I live in Aberdeenshire so we are concrete and misery central.
Also guess I'll just vote SNP... Not like anyone else is going to get any seats anyway.
God I hate this country.
I'm going to vote for the party that allows me to bleed the most off England while supplying the best excuses for why England is shit.
>>69780819
My point was that because I live here the oil price would influence more no voters. I work in oil so I know what state it's in.
>>69780819
Fuck off retard.
>the party I don't want to win will probably win so I'll just vote for them anyway
What a fucking prick
74.3% of Scots voted for the SNP or Labour in the general election.
>74 point fucking 3 percent
Unfortunately it's going to take a cataclysmic event to even start shifting you faggots towards the centre ground, let alone towards the right.
>>69780940
By this point our primary objective is taking down the SNP as much as possible.
Voting anyone but snp. Probably ukip if it's an option
>>69780993
As much as I despise the SNP, I'm not prepared to vote Labour either.
Why do people vote for the SNP?
>>69781123
muh independence
>>69781123
Butthurt Celtic supporters from 'Oirlund that hate England.
>>69781123
Muh tories
Muh austerity
Muh trident
Muh refugees
Honestly might not bother. It's going to be SNP regardless, Labour are dying and am I fuck voting them anyway.
I don't like Tories and wouldn't vote for them
And if I go for UKIP that would purely be so when I see the results my own vote would be visible along with the other 30.
>>69781123
Bogtrotters
Uni Students
Champagne Socialists
Independence Supporters
Neds that see the word Scotland and are hypnotised
>>69781492
Why do you not like the Tories? I agree they are shit but they're better than SNP and Labour and might have a bit of a chance depending on your constituency.
>>69781193
>>69781197
>>69781207
>>69781523
And this accounts for half the Scottish electorate?
>>69781630
Yes.
>>69781658
Why? This isn't the case in England, or even in the north of England. What makes Scotland such a special case?
>>69781784
Cultural contrarianism.
>>69781784
General poverty
>>69781604
Muh mines
Muh Thatcher
Dave is a pigfucker :^)
>>69781784
The North of England is pretty bad though
For the SNP of course, they're kind enough to let foreigners vote and they also abolished tuition fees so I don't have to pay for attending uni. I also won't be in Scotland when the shit hits the fan due to their destructive economic policies :^)
>>69782479
Kill yourself, parasite.
SCOTLAND IS SHIT
SCOTLAND FUCK OFF
NO INDEPENDENCE EVER AHAHAAHAH
>>69782546
We have a saying in Finland, "he who asks for something is not stupid, he who gives it is" :^)
>>69782852
Shut the fuck up Mohammed. You gonnae git slapped
>>69782876
Here's another Finnish saying ;^)
"Цэвэp цaгaaн гeн Mиний нөхөд цaгaaн нaйзyyд"
>>69779577
Is this a genuine nationalist party for Scots? Or are they cucks? What do they want?
>>69783620
The SNP want out of the UK and yet one of the 1st things they will do with their new found freedom is try and join the EU.
Scotland will become another Sweden/Germany if the SNP get their way.
They are cucks.
>>69783620
they just want power desu i dont think they believe 90% of the things they say
>>69779355
I'm voting for le SNP party because I believe in a stronger Scotland for everyone.
>>69784040
I agree. Le SNP represents the true will of the our people, and surely our independence will allow us to flourish after we rejoin the EU.
>>69783891
Are they doing it to spite the English as contrarians (Anglos are more Euroceptic and free market, they also like immigrants less) and prove how independent they are by doing exactly the opposite of what Nigel would do? I always thought Scotland was more identitarian because of Catholicism (not that they are religious, it's just that the church has not embraced LGBTQWTF like the Anglicans), attachment to kilts'n celtic music (do the English even still have folk culture?) and a general feel of being kept down by the Anglos (muh culture, Freedom). Was I wrong all along?
>>69780014
>he says with a Union Jack in the top left corner of his flag
>>69784040
I love big brother.. I mean the party.
How likely is it we'll swing the EU referendum towards a Yes?
Every indepen-dunce supporter I know have no problem sucking Brussels's cock but will throw a temper tantrum if you mention Westminster once. It's amazing cognitive dissonance.
>>69780766
You got a problem with the Coburn?
I really like you Scots desu, it's a shame the left has so much power there. Good luck lads
>>69780993
Why? They're the only Scottish party worth a wank. Who else are you going to vote for, Labour?
>>69785132
>They're the only Scottish party worth a wank
>>69785343
Idgi, are you one of those english tory cucks?
>>69785343
There's no point trying to convince these people m8, they're brainwashed beyond all hope.
The SNP could sell Edinburgh to China and their supporters would still believe them to be the greatest party for a stronger Scotland.
They'll simultaneously blame le Tories for losing British steel and praise the SNP for using "wind power".
>>69784734
I realllly, really like you English folks. Mostly see you in the pubs. Banter is top notch. Am in the pub just now, is why my union jack is masked, 4 chins blocked.
Where to find a nice English person in Scotland?
At ze pub.
Rule Brittania! God save the queen!
.... hic ....
>>69785601
I honestly don't understand why anyone would vote for Mr. Slippery
>>69785857
Because Labour are incompetent wannabe Tories?
>>69785829
It's the same where i live and Labour lad, muh mines and all that.
>>69785854
t. Seamus O'Reily
>>69785956
I don't vote Labour, lad.
>>69785857
I don't like the Conservatives, but who else are you going to vote for? Chairman Corbyn and Comrade 'Mao' McDonnell?
>>69779355
Not sure.
Anything but SNP. I fucking hate those cunts. Their whole stance is hatred for England.
I'm on Isle of Arran btw. and my wife is English.
>>69786039
I suppose if you live in Scotland theres little choice, but i live in a Labour stronghold where UKIP comes 2nd.
>>69785829
>There's no point trying to convince these people m8, they're brainwashed beyond all hope.
>The SNP could sell Edinburgh to China and their supporters would still believe them to be the greatest party for a stronger Scotland.
This is how nationalism and populism work, it's no different from UKIP. Just emotions, without any good arguments. EU should just ban these nationalist parties, would make democracy much safer.
>>69786203
There's your answer then. In the majority of the country where the Conservatives and Labour are in first and second, a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote.
>>69786712
UKIP is always a wasted vote. The entire party is full of people who were too inbred and arrogant even for the Tories. Their leader literally blamed immigration for being late for a meeting.
>>69786779
>importing more people brings more traffic
>le racist ukip
>>69779355
>Seat.
Not so sure yet, just know it's not the separatists or greens.
>Regional.
UKIP. No question.
all the ukip memers seem to have come here since the torygraph closed its comments and put up a paywall
The SNP are the best politicians in the UK
By which I mean best liars.
>>69786048
*drool*
You showoff. I holidayed there as a child and it's the nicest place I ever seen. I've been around ... Barbados, st Thomas, st kitts.
lovely. Words can't describe.
>>69780464
>mfw live in Strangford
>mfw UKIP's powerbase in NI
feelsgoodman.jpeg
>>69787168
>hates UKIP
>unironically says 'torygraph'
I wonder where you've come from.
>>69780323
Tactical voting is exactly what has fucked this country over since the 50's.
>>69787168
>unironically likes the SNP
>>69786779
You're on the wrong board.
>>69787168
This HAS to be b8
>>69780175
>>69780256
>>69780358
>>69780437
>>69780580
Fuck sake lads. Have a little faith.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/68482/ukip-and-greens-course-gains-scottish-parliament
The Greens are set to absorb the Lib Dems, UKIP is to win over a bunch of disaffected SNP and Tory voters whilst Labour will be tore apart on all sides.
>>69783620
they are socialist scum
>>69780464
Where you from lad? How are you voting?
>>69786969
Vote whatever party has the best chance.
>>69787796
In what fucking world would SNP voters switch to UKIP? They are polar opposites. If anything they'll surely go to Labour.
>>69787195
I'm not showing off, m8. It's just where I live.
The weather is shit and I have to get a ferry to the mainland if I want to buy stuff.
I'm glad you enjoyed your stay. Please return and spend loads of dollars. I'm in Lochranza if you want to buy me a pint.
>>69788094
>Voters actually have political opinions
How new are you?
>>69788094
There are some who voted for them thinking they were actual nationalists and didn't really look any deeper into it.
Some people just voted because you need a "strong voice for scotland".
I'm not sure how big this faction was though.
>>69788094
Many voted SNP to get further devolution albeit to remain as part of the union. Most now prefer UKIP's pro-devomax standpoint and localism as opposed to the SNP's cronyist authoritarianism.
Doncaster here, technically Scotland but can't vote (dat feel bro)
Vote for ukip or Tory. Labour is merely a party for shit skins and cucks. Snp don't seem to understand international politics besides flags.
I bet you'll vote SNP, Labour, Tory, Green though.
Renfrewshirefag here voting ukip because fuck it
>>69786968
Holy Shit is Glasgow's Lord Provost a woman???
Hahaha How cucked can one city be?
>>69788457
>Doncaster
Waheey mate, where you at? Lakeside here.
>>69779355
>get rid of the SNP
Why do so many scots wants to suck english dick? Why don't you want to be your own country? You would have done great, the only thing holding you back is london.
>>69789066
Glasgow is such a cuckhole it even manages to kill people at a disproportionate rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_effect
>>69789156
Warmsworth pal.
>>69789172
t. Retard that doesn't understand British politics
>>69789172
>Why don't you want to be your own country?
>vote for a party that wants to be a local council in the USSE
>>69789172
The SNP don't support TRUE independence.
They're liberal cunts that will chain Scotland to the EU and Schengen.
>>69789172
Yes, SNP want an independent Scotland
But they also want Scotland to accept 6 trillion refugees and become multiculti
>>69789249
The eu did say Scotland would be out the Euro if out the uk.
Don't know how many asylums would get in via Ireland, but it would be interesting to see which country would be Scotland's friend?
I'm willing to be Iceland Canada and Norway, but not sure.
>>69779355
Which party will be the biggest cucks?
>>69789172
The SNP wanted to use oil money to pay for their utopia, I wonder how that would have worked out for them?
>>69789604
Also they would HAVE to use the Euro currency.
But Belgium and Spain have said they would block scotland joining.
>>69789847
Lol, Scotland.
>>69779355
I'm voting labour, but only to get rid of the SNP. My local area is a traditional labour stronghold and it was only by the skin of their teeth the SNP got in last time. I'd love to see Ruth Davidson in power, but I doubt the Scottish Tories will ever be successful.
So yea, labour, but not for any love of the party - just to get the SNP out.
>>69789307
EU and Schengen is actually good for britain economically. At least if Britain exists then Scotland could have leveraged their position and gotten huge trade income. THe anti-EU stuff makes sense here in Norway because economically it makes no sense for us to be part of the EU (but we are part of Schengen). But scotland have a lot to gain from it.
>>69789604
>but it would be interesting to see which country would be Scotland's friend?
>I'm willing to be Iceland Canada and Norway, but not sure.
Of course Norway would be friendly with scotland
>>69789763
Scotland would have ended up like Norway with a large oil fund and using the excess income from the fund to pay for stuff. SNP have quite modest goals desu, at least compared to the money they would have had.
>>69780283
>Scotland wll join the EU post-UK departure
Are you forgetting that Alex Salmond is a lying sack of cunts and Scotland expressly cannot join the EU after leaving the UK. They wouldn't hit the criteria. Not that they couldn't, just just won't be able to for a long time.
>>69789172
The SNP wanted to import a million africans by 2030.
>>69790156
>economically
Fuck off Dave
>>69790156
>EU and Schengen is actually good for britain economically
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35862774
Fuck off
>>69790156
>Schengen is actually good for britain
:^)
>They wouldn't hit the criteria
Neither would Greece yet they managed to get in.
>>69789156
Doncaster anon, where you go?
I wanna visit lakeside.
>>69779355
whoever stops using the police for this shit has my vote
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/17/scottish-man-arrested-for-offensive-facebook-comme/
>>69787168
reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom isnt here
>>69790815
Here lad. Lakeside isn't far lad, one of the nicer areas of Doncaster. Even easier to get to from Warmsworth since they opened up that road near Tesco.
>>69790156
but the oil industry has all but completely collapsed, they wouldn't have made anywhere near the amount of money they thought they would from it.
>>69779355
Glenlivet
>>69780283
>and Scotland will join the EU as in independent nation.
We aren't joining anything this decade. The Spaniards don't want to set a precedent for EU membership for regions that secede a member due to their inability to handle the Catalan issue - nor do the Italians with the potential for Venice to blow up in their face. Germany and France are on the side of 'probably not', given these new countries will require financial support while they handle the fallout that comes with re-balancing and downsizing economies.
>>69780940
>74.3%
BULLSHIT
bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
>Scotland vote share
>50.0%
The Scots won win with some of what are the smallest pluralities in HISTORY
>>69779437
>>69779722
>>69780256
>>69780580
>>69780652
>>69780713
>>69780730
>>69780766
Why are you voting tactfully and not for the party you want?
Don't you have PR in scotland holyrood elections?
>>69791187
>they wouldn't have made anywhere near the amount of money they thought they would from it.
What's worse is that Salmond not only imagined a scenario where oil was going to be given to Scotland completely, but he lied about what the industrial predictions were.
Even with his lies, the figures never added up and Scotland would've been in monumental debt!
Now imagine it'd happened and Salmond got struck with the oil price crash.
It'd be hard to imagine Scotland not burning itself to the ground.
I wonder why no one in Scotland votes UKIP?
It seems really strange that no one votes for a party that hates them, or politicians that lie about them doesn't it?
>>69792690
You're a thick cunt.
>>69779355
>This election gives us a chance to get rid of the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon.
This statement is almost as funny as the implosion of Scottish Labour.
>>69779577
Yes, people only vote SNP because it's got Scottish in the name, that's why they were founded in the 20s and didn't get more than half of Scottish MPs until last year.
The existence of "Scottish Labour" (well, branch office, accounting unit, but it still has Scottish in the name) is a complete myth. Nobody ever claimed it existed (because if it did, people would vote for it because it has 'Scottish' in the name, and it wouldn't be a non-entity.
>>69779722
>voting Labour to get rid of the SNP
The most retarded thing you could do.
Might as well do it, I mean, but ultimately if you aren't voting for the SNP you're voting for the opposition, not the government (I mean fuck, the conservatievs are running with the tagline "Ruth Davidson for a strong opposition."
I will be voting SNP. While left-of-centre, I can at least respect conservatives having a different viewpoint. There is no appeal whatsoever left in the Scottish Labour party.
>>69779437
Then vote for the cons pal. Just fuck the SNP over and mix it up a bit.
>>69779911
>We are currently running a stupid deficit
As part of the UK, because of pooling and sharing.
The Scottish Parliament, until recently, was forbidden from running a deficit. Scotland may not be able to afford independence, but that deficit isn't the fault of the SNP.
>>69780014
It has been recognized as a country by the UK government. Cornwall is also recognized as a Duchy. (See: Kilbrandon report.)
BUILD
THE
WALL
>>69780158
>We don't want the SNP getting anywhere near those new powers.
Why not? They're just going to leave things as they are.
The SNP are remarkably small c conservative.
>>69780256
In UK elections, because of FPTP
In Scottish Parliament elections, it may not be. People will bleat about FPTP in the constituencies, but there is actually a proportional system in the Scottish parliament which means if UKIP came second in all the constituencies in say, the highlands and islands, they'd certainly get at least one MSP.
Voting tactically in a PR election is laughably stupid. (Unless you support something like RISE, in which case your favourite party is so unpopular you might want to substitute the Scottish Greens or something.)
>>69780671
If you're Scottish, come along
If you're English, go home. We're full.
>>69793251
There's a significant UKIP vote up here
We had the option of a green MEP or a ukip one in the euro elections. We went for ukip.
>>69793544
What single iota of good can come out of voting SNP
>>69793478
>I can't even respond to clear evidence
>Better get aussy on him.
And as such, England proved to be the best constituent member of the union, as always.
>>69781123
Independence
Small c-conservative enough to appeal to Tories more than Labour
Centre-left enough to appeal to indecisives more than the lib-dems
Left enough to appeal to ex-Labour voters who saw Scottish Labour's Blairites having a love in with the conservative party.
Basically, casting a wide net.
>>69781630
When you consider half of Scotland voted for Lib-Dem or Labour until 2007, it slots into place.
And honestly considering how shit the other Scottish parties are, it's absolutely wonderful watching them get blown the fuck out.
It makes zero difference. They're all the same neo-liberal, pro-immigration fuckwits.
>>69786048
>Their whole stance is hatred for England.
t. retard
>>69788094
Before the post-yes expansion, if I remember right SNP voters were actually more anti-EU than average (independence in Europe not being independence enough.)
So there's that, although voting for UKIP to get an independent Scotland outside the EU would be pretty stupid.
district of scotland*
>>69792690
Read his post again
SNP OR Labour.
>>69794205
>What single iota of good can come out of voting SNP
Independence
The completion of the death of Scottish Labour.
The top-keks of watching Scottish newspapers whine at their impotence since half the electorate decided to just read Wings over Scotland instead.
Ah, the SNP. The party where it's against the rules to criticise other members of the party.
kek.
Scots are literally retarded.
>>69795074
>where it's against the rules to criticise other members of the party
Look at the infighting in the Labour party and tell me it's a bad idea.
It's the 1984 thing it's portrayed to be, it's basic professionalism. You don't resolve policy disputes by starting public fights.
>>69785857
>english and irish troops fighting alongside each other
>its a brave new world
>>69795238
>democracy is bad in a democracy
>>69795238
>public fights
you mean arguments, commie bro
>>69795408
If you're a regular member posting on Facebook about how you hate a new policy, nobody's going to do anything. It's for elected representatives.
It does nothing to curtail democracy while helping to prevent the party becoming the kind of shambles that Labour is now.
>>69795433
If you think banning public disputes between MPs is communist, you've obviously never seem a left-wing party in action.
>>69795660
I don't think it's communist, I know it's communist.
>>69782239
Baka, cumbria is nice
>>69795787
Meanwhile, the Labour party (""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Socialist"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" I know.) silently plots another coup against their democratically elected leader.
>>69795889
Good let them collapse more they ruined this country with blair
>>69795889
Can he be democratically removed?
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mm8d71xdb9/InternalResults_160115_Corbyn_W.pdf
>>69795889
>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Socialist""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html
>>69794256
Can't you read or count ?
>>69796071
Merely calling yourself a socialist doesn't make you one. Socialists want to give the workers control of the means of production, Ed Milliband could barely give a straight answer on whether he'd nationalize the fucking railways
This guy has my vote!
I'm honorary Scot. Can I vote as well pls?
>>69784264
sort of. Margaret Thatcher kind of fucked over a lot of working class scottish people, so since then scotland's been very anti-anything-conservative
>>69796180
:^)
>>69796364
Can you blame them?
We have a """""""""""Conservative""""""""" party intent on selling off all our public services for a quick profit, they aren't even conservative and they're widely despised.
Have you read the Daily Mail comments? They hate them. Literally nobody likes the Tories in the UK.
>>69796508
Both parties are falling apart, whereas UKIP is now the 3rd biggest party
>>69796438
Don't get me wrong, he was a useless incompetent, but you can be a useless incompetent fool without being a socialist.
Why the fuck he claims to be one in a country where elections are decided by middle class marginals I have no idea. The one place it might have worked - Glasgow - had to voice the lie through the mouth of a Blairite.
>>69796508
Our """""""Conservative""""""" government has official policy supporting:
Mass immigration
Europhiles
Increasinly authoritarian surveillance measures
Pro-TTIP
Selling off our public services
Reducing marriage-rates
Reducing birth rates by reducing child benefits
Pro-"Green Energy"
Anti-religious school
Pro-Gay Marriage
Is this even a conservative party? It's basically the Democratic candidates wet-dream in America.
You will get SNP, labour is a joke and you will not vote tory.
4 more years of little wee krankie.
>>69797184
That's even worse
>>69797364
It could be less in the event of a post-EU referendum independence-referendum split :^)
captcha: STOP ASAP
>>69797364
It would help a little if you helped to elect a PM down there who had actual balls and would shut down Holyrood.
So what will be the trigger that lets the SNP know that "the will of the Scottish people" makes it ok for Nicola Sturgeon to call for another independence referendum?
>>69797610
Depending on how confident she's feeling I'm going to guess:
A) Public opinion shift in the event Scotland wants the EU but the rUK does not, followed by consistent polling remaining around 50/50 for independence. If Scotland and rUK both vote for the same thing, takes no action.
B) Constant polling in favour of independence, justified with "you voted us in on that mandate." (not technically wrong, if you vote SNP you do so knowing you may be voting for another referendum - if you want the SNP but not independence, you vote SNP then vote No.)
Currently writing my dissertation on how Scotland became regarded as an English speaking country.
Seems like a good place to ask
http://strawpoll.me/7268964
>>69797462
True, vote out and BUILD WALL since the scots will cry out for freedom then join the EU.
>>69797554
I do not think any PM would do that desu, if scotland does get independence then no need, it is only if they stick around then really the rest of the UK could move forward will devolution such as english votes for english laws but first we need to stop the scots from voting in matters which do not concern them.
>>69797814
To be honest, I'm already sick of all the rhetoric.
I don't care anymore, I just want this matter put to bed
>>69797961
>first we need to stop the scots from voting in matters which do not concern them.
They do it out of spite. Literally no other reason.
>>69779355
>get rid of the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon
What a beautiful idea. Won't happen for another decade or so though
>>69779355
Greens
>>69797961
>we need to stop the scots from voting in matters which do not concern them.
Scottish votes almost never change the result, it's a non-issue in the grand scheme of things.
Although sometimes when it does - like when Scottish Labour MPs helped push tuition fee hikes on English students - it's a fucking outrage. Problem best solved by booting out Labourites, though. The SNP are far more constrained in how they'll vote on English matters. (they can't vote through budget cuts, etc, on English people because they'll look bad so the most they can really do is prevent spending cuts and fuck around with foxhunting.)
>>69798117
I know, basically trolling the rest of the UK.
>>69798490
I think SNP look bad most of the time, without the SNP it was just that large place up north with battered mars bars, the more the SNP shout the more i wish they voted for indepedence so i could watch them sink.
>>69797961
>If scotland does get independence then no need
We're talking something that could be 30 years down the line at best, even with all the flag waving by people (many of whom would immediately burn them in disgust and arrest those in the crowd that wouldn't) there's still a sizable majority that didn't support it even with the advantages they had prior.
>>69786712
But people have to vote for UKIP for it even to get to second place. We need to show other people that UKIP stands a chance before they switch at the ballot box.
It's a 'wasted vote' in the short term but we need to think long term. As if SNP aren't going to smash this vote either way.
>>69798813
>a sizable majority that didn't support it
45/55 is not a sizeable majority.
Smuggo Labourites were saying they'd need 40/60 to kill it for any reasonable period of time (until it became clear it would be closer than that and 45/55 became "a wide margin".)
>>69798476
There's no alternative
>>69798813
Brexit happens, SNP jump at the chance for another ref because something major changed and they do not like it.
Either they jump at the chance or it kills the SNP eventually.
>>69798809
>tfw I actually kind of wish we'd voted Yes now purely for the same reason
Wouldn't even bother me if things go tits up, I'll be moving to England once I graduate anyway
>>69799059
Fuck off we're full
I want a devolved parliament.
Who cares?
The SNP look retarded now because of the oil, they're running a deficit 3x larger than the rest of the UK (despite receiving much more funding per head) and the odious fish-head Salmond is as despisable as ever, along with her 50p tax that would lose her £30m a year.
If the SNP ever got any real power, even the cucked Scots would know it would be disastrous.
Daily reminder no voters are KEKS
>>69799261
No chance of that being brought up again any time soon. But I agree
>>69799707
>they're running a deficit 3x larger than the rest of the UK
No they aren't.
The Scottish parliament by law cannot run a deficit. Scotland's deficit is a hypothetical calculation of what would happen if it was independent. It stems from a lack of income (largely reserved) not overspending by the SNP.
>along with her 50p tax that would lose her £30m a year.
This isn't SNP policy either. It's Labours. It was SNP policy for the whole UK last election, changing the rate upwards in a union is laughably retarded. (hence why it's labour policy.)
>>69779355
Scottish Communist Party
>>69799261
Devolution is trash, we should centralise everything again, all devolution ends up doing is sending English money to the less prosperous nations in the union.
>>69799990
Centralisation is trash, Westminster is shit.
>>69799990
Isn't that the point of a union?
>>69799990
Greater London aside, Scotland has the highest GDP per capita of any area in the UK...
>>69799990
>all devolution ends up doing is sending English money to the less prosperous nations in the union.
They were doing it anyway. Scottish education and healthcare were always separate. Devolution just puts it closer to voter control.
>>69800104
No matter how trash Westminster can be and is, Holyrood will always be even worse in every conceivable way. Look up the Named Person Scheme to get an idea of how bad things have already gotten.
I'm honestly considering just leaving Scotland. Most of the people here are fucking retarded when it comes to politics and I don't want to be here if it goes the way of Germany or Sweden.
>>69801020
less talking more emigrating.
>>69800429
>Named Person Scheme
I love this meme.
>GCHQ data collection on every single person is acceptable, but centralizing existing obligations towards children into one person they can talk to quickly is too much state intrusion into private life.
>>69801260
But where? The US might be good if Trump gets in. I like the idea of rural Canada, but with 2015 man in power it might go to shit. Europe is in a really dangerous position and I don't speak any Asian languages.
Australia might work.
>>69801358
If you have qualifications, Australia would be amazing
>>69801509
But what about the searing heat and terrifying wildlife?
>>69802185
If you want Australia without the shit bits then trust me New Zealand is where it's at. Although I am Welsh and it literally looks like home (make your own sheep joke)
>>69802379
How good is NZ economically? What sort of people do they need?
>>69802379
>>69802456
New Zealand is being taken over by China.
>>69802528
In that case, maybe not.
>>69802804
Hello Scoto
>>69802804
hello Scoto
>>69802804
Hello Scoto
>>69802804
Hello Scrotum.
>>69802804
hello Scoto
>>69803425
senpai pls
do not fuck this up for us
>>69803888
what - i love Scotland, i went there last fall, i`d wish for the UK to leave the EU so it can be as nice as it is.
>>69802804
hello scoliosis
>>69804005
ok ill let you go
for now
>>69802664
Good read.
Fuck Chinar
>>69804575
Of all the Oriental Asians I have ever met, I have only found one to be a good person. The rest were insufferable cunts.
>>69780323
Don't you guys have run-off?
>>69781089
Don't vote for either then.
There's no point arguing with these slimey limeys and their dick sucking Scottish traitors (wannabe anglos, god knows why, England's a dump)
But to any foreigners watching understand these two points.
Firstly Scotland WILL be voting for the SNP in another landslide. The SNP is the populist party of Scotland. for Scotland. The Westminster parties are done and dead in Scotland.
Secondly the underage frustrated beady anglos here constantly spread lies and misinformation about the SNP and Scotland in general. Using their favourite catch all buzzword for anything they disagree with, "cuck". Its all lies stemming from massive butthurt.
SAOR ALBA AGUS ANGLIA DELENDA EST
>>69805570
>populist
They aren't really populist. They're popular, sure, but the populism thing is a meme in itself.
For example, most Scots aren't anti-trident, they're just NIMBY's. Regardless, the SNP takes the anit-nuclear argument instead of "why the fuck do we have to take it?"
Then there's named person, again, people bitch about it but they stick to it.
>>69805570
>the Scottish SNP cuck crawls out his cave to lie about how great his country is and how much he loves being in the EU forever.
>>69806950
Anglos everyone.
>>69801358
Just fuck off.
I'm not sure (ignore leaf, I'm on holiday).
SNP is sure to win because HURR SCOTTISH.
I know a friend who's an avid scottish socialist (kek).
>>69802456
Dick licking cunts. Go.
>>69801338
>Meme.
>Shit talking one thing means supporting the other.
How about you stick a cactus up your arse and fuck off to France if you want to make the country a better place.
One of the first people signed up for it was struck off after being discovered to wanting to abuse kids.
>>69807204
>Shit talking one thing means supporting the other.
99% of the bitching about named person comes from anti-independence types trying to get at the SNP. In such circumstances, pointing out that the government of the UK does even worse things is entirely valid.
>One of the first people signed up for it was struck off after being discovered to wanting to abuse kids.
>wanting to
Right, so they were caught before they did anything?
can i have a thread theme song? I want things to get real scottish up in here.
always liked the scots. now i'm finding out they're all socialist leeches or is that eternal anglo propaganda?
>>69779355
I've been praying for Scotland since the vote for independence
i'll support an independent scotland when the wee nimby leftists get a boot up the backside and realise how retarded they are
>>69807423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciPu4DnKBuM
>>69807402
>Recording the porn sites you visit is worse than people documenting everything about a child from birth to the age of 18.
Literally fuck you. And it you don't believe me read shit like http://www.scotsman.com/news/revealed-what-can-happen-when-a-named-person-reports-on-your-children-1-4089077
And only because the fat cunt was dumb enough to brag about it on FB, there will be plenty of more careful fucks signing up to it right now.
And this is worse when it's done by them because Westminster doesn't preach about being above outright lying and and corruption like the SNP do all the time to gai support, it just adds a layer of hypocrisy to an already big pile of shit.
>>69808085
>documenting everything about a child from birth to the age of 18.
Take in enough Facebook data and you're functionally doing the same thing in THE CURRENT YEAR. Furthermore, the data being collected is of far more value - "MP for [area] likes trannies" is much more useful information than “Suggests infrequent changes of soiled nappy though difficult to assess this,".
From what I'm reading so far half of this shit would've been written down by the health visitor [at this stage, also their named person] anyway. Named person just centralizes it so that if it's actually relevant it's not lost in bureaucracy and overlapping jurisdictions.
Furthermore:
>But party politics aside, the scheme is well supported by those at the sharp end of childcare, who believe that having a Named Person with access to information about a child is vital for a successful child protection system.
>like the SNP do all the time
[citation needed]
[reminder that complaining about the corruption of others is not a claim of being above corruption.]
>All this faux outrage over named person
If this is the best opponents can do, no wonder the SNP are laughing their way to an increased majority
Further reminder: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-34143881
>The newly issued judgment said: "The mere creation of a named person, available to assist a child or parent, no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally.
>"It has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family. The assertion to the contrary, without any supporting basis, has the appearance of hyperbole."
>>69809304
>faux outrage over turning family into a socialist organisation
>>69799793
>Average yes voter.
>>69809389
>turning family into a socialist organisation
Give me a metric by which named person does this, but by which health visitors, guidance teachers, and all the other individuals do not already.
All named person does is change the way these different people interact so that there is no question of who does what.
>>69809349
>The newly issued judgment said: "The mere creation of a named person, available to assist a child or parent, no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally.
>"It has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family. The assertion to the contrary, without any supporting basis, has the appearance of hyperbole."
Neither does installing CCTV cameras in every household.
These lines say exactly nothing.
>>69809710
Installing CCTV cameras would most certainly change the social relationships of the family. :^)
(That's an absolutely ridiculous comparison and you know it. A named person doesn't fucking sit staring through your windows or move in with you.)
>>69809559
>forcing a state sponsored snooper onto a family regardless of their consent isn't socialist tier
okay
I suppose you also think it's a good think that a parent cannot remove their child from a state school without permission from the council.
>>69809866
>Installing CCTV cameras would most certainly change the social relationships of the family. :^)
Would you like to explain why?
I didn't claim a named person did this, I said that what this judgement (who were these three judges?) would also be true of cctv cameras in every room of your house.
Does it affect how a parent should interact with their child? - Doesn't affect social relationships then
Does it impose any new legal responsibilities? - No since they shouldn't be doing bad things anyway
Does it affect moral standards? - No
Similarly it imposes no new duties on a parent.
>>69809912
>forcing a state sponsored snooper onto a family regardless of their consent isn't socialist tier
>forcing me to register my child's birth with the state regardless of my wishes isn't socialist tier
the scheme would be fucking pointless if an abuse parent could just opt out. furthermore once the kid's in secondary he might want to talk to his named person (guidance teacher) even if his parents don't want it, and his wishes trump parental consent in scots law.
>>69810116
They'd also be true of a big statue of my cock in the house, your point doesn't mean anything.
My point was that the legal challenge to NP was groundless.
>>69810116
I suppose I should explain "why" a CCTV camera, if we're seriously humouring the idea, changes social relationships:
Because it's a very explicit violation of privacy, it's fucking obvious. Nobody will care about named person in 5 years time, but 5 years from now you're still going to find it very strange that there's a camera staring at you. (Even though every time you use the internet there might as well be, but it's owned by GCHQ, not the Scottish Government.)
If there's a literal camera in the room, the chilling effect is far greater than that caused by an occasional visit by the health visitor to ensure you're not beating your son with a large chair every evening.
>>69810182
>the scheme would be fucking pointless if an abuse parent could just opt out.
So would my CCTV camera scheme.
What happens when one of these peoples decides to abuse their power over a family then? You've centralised everyone so it's all in one person's hands.
And as we know, centralising power in socialist governments never leads to abuse, right?
SNP if I could. Support the home crowd.
>>69810471
>What happens when one of these peoples decides to abuse their power over a family then?
Nothing, because their power basically consists of the power to raise it with the appropriate person, who won't find it so funny.
>And as we know, centralising power in socialist governments never leads to abuse, right?
>socialist
I didn't know they planned to give workers control of the means of production.
>So would my CCTV camera scheme.
Your camera scheme would be pointless regardless. Beat your son in another room and only hit him in places his clothes will cover, stupid.
>>69810461
> but 5 years from now you're still going to find it very strange that there's a camera staring at you.
Not necessarily.
And everyone knows that having the state hovering over your child won't have any affect on how you interact with them :^).
>If there's a literal camera in the room, the chilling effect is far greater than that caused by an occasional visit by the health visitor to ensure you're not beating your son with a large chair every evening.
We should really send a police officer around to everyone's house too, just to make sure they haven't stolen anything.
You shouldn't be able to refuse such searches either or else the criminals will refuse.
>>69810685
>And everyone knows that having the state hovering over your child won't have any affect on how you interact with them :^).
The state already "hovers" over your child.
>We should really send a police officer around to everyone's house too, just to make sure they haven't stolen anything.
You're now arguing with the concept of a health visitor.
>You shouldn't be able to refuse such searches either or else the criminals will refuse.
You can refuse visits from the health visitor, they remain your named person if you want to seek out advice. You just can't opt out of them being your named person.
>>69810809
>Your camera scheme would be pointless regardless. Beat your son in another room and only hit him in places his clothes will cover, stupid.
Which is why you have to have them in all rooms
>I didn't know they planned to give workers control of the means of production.
Yes, socialism is just an economic plan.
>You shouldn't be able to refuse such searches either or else the criminals will refuse.
enjoy being reported and investigated for being suspicious :^)
>Nothing, because their power basically consists of the power to raise it with the appropriate person, who won't find it so funny.
Do you know what any kind of child abuse investigation is like? (you get your children taken off of you before there is any investigation)
>The state already "hovers" over your child.
>implying that because I don't like a worse form of state intervention I like a lesser form
And you seriously believe that child abuse is so rife that we need to have all this state intervention into private family life?
Do you seriously want to give this one person power over your family?
>>69810809
Furthermore, do you know how many cases of child abuse have been stopped vs. how many false claims have been reported since everyone that works in a school has been made to report the slighted hint of anything to the various services?
Do you think that adding to this is going to stop anything?
Do you also believe that banning guns stops crime?
>>69811399
>Yes, socialism is just an economic plan.
Yes. Socialism is just an economic plan. Everything else is incidental.
>enjoy being reported and investigated for being suspicious :^)
I like how you ignored that I pointed out you're arguing with the concept of a health visitor, something that long pre-dates named person.
>Do you know what any kind of child abuse investigation is like?
Do you know it doesn't immediately jump into a child abuse investigation?
>implying that because I don't like a worse form of state intervention I like a lesser form
This isn't "worse" in any appreciable way, though. It's the same thing with new paint.
>And you seriously believe that child abuse is so rife that we need to have all this state intervention into private family life?
I believe named person has minimal effect on the amount of state intervention into private family life, and is thus a non issue.
>Do you seriously want to give this one person power over your family?
1. That's not what NP does.
2. Even if it did, multiple people would already have been able to fuck over my entire family before NP, so NP would be of near no consequence.
>>69811583
>Do you think that adding to this is going to stop anything?
I think that it's ultimately an irrelevancy seized upon by sensationalist newspaper hacks to make it sound like the SNP single handedly introduced every interaction between the state and a child in Scottish history just because they've tinkered with the edges of the system.
You can be against the state intervening period, you can be against registering births and deaths of children if you really want, I don't care - but it's far more valid to take the fight to the entire system, instead of pissing away time complaining about a fiddle around the edges. If NO2NP were granted a miracle and had it found unacceptable intrusion into family life, almost every issue with it would still remain, it would just take 10 more minutes in the morning to get itself organized.
>>69812429
>Do you seriously want to give this one person power over your family?
>1. That's not what NP does.
Yes it does, it takes power that was spread across many people and places it in the hands of one person, giving them far more power over the family than any person working for the state should.
>I like how you ignored that I pointed out you're arguing with the concept of a health visitor, something that long pre-dates named person.
Yes, I equally dislike that state intervention.
Because I don't want worse state intervention you think I like the current state intervention?
I like how you didn't comment on the fact that you cannot remove your child from a state school without the permission of the council. Do you support this too?
>I think that it's ultimately an irrelevancy
Then why are you supporting such madness?
You think that because the SNP are just increasing the power of the system a little bit it makes any difference to their support of it?
>it would just take 10 more minutes in the morning to get itself organized.
No, when you take power from the hands of many people and pit it in the hands of the few it is far more open to being abused.
>You can be against the state intervening period
I am, you're the only one claiming that I am not.
>>69809137
>[citation needed]
Sturgeon said that the scheme would be completely voluntary for parents, even though the act makes no implied reference to parental consent.
Also
>We'll won't have to rejoin the EU, even though they explicitly said.
>There WILL be a currency union.
>>69813156
>giving them far more power over the family than any person working for the state should
Plenty of people already have "far more power than any person working for the state should [have]", I don't give a fuck if you add another one.
>Yes, I equally dislike that state intervention.
Brilliant.
>Because I don't want worse state intervention you think I like the current state intervention?
I think there comes a point where the levels of state intervention you suggest are preferable are so open to child-abusing loopholes that it becomes unnecessary to defend NP because it's ultimately irrelevant.
>I like how you didn't comment on the fact that you cannot remove your child from a state school without the permission of the council. Do you support this too?
I don't give a fuck, most of the time that's a case of rubber stamping. Ideologically, it may be objectionable, but practically it means very little.
>But here's this isolated case where a cunt council fucked it up!
And here's a thousand where they didn't. Nobody writes about the plane that didn't crash.
>Then why are you supporting such madness?
I don't support it. I don't care about it. I'm defending it from sensationalist journalists because I hate them.
>No, when you take power from the hands of many people and pit it in the hands of the few it is far more open to being abused.
When that one person's "power" consists primarily of calling the other person, not particularly.
>I am, you're the only one claiming that I am not.
I'm curious: Do you oppose state registration of births and deaths?
>>69813440
>Sturgeon said that the scheme would be completely voluntary for parents
It's voluntary to have them advise you, it's not voluntary for one to exist (because, again, it isn't exclusive to parents - if your child's guidance teacher is their teenage named person, their desire to speak to them trumps parental consent.)
I'll get onto the other things, I'm hitting character limit.
>>69813440
>We'll won't have to rejoin the EU, even though they explicitly said.
While the issue itself is open to debate, the most commonly cited evidence for "explicitly said" is "Someone from Spain with no real power over this issue made veiled threats..."
>There WILL be a currency union.
Since independence didn't happen, this cannot be verified a lie.
If these are really the worst things that the SNP have done (no wait, an MP bought a house... and sold it later!!!, one MP was late registering a financial interest that was already irrelevant by the time of the referendum, let alone his election!!!!) then even I'm impressed.
>>69814170
>I think there comes a point where the levels of state intervention you suggest are preferable are so open to child-abusing loopholes
Maybe you should go and look up how prevalent child abuse actually is.
>child-abusing loopholes
would you care to give an example? :^)
>And here's a thousand where they didn't.
Yes, we should give as much power to governments as we can since they aren't always abused.
>When that one person's "power" consists primarily of calling the other person, not particularly.
Except it isn't just calling. Claims from such people hold more sway than claims from any other person.
>I'm curious: Do you oppose state registration of births and deaths?
No. Knowing who is alive in a country isn't the same as keeping details on their lives.
>>69815351
>Maybe you should go and look up how prevalent child abuse actually is.
I was hoping you'd say you were against birth-and-death registration because then this would be much easier. Thanks for fucking that up.
>would you care to give an example? :^)
Finding your specific level of "appropriate" state intervention (currently at "registering births and deaths" on the low end and "health visitors" as definitely unacceptable socialism.) alone would take us to the bump limit, and arguing against it would achieve nothing because this whole thing started with named person, a policy with which my concern begins and ends with "it's not as bad as they make it out to be."
>Yes, we should give as much power to governments as we can since they aren't always abused.
It's a good thing I didn't say that. "I don't give a fuck if you need a rubber stamp" =/= "you should need a rubber stamp to eat."
>Claims from such people hold more sway than claims from any other person.
And you can investigate the veracity of such claims without starting an official investigation.
>No. Knowing who is alive in a country isn't the same as keeping details on their lives.
Again, fuck you for that. I was hoping there was someone who wanted to roll the state back to <1854
If there's a UKIP candidate I'll vote that.
Failing that, I'll vote Conservative - not out of the support of the party, but as opposition to the SNP.
Ideally I'd got UKIP/Tory for the vote spilt.
>>69815867
>And you can investigate the veracity of such claims without starting an official investigation.
That is not how such things work when it comes to child abuse in the UK.
You have your children taken away or harassed before the investigation starts. We can't leave children with abusers after all!
>Finding your specific level of "appropriate" state intervention (currently at "registering births and deaths" on the low end and "health visitors" as definitely unacceptable socialism.) alone would take us to the bump limit, and arguing against it would achieve nothing because this whole thing started with named person, a policy with which my concern begins and ends with "it's not as bad as they make it out to be."
So you can't find me any child abusing loop-holes?
>It's a good thing I didn't say that. "I don't give a fuck if you need a rubber stamp"
One thing leads to the next as is always the case when you start to wander down this path as we have here.
>>69816506
>That is not how such things work when it comes to child abuse in the UK.
If an excessive number of false positives result from NP, the system will be changed again.
But they won't. I don't need a crystal ball, but you can get a smug sense of satisfaction remembering this post when they do - which they won't - but you'll have forgotten my post, along with NP, if that's the case.
>So you can't find me any child abusing loop-holes?
Unless you write me a book detailing everything that is and isn't an appropriate level of state intervention, no, I can't. I can't find loopholes in a system that doesn't fucking exist and hasn't been explained to me.
>One thing leads to the next as is always the case when you start to wander down this path as we have here.
The entire country has been walking down this path since 1836.
>>69805570
IM NOT ALONE.
At least this Scotbro has a brain to see the truth.
Let us embrace the next landslide together, brother!
>>69816806
>If an excessive number of false positives result from NP, the system will be changed again.
No it wouldn't.
>Unless you write me a book detailing everything that is and isn't an appropriate level of state intervention
Child abusing loop-holes would be loopholes in law, correct? How does having a named person or any other nonsense create such a loophole?
Appropriate state intervention is when an average person will never have to interact with the state except for paying taxes.
You know, like UK pre WWII when crime rates and most social issues were far lower than they are now.
>>69817457
>Child abusing loop-holes would be loopholes in law, correct?
Correct.
>How does having a named person or any other nonsense create such a loophole?
I have no idea where you got this from. My point was that your hypothetical rolling back of the state from where it was recently (i.e. removing health-visitors, whom aren't even mandatory.) would create loopholes.
Since such "rolling back" moves into an ideological system implemented only as you imagine, it's impossible to state what loopholes would result from the law as dictated by you, without actually having you dictate it.
>Appropriate state intervention is when an average person will never have to interact with the state except for paying taxes.
>You know, like UK pre WWII
The UK pre WWII still had a lot of mandated action between the individual and the state, including medical checkups on children at state run schools. (1907 to have the sickness pointed out, 1912 to have state funded treatment.) and the Children Act 1908 (includes powers for local authorities to protect children from abuse, among other things.), not to mention the much earlier implemented mandatory schooling for children.
>when crime rates
probably true, although most of the modern crime will be things that don't affect the average citizen or crime that's always exist but would've gone unsolved in the past.
and most social issues were far lower than they are now.
[citation needed]
>tfw this is what a Scottish 'nationalist' looks like
>>69818488
>probably true, although most of the modern crime will be things that don't affect the average citizen or crime that's always exist but would've gone unsolved in the past.
Homicide rates are roughly three times that in 1890, and attempted murder nearly ten times.
Homicide is something who's definition hasn't changed much over that period of time.
There are MORE crimes now that go unsolved and even un-investigated than there has ever been in the past.
eg https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/historical-crime-data
>[citation needed]
suicide rates have steadily been on the rise for starters, much more of an issue than people feeling unsafe at university
>medical checkups on children at state run schools
this was only for the big infectious disease, they also only applied to state schools not to private schools which are almost at the point of being outlaws now
>would create loopholes
How would removing health visitors create a loophole allowing someone to legally abuse a child?
>>69788713
>16 YEAR OLDS VOTING
>>69819533
>Homicide rates are roughly three times that in 1890, and attempted murder nearly ten times.
Are you accounting for the fact the population was smaller? Not significantly smaller, but still.
>There are MORE crimes now that go unsolved and even un-investigated than there has ever been in the past.
Willing to bet most of it is meme crime desu. (Also, old crime stacking up.)
Successfully making someone disappear without being caught as a murderer was a lot easier in the pre-digital age.
>suicide rates have steadily been on the rise for starters
I'm sure this isn't related to how fucking depressing the UK has been since the 1970s.
>this was only for the big infectious disease
Still state intrusion.
>How would removing health visitors create a loophole allowing someone to legally abuse a child?
I could give a lazy example (and so I will: You fail to feed your child appropriately, a health visitor would've caught it if they existed. It's lazy because you're missing the point, it's not about health visitors specifically.)
>>69820219
The population hasn't changed that significantly, it was what, 50 million at 1940 roughly.
6/5 is much less than three.
>Willing to bet most of it is meme crime desu. (Also, old crime stacking up.)
No, things like burglaries since the police force have to deal with so many they can't afford to investigate all of them.
eg. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11784254/Police-only-investigate-burglaries-at-even-numbered-homes.html
The same things happen here that happen in England.
Note that the police force have far more man power and money, accounting for inflation, than they ever had in the 1940's.
>You fail to feed your child appropriately
That's not a loophole, it's still illegal.
What you mean is that certain things may not have been caught. You then need to ask yourself if such things happen frequently enough to justify subjecting everyone to state intervention and the answer to that is no.
State intervention makes things worse in the long term by turning people into irresponsible babies.
The same is true of laws intended to ban something that might be used or lead to a crime rather, like bans on knives and guns.
Again, consider the rate of gun and knife crime when you could buy anything you wanted as long as you were over 14 and compare it with now.
That's the damage 70 years of ever more invasive state intervention has done and it will only get worse.
You can't teach a child how to support itself or be responsible if you never give it any responsibilities, they're then expected to be fully functioning adults as soon as they turn 18.
Children aged 13 used to be responsible enough to operate the whole air circulation of mines yet you're sitting here telling me that children aged 13 need to have a state sponsored nanny because they can't be trusted to go to the police themselves?
Not even 13, we're assuming we need to treat them like babies until they're 18.
>>69821283
>and the answer to that is no.
I dunno, there are enough incompetent chav parents today that it wouldn't surprise me if people with the best of intentions were starving their babbys. [sic]
health visitors are, again, entirely optional. (and as such really serve more to protect against incompetence than malice.)
>State intervention makes things worse in the long term by turning people into irresponsible babies.
When those irresponsible babies are literal irresponsible babies parented by irresponsible morons, appointing someone who did have to pass some kind of standards test to police someone who's minimum standard test was being able to insert a round peg into a round hole appears quite reasonable.
(and again, while "protect against abuse!" is the attention grabbing headline, the main practical implementation is probably to advise parents and children, because now there's one person they can go to and say "so what the fuck do i do")
>Children aged 13 used to be responsible enough to operate the whole air circulation of mines
There are good reasons we don't let them do that anymore.
>yet you're sitting here telling me that children aged 13 need to have a state sponsored nanny because they can't be trusted to go to the police themselves?
Excess maturity can be the problem in some cases. What if the issue is really more of a tell-the-teacher kind of thing? Kid's too mature to go wasting police time, they know they've got actual work to be doing.
[Which is actually a stupid reply on my part, because if we read up you'll see I'm NOT saying you need a named person because ultimately I don't care for the whole project except to point out it's nowhere near as intrusive as people want to imply.]
>>69822027
>There are good reasons we don't let them do that anymore.
Because we see it as morally objectionable now, not because they weren't responsible enough to do it.
>Kid's too mature to go wasting police time
If the kid doesn't consider it that much of a problem should the state really be getting involved?
>When those irresponsible babies are literal irresponsible babies parented by irresponsible morons
So we just continue the cycle ad-infinitum.
Even chavs will get some responsibility beaten into them if they realise that the state isn't going to pay for them and protect them. Would be even better if they had signed some kind of contract which the state couldn't break apart which would legally stop them running away (marriage before retarded divorce laws).
>>69822657
>not because they weren't responsible enough to do it.
I'm sure I recall instances of them fucking it up (as in, not showing up for work or something and they had to find someone else to do it, not as in killing everyone in the mine.), but it's not really relevant.
>If the kid doesn't consider it that much of a problem should the state really be getting involved?
Before named person, the state would still be (nominally, if the kid wasn't dumb.) involved. The person the kid should be going to is a guidance teacher. Under named person, this is made clearer.
>So we just continue the cycle ad-infinitum.
Letting chavs kill their babbys seems like an even less desirable outcome from the perspective of a governing political party.
>Even chavs will get some responsibility beaten into them if they realise that the state isn't going to pay for them and protect them
It's not about protecting them, the adult chav is fine, it's their child who's at risk from their stupidity.
>>69804682
Same.
The worst I have had the displeasure to know is an insufferable lesbian asylum seeker living in London because apparently gays have no rights in Singapore.
Gets allowed into the country to take refuge and has the fucking cheek to complain about how evil and racist and sexist and islamaphobic etc. Brits are, she especially seems to dislike middle class Brits which is fucking hypocritical considering her rich family back in Singapore support her
She also votes/urges people to vote Green and thinks you are super racist if you think Britain should leave the EU. Ultra-SJW stuff, ergh
>>69779355
>the only options are far left and centre left
Why fucking live. I want out of this socialist shithole
>>69779355
It's just a regional/ council, right? So I can choose between etonian schoolboys (con), socialist degenerates (labour) or socialist degenerates (snp), or socialist degenerates (libdems), since I think only they have candidates in my constituency. I don't know what to do.
Farage or whoever is rightwing come general election time. We need to get rightwing politics popular in Scotland.
>>69825962
But that's not true at all
You're electing the opposition, not the government. Labour has even less chance of winning than the conservatives this time around. (The biggest possible upset is a SNP minority government.)
>be SNP cuck
>vote to exit UK
>vote to enter EU
>vote to get rid of Trident
>Putin conquers divided EU
>be ruled by Ivan, Pierre and Hans just to spite England
>>69827833
>Putin conquers divided EU
t. someone with no understanding of just how shit the russian military is
if you aren't muslim you have nothing to fear from russia
(cue jokes about just how fucked most of europe is. :^) )
ALBA:
96%
WHITE
