Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: hector13 on April 27, 2017, 12:54:44 pm

Several third options were given.

To fill out the 8 1/2 by 11 ballot paper, sure.  You can ask for the tofu on the menu but today the chef is only cooking chicken and beef.

Johnson got his one moment to screw up on TV and that was about it for him, not that he had much chance anyway.  Where was he at the debates?  Oh right.  Third parties aren't invited.

You said that given the choice, most Americans would have chosen a third option. They had the choice.

What is there in London? Wankas.

Quote from: penguinofhonor on April 26, 2017, 04:27:13 pm

I can't believe anyone ever thought it was reasonable for people to just jam a flat plastic circle into the irregular crevasses of their ears

Ah yes wrapping it in a condom and shoving it directly into the ear canal was a direct improvement.  Esp the part where you have to do that 10 times a minute because they don't stay in the ear canal, almost like things aren't supposed to be there.

If they were s'posed to be there, you wouldn't have to keep stickin' 'em in.

Cha know what? Bugger it. I'm in.

That's just ye olde fraud.

Quote from: Comrade P. on April 24, 2017, 04:39:48 pm

Quote from: Akura on April 24, 2017, 04:30:30 pm

If a dragon were to have sex with a human, would the dragon be arrested for bestiality?

Call me up when some human authority warrants an arrest of a dragon. There's money to be made from that spectacle.

...Guards!  Guards!

Well, I for one certainly appreciated the reference.

Quote from: hector13 on April 20, 2017, 01:37:10 pm

As for self-determination within the UK, in an ideal world it could happen, but in practice, I don't think it can. Theresa May has been clamouring on and on about how the country needs to pull together, but failed to inform the Scottish government precisely when she was going to trigger Article 50, despite apparently having discussed it with the Welsh government - who voted to Leave, as opposed to Scotland's Remain.

That would be because she was in Wales, talking with the Welsh government
She met the first minister of Wales in Monday morning to talk about the future of Swansea and in Monday afternoon the date set for triggering article 50 was broadcasted to the entire country through the BBC. What are the SNP getting angry about, they weren't kicked out of Westminster - I don't see how Michael Russell hearing the set date for article 50 being triggered a few hours later from the Welsh suggests the UK is doomed to certain balkanization. The Majority of Scots oppose a second referendum while Nicola Sturgeon announced a second referendum without a mandate from the Scottish people, without informing Westminster ahead of time. This is why I think the obstacle to self-determination and Britain versus self-determination sans Britain is the SNP itself - it's creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by going on a warpath regardless of what its voters want. Seems cheeky that Michael can turn that into an insult, without considering what his party's actions look like to the rest of Britain.

I don't see how the SNP don't have a mandate for calling another referendum. Scottish voters overwhelmingly elected an SNP government in 2016.

(As an aside, the only reason they didn't get a majority was because of a quirk of the election system put in place by Westminster, in which the number of regional votes a party receives is divided by the number of constituency seats they won in that region, plus one. There are seven representatives per region, so this continues until all seven are chosen, with the divisor increasing for the parties that receive a regional seat. The SNP won 59 of the 73 constituency seats, hamstringing them a bit in the regional vote.)

The SNP didn't hide from the fact that they lost the 2014 referendum. Sturgeon said they wouldn't campaign for another referendum unless there was a material change in circumstances prior to the last GE in 2015, echoed in their manifesto for the 2016 Scottish election, and again her speech following the EU referendum results. Even then it wasn't a staunch demand for another referendum immediately, she just said that this meant that a referendum was back on the table of options for Scotland. It took until March - 9 months after the EU referendum - for the SNP to bring a vote to the Scottish parliament on a second independence referendum, during which time the UK government ignored their offer of a compromise.

Quote from: hector13 on April 20, 2017, 01:37:10 pm

Seems a bit petty, and a little bit hypocritical after May's call for a grown-up relationship between the UK government and the devolved administrations. Further cheekiness from that, when she says she wants the relationships built on "cooperation and consensus" but just outright rejects Scotland's demands to remain a part of the common market as well as the UK. Also the whole "we need to focus on Brexit, you can't have your referendum. We're having a general election, by the way" thing, which essentially wastes two months of your two year negotiation process aimed at disentangling the UK from the past 40+ years of EU law and regulation.

There's nothing cheeky about rejecting the demand that Scotland remains a part of the single market and the UK, it's not a demand that can legally be satisfied:

Quote

There was further bad news for the SNP when Elmar Brok, a senior member of the European Parliament, also said there could be “no exceptions” to allow Scotland to remain in the single market.
The German MEP, chairman of the parliament’s foreign affairs committee, told BBC Radio Scotland: "We cannot have two agreements with the United Kingdom and with Scotland.

While it would be pretty awesome if the United Kingdom could simultaneously be an independent non-member of the European Union whilst a member of the European Union, it's not possible, nor do the European Union negotiators want to create such an exploitable precedence. In regards to EU law and regulation, the plan has been from the start to transfer EU law and regulation, thus causing no chaotic rush to disentangle 40 years of regulation; there is no issue there. The focus is very much regaining executive authority over how we run our country before deciding exactly what goals and how we run the country will be set.

My expert says otherwise

I didn't say it would be easy, and neither are the SNP. It would require a great deal of compromise between Scotland and the UK, and the UK and the EU.

Should you want to read it, the Scottish government's position on Scotland's place in Europe.

Quote from: hector13 on April 20, 2017, 01:37:10 pm

It seems that (at least the current) British government considers Scotland a petulant child that needs to be kept in line, but I'm also aware of my huge bias against the Tories and for Scotland.

Cameron's jellyfish crew gave off that tone, what with his whole infamous "pls don't destroy uk to piss off effin tories" speech, I don't see that in the current gov - who are stepping on eggshells since the SNP seems determined to turn anything into an insult with which to use against Britain. Despite the SNP always having a voice in Westminster, despite sending the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers to discuss the future in Holyrood, the SNP then goes on saying it's a great insult to Scotland because Westminster didn't send David Davis - even though they invited him for March 16, the same day he was due to appear in the House of Commons.

He was invited in July and December last year, both times his office said he was busy. He was even offered the chance to have a video conference than have to travel to Edinburgh...

His assistant was offered instead... he backed out too, until after Article 50 got triggered.

The committee in question would be remiss in their duty to examine Brexit and what it means for Scotland by talking to the British minister responsible for overseeing withdrawal negotiations. A duty they can't really perform if he won't talk to them.

I suppose what I'm getting at is what could the Westminster gov do that would not be deemed an insult to Scotland by the SNP?

I think engaging in discourse would be a good start, but it's been almost a year since the referendum, and Article 50 has already been triggered, so it'd be a token gesture if anything at this point.

The SNP aren't saying the Tories should fuck off and die, they want what's best for Scotland, and if the Tories aren't even willing to talk about it... what's the point of Scotland having any say at all?