Byron wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

logical bob wrote:@ronmcd It's a bit off topic, but at this stage how do you rate the chances of it actually happening?

Long term, as close to 100% as it's possible to go with the obvious caveat that weird things sometime happen and things which we are sure will happen sometimes won't. It's likely to be generational, the people who voted to remain last time in sufficient numbers were older voters more attached to a post war idea of GB in particular that just isn't there any more. Young people wanted control.

I think the question is over short & medium term. I've never really been convinced it was going to happen as a result of brexit, because I still think (and I think Sturgeon thinks) the country will do it when it's good and ready (ie confident) not because of decisions elsewhere. But it's possible I suppose.

I'd still say medium term, there's a 50/50 chance, but still think longer term.

Since Sturgeon's a gradualist to the core of her being, I'm assuming that she'll exhaust every other option before calling Indyref2: which would mean that it'll only be called in the event of the lunatics taking over the Tory asylum, and imposing hard Brexit. If it's EFTA and the EEA, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she held off a while.

I'm not expecting Indyref2 any time soon, but I was interested in the impression ronmcd gets in the circles he moves in.

When the SNP won an unexpected majority they must have realised they were obliged to hold a referendum with a sense of foreboding similar to that of David Cameron realising the Brexit referendum was going to have to happen. Yet in a year it went from a foregone conclusion (polling was 2:1 against independence since forever) to a pretty near run thing, off the back of which came the surge in membership and support that led to the strangely two-edged general election result: absolute dominance in Scotland yet impotency in UK opposition. There was a sense that having moved forward like that it must be possible for one final push but (re: our discussion in the Brexit thread) there is a widespread feeling that a simple rerun would be unjustified after the "once in a generation" claims. Hence the material change clause - but I think most people in Scotland know that that's only an excuse. People know that EU membership is the sensible option, but very few feel it passionately like they feel independence. The "Brexit therefore Indyref2" narrative in the London media is just part of the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding Brexit.

It seems to me that it's not there yet and it probably is a generational thing. The SNP's electoral dominance will pass in time as such things do and a different set of triggers will be needed to make it happen in the future.

logical bob wrote:
It seems to me that it's not there yet and it probably is a generational thing. The SNP's electoral dominance will pass in time as such things do and a different set of triggers will be needed to make it happen in the future.

Salmond made a good point about the different ways independence comes about, you can have a referendum and if there is sufficient desire in the country it will be won and a relatively sudden break happens. But the other way is the route we may well be going down, the New Zealand route. Eventually Scotland will have so many powers it will simply be realised we've stumbled into independence, and let's just formalise it, involving little arguments or much disruption.

Basically Tony Blair's fears of a slippery slope were well founded, but it may take many years to get to that point. Those Holyrood powers aren't going back the way.

Although to be fair, I'm not a member of SNP or even self-identifying as a nationalist, I doubt my views and predictions would chime with many SNP members and long time supporters of independence, who will want it asap.

It seems to me that it's not there yet and it probably is a generational thing. The SNP's electoral dominance will pass in time as such things do and a different set of triggers will be needed to make it happen in the future

Possible or possible not, England is moving further to the right every election and the next 2 are certainly going to be no different.
The left wing of the Conservative party is about as left wing as you going to see in the UK for a long time to come. We are reaching US level of division now, with New York/London/ Scotland liberals versus Texas/English tea party insanity

Corbyns traingate drama seems to have attracted the tory media this morning. Must be a slow news day.

It's the tactics by the PLP which amaze me. Constant smears against Corbyn, gerrymandering of votes, closing down of branch meetings. This has the effect of making Labour look like a minor Mafia, but very inefficient at it.

What do they think this will achieve? I would think a mass turning away from Labour, whoever the leader is. Remember Scotland?

logical bob wrote:I'm not expecting Indyref2 any time soon, but I was interested in the impression ronmcd gets in the circles he moves in.

When the SNP won an unexpected majority they must have realised they were obliged to hold a referendum with a sense of foreboding similar to that of David Cameron realising the Brexit referendum was going to have to happen. Yet in a year it went from a foregone conclusion (polling was 2:1 against independence since forever) to a pretty near run thing, off the back of which came the surge in membership and support that led to the strangely two-edged general election result: absolute dominance in Scotland yet impotency in UK opposition. There was a sense that having moved forward like that it must be possible for one final push but (re: our discussion in the Brexit thread) there is a widespread feeling that a simple rerun would be unjustified after the "once in a generation" claims. Hence the material change clause - but I think most people in Scotland know that that's only an excuse. People know that EU membership is the sensible option, but very few feel it passionately like they feel independence. The "Brexit therefore Indyref2" narrative in the London media is just part of the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding Brexit.

It seems to me that it's not there yet and it probably is a generational thing. The SNP's electoral dominance will pass in time as such things do and a different set of triggers will be needed to make it happen in the future.

It's less "EU = Indyref2" than "trampling over Scotland's sovereign will = Indyref2." Not just on the EU, but on Trident, Holyrood's powers, and a general attitude among the Westminster elite of treating Scotland like the region of North Britain, instead of a nation and, allegedly, equal and voluntary partner in the Union. Around a third of Yes voters oppose EU membership, but most will prioritize independence.

Sturgeon knows it's no sure thing, which is why she's holding off until Whitehall and the Brexit brigade go totally fubar-bundy.

SNP dominance isn't inevitable, no, if there's a viable alternative. So who is there? SLab (northern branch); the Greens (worthy but niche, and in any case, fair weather pro-indy); and RISE, the rump of Sheridan's far-left empire (following his amusing conviction for perjury), who polled below the zealots in the wee-wee-free party. Oh, and the Lib Dems, soon to be leading the Orkney liberation movement. SNP look OK for now, but sure Kezza's got something in the works, right after her next jolly to America.

CarlPierce wrote:Corbyns traingate drama seems to have attracted the tory media this morning. Must be a slow news day.

Nothing like a bit of schadenfreude to warm the cockles of an editor's heart.

Pebble wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:Corbyns traingate drama seems to have attracted the tory media this morning. Must be a slow news day.

Nothing like a bit of schadenfreude to warm the cockles of an editor's heart.

Do you mean 'Nothing like peddling lies & misinformation which undermines our democracy, to warm the cockles of the sorry-arsed excuses we have for newspaper editors'?

chairman bill wrote:

Pebble wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:Corbyns traingate drama seems to have attracted the tory media this morning. Must be a slow news day.

Nothing like a bit of schadenfreude to warm the cockles of an editor's heart.

Do you mean 'Nothing like peddling lies & misinformation which undermines our democracy, to warm the cockles of the sorry-arsed excuses we have for newspaper editors'?

Call them everything you want but it will not change them.

According to the BBC here, Corbyn has said in a press conference today that he wanted two seats together so that he could sit with his wife. The clear implication is that he did in fact pass empty seats, just not two together.

At his press conference, Mr Corbyn said: "Yes, I did walk through the train. Yes, I did look for two empty seats together so I could sit down with my wife, to talk to her. That wasn't possible so I went to the end of the train."

In the original video here, he is sitting on the floor on his own, reading papers, with no sign of his wife, then says to the camera: "Today, this train is completely ram-packed". He was lying, and did not expect to be caught out by CCTV.

OK, the idea was a reasonable stunt to make a reasonable point about the railways, but Corbyn's managed to create an own-goal from nowhere through incompetent spin. From the Telegraph:

Rule 1 of spin is "Don't lie". Embellish the truth, gild the lily, make the most positive presentation possible but do not lie.

Of course, sometimes you may feel that you have to make something up. This is where Rule 2 comes in - "Don't get caught." In politics, the truth doesn't have to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it just has to be a "defensible truth". Or, in other words something that no-one can disprove.

Which leads directly to Rule 3 - "Remember that people will fight back if their reputation is at stake." Yesterday, as "Traingate" unfolded, it was clear that Jeremy Corbyn and his team had broken all three rules.

Inexperience showing. Playing the spin game like an amateur.

zoon wrote:... The clear implication is that he did in fact pass empty seats, just not two together.

No, it's not the implication, it is your inference. And at the time he made the statement about the train being packed, he was far from being alone sitting on the floor, because plenty of other passengers were doing the same. It was only having reached a point where lots of people left the train & seats became available, that he was able to take a seat. It has nothing to do with lying & being 'caught-out'.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Inexperience showing. Playing the spin game like an amateur.

Except he wasn't spinning. But feel free to continue spouting your usual anti-Corbyn bollocks.

chairman bill wrote:

zoon wrote:... The clear implication is that he did in fact pass empty seats, just not two together.

No, it's not the implication, it is your inference. And at the time he made the statement about the train being packed, he was far from being alone sitting on the floor, because plenty of other passengers were doing the same. It was only having reached a point where lots of people left the train & seats became available, that he was able to take a seat. It has nothing to do with lying & being 'caught-out'.

People do seem to be ignoring the othr passengers who sat on the floor, some of whom have defended Corbyn's account.

Then again, what does "ram packed" mean? Does only two empty seats but in different carriages count?

I saw a suggestion that there were no stops between Corbyn on the floor and Corbyn I the seat, but that some passengers were upgraded to 1st class. Virgin may be sitting on that detail.

And then there the two "camera 3" images. That does seem odd, like maybe these are not both views of Corbyn on this train.

chairman bill wrote:

zoon wrote:... The clear implication is that he did in fact pass empty seats, just not two together.

No, it's not the implication, it is your inference. And at the time he made the statement about the train being packed, he was far from being alone sitting on the floor, because plenty of other passengers were doing the same. It was only having reached a point where lots of people left the train & seats became available, that he was able to take a seat. It has nothing to do with lying & being 'caught-out'.

If there were no seats at all available as he walked through the train, then he should have said so at the press conference, instead of saying that he was looking for two together, and leaving everyone to make the obvious inference that singletons were available. He was filmed by CCTV sitting down in a seat at 11.43am (going by the BBC here), long before the train made its first stop at York; nobody had had a chance to leave.

Edited to add, from the same link, Corbyn's own team agree that he was found a seat before any passengers left:

[quote}Mr Corbyn's campaign team said: "When Jeremy boarded the train he was unable to find unreserved seats, so he sat with other passengers in the corridor who were also unable to find a seat.
"Later in the journey, seats became available after a family were upgraded to first class, and Jeremy and the team he was travelling with were offered the seats by a very helpful member of staff."[/quote]

On every single packed train I've been on, with people standing and sitting in various corridors, there have been individual seats on the train somewhere for all or part of the journey which had nobody sitting in them.

I feel ashamed, and ashamed for all the others on all those trains who stood beside me rather than fighting through to the possible individual seat that must surely have existed on those trains. We were sharlatans.

zoon wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

zoon wrote:... The clear implication is that he did in fact pass empty seats, just not two together.

No, it's not the implication, it is your inference. And at the time he made the statement about the train being packed, he was far from being alone sitting on the floor, because plenty of other passengers were doing the same. It was only having reached a point where lots of people left the train & seats became available, that he was able to take a seat. It has nothing to do with lying & being 'caught-out'.

If there were no seats at all available as he walked through the train, then he should have said so at the press conference, instead of saying that he was looking for two together, and leaving everyone to make the obvious inference that singletons were available. He was filmed by CCTV sitting down in a seat at 11.43am (going by the BBC here), long before the train made its first stop at York; nobody had had a chance to leave.

Edited to add, from the same link, Corbyn's own team agree that he was found a seat before any passengers left:

[quote}Mr Corbyn's campaign team said: "When Jeremy boarded the train he was unable to find unreserved seats, so he sat with other passengers in the corridor who were also unable to find a seat.
"Later in the journey, seats became available after a family were upgraded to first class, and Jeremy and the team he was travelling with were offered the seats by a very helpful member of staff."

[/quote]

Did you miss that bit I put in bold?

It seems unfortunate that UK trains are ludicrously expensive unless booked well in advance. There are obvious benefits to the train company in that, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to turn up at a station, buy tickets for a reasonable price and find two seats together? These are trains, not aeroplanes.

GrahamH wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

zoon wrote:... The clear implication is that he did in fact pass empty seats, just not two together.

No, it's not the implication, it is your inference. And at the time he made the statement about the train being packed, he was far from being alone sitting on the floor, because plenty of other passengers were doing the same. It was only having reached a point where lots of people left the train & seats became available, that he was able to take a seat. It has nothing to do with lying & being 'caught-out'.

People do seem to be ignoring the othr passengers who sat on the floor, some of whom have defended Corbyn's account.

Then again, what does "ram packed" mean? Does only two empty seats but in different carriages count?

I saw a suggestion that there were no stops between Corbyn on the floor and Corbyn I the seat, but that some passengers were upgraded to 1st class. Virgin may be sitting on that detail.

And then there the two "camera 3" images. That does seem odd, like maybe these are not both views of Corbyn on this train.

I agree that the whole thing's probably shades of grey, but if he passed empty seats (as he appears to be acknowledging) and then sat on the floor for the video without mentioning that he wanted seats together for a group, then he's leaving himself open to the charge of misrepresentation. He did not have to sit on the floor, or to stand, in order to read his papers.