Same applies to strengthening the safeguards in the electoral system, confronting the power of social media etc. Starmer still seems to be carrying his Ming vase even after winning. The timidity is pathetic. They are delivering us to Reform

To do both is possible. And they are different causes. ‘Support PA’ is about protecting the right of legitimate protest in the uk and the inappropriate use of terror legislation. You don’t have to be a fanboy of PA to get behind this.

I agree some clarity on the criteria would help to justify what is currently a clearly self-serving position, though of course they could say 20 years.
On the scale of contemporary govt unreasonableness wrt separatism they aren’t that bad. Compare Spain and Cataluña, France and Corsica etc etc

And while Scottish nationalism is generally cuddly and progressive there is inevitably a xenophobic strand. Nationalism is a virus, there are virulent strains and milder ones but at its heart it’s tribalism and that means othering.

Fair point. It may not feel fair but while we are in a single nation state the uk govt has the power to decide- and to delay for its own convenience - but it cannot prevaricate indefinitely against the clear will of Scotland. Patience and if you have the support you will win.

Get the point but I’m not sure that the era of decolonisation is directly comparable.

Not unreasonable- but maybe debatable

I should add that I am a Londoner with no axe to grind on the independence issue except a general dislike of all nationalisms, British, Scottish or otherwise.

So how long should the 2014 decision stand and how long, and how consistently, should Scottish public opinion favour a repeat to require central govt to accede? I dont know, but it sems to me both ASAPers and delayers are arguing from their own agendas rather than some constitutional high ground

While we live, I would argue regrettably, in a world of nation states, that is where power and sovreignty reside. Nation states have oten ignored (or repressed) restless minorities but In a liberal democracy the consistently expressed popular will has to be accepted in the end.

Without going into 300 yrs of history which is mostly terrible wherever you look, there was a referendum in 2014. A ref has to be allowed to settle a Q and give some stability for a decent period. So the Q is how long - which is a bit more nuanced than you are suggesting

Wasn’t that the referendum in 2014?

We named my son’s goldfish Armitage and Shanks - in anticipation of their ultimate fate

IDK but lefties feuding is sadly par. 2 groups I was part of I left because of feuding. I am also now a Green which feels a better place even if there are bits I have to swallow. (Note to lefties - there wil always be bits you have to swallow - no party will be a perfect reflection of your opinions)

Meanwhile he has clearly got a talent for spreading the progressive message so more power to his elbow

Unsurprising really. Politicians are ambitious and bears sh*t in the woods etc. Starmer pretended to be more lefty to get the leadership. Johnson pretended to be a brexiteer to get the leadership. It was ever so. Polanski is unlikely to be tested by power so I think his show will go on.

Seems like this is coming down to different ideas of what socialism is which in my experience is a fruitless discussion

Well free marketeers (aprox = right wing) can't be. If 'socialist' is a shortcut for left wing, then that's your answer, though of course there are about 100 definitions of socialism and people tend to pick their own

It’s the law of commons. If everyone can exploit a resource there is no incentive to hold back and miss out on your share so the resource is exploited to extinction. Uncontrolled free markets and environmental protection cannot coexist