UKIP go from strength to strength

[Arakhor]

I'm not really sure I did. I was trying to say that if Scots nationalists demand the right to secede from the UK because they're not really British, logically the Shetland Isles should have that same right, as they're not really that Scottish either.

 

[Traitorfish]

But the Shetlander are Scots, you said so yourself. You can't have two indivisible sovereign entities occupying the same space, or they wouldn't be indivisible. So either Shetlanders have no rights independent of Scotland, or they were never part of Scotland in the first place.

The compromise would be to acknowledge that populations are not indivisible, that sovereignty is always a messily egotiated compromise, and to hold a series of democratic consultation by which the issue was referred to the populations in question, to hold "referenda", if you will, and naturally that means starting with a pan-Scottish referendum, because the Shetlanders are hardly able to to secede from a country that doesn't yet exist.

And as far fetched as that sounds, it's probably the approach that most Scots and most Shetlanders would favour. Surely it's better that the people speak for themselves, even if it is only to affirm their existing political union, than they be shouted down for fear of their getting carried away and doing something improper?

 

[Alba]

Because the only thugs in Scotland are those who are pro-Union? You can't seriously believe that.

Nope. But I don't remember any day or night pro-independence supporters behaving the way pro-union supporters did on the eve of September 19th. A riot almost broke out when a couple of thousand pro-union supporters descended on Glasgow's George Square beating up folk, throwing flares, setting fires, burning flags, throwing bottles, threatening to stab people, doing Nazi salutes and singing anti-Catholic songs. The police did a good job sealing them off because it could have been a lot worse.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Do you think the question has been indefinitely answered?

It is common sense. If the vow made by the three main Westminster parties is broken .... There is no going back. The Union will end within this generation.

Mr Salmond said that the recent referendum would be a "once in a generation" and "one in a lifetime" opportunity. Alba, do you think the word of the SNP leader is worth more or less than the word of the leaders of the Westminster parties?

Getting back to the thread topic, the rise of UKIP should be worrying everyone who loves peace and democracy. Europe tried the "all our problems are caused by foreigners" approach and it brought two World Wars. Since then countries have gradually been moving to the "let's work together even though it's hard" approach and it's brought unprecedented prosperity. Trying to turn the clock back to the 1910s demonstrates a terrible lack of understanding of twentieth century history. I wish the leaders in Westminster (and Cardiff Bay/Holyrood/Stormont) would stand up and say this outright.

 

[Ghpstage]

Mr Salmond said that the recent referendum would be a "once in a generation" and "one in a lifetime" opportunity. Alba, do you think the word of the SNP leader is worth more or less than the word of the leaders of the Westminster parties?

What Salmond said however only applies if the referendum is seen to be legitimate, and if the Westminister promises are broken it brings the results legitimacy into question.

 

[Arakhor]

I won't defend their crawling for a moment, but Westminster absolutely did not promise anything, otherwise we are making the case that three men can dictate the laws of a whole country. If Cameron, Clegg et al cannot control their parties, they will face the consequences, just like Salmond would have to do if his fabrications were ever discovered.

 

[Ghpstage]

I won't defend their crawling for a moment, but Westminster absolutely did not promise anything, otherwise we are making the case that three men can dictate the laws of a whole country.

True, but they are the faces of the establishment, and it will be seen that way by a lot of people.

 

[Arakhor]

Quite possibly, yes, but to suggest that Westminster lied to the Scottish electorate is to pour aspersions on every elected MP in the Commons, which is just as insulting (and foolish to boot).

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

What Salmond said however only applies if the referendum is seen to be legitimate, and if the Westminister promises are broken it brings the results legitimacy into question.

Mr Salmond, in the same interview, gave the example of the 1979 referendum. I do not see how the 2014 result can possibly be /less/ legitimate than the 1979 result when a slim majority of voting Scots approved devolution, but under the legislation it did not proceed.

Incidentally, I wonder whether a UKIP referendum to leave the EU should have a similar qualified majority, e.g. at least two nations in favour.

 

[Alba]

Dead people counted towards the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum count as default no voters.

There are also questionable acts on the handling of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum as well with unregistered polling boxes, blank ballots without identification numbers and illegal postal ballot sampling before the final count. But it is nothing too damaging as far as I am concerned as I believe the no vote would had still won in the end, but you can't blame people for their mistrust of the Westminster establishment.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Alba, you overlooked a question I asked above.

On the subject of no voters, does anyone know on what basis UKIP will select the electorate for their proposed referendum? They must surely give the vote to the people most affected - EU citizens exercising their right to move to the UK.

 

[Alba]

I have no idea. I would imagine they would want a majority vote including all citizens and residents who are living in the UK at the time of the vote, akin to the Scottish independence referendum? That includes any nationality as long as they are a legal resident. It would exclude British expatriates. Any other way would be unworkable.

Scotland would vote to stay within the European Union. England could vote either way. I'm unsure about the stance of Wales and Northern Ireland.

If the UK voted to leave the EU, and Scotland voted to stay within the EU, then we could see Scotland declare unilateral independence from the UK depending on how many seats pro-independence parties have in Edinburgh and London. Most likely we would have a new snap independence referendum, I'd prefer that.

 

[Quackers]

An interesting info-graphic I spotted on facebook:

I think it is misleading to include Sinn Fein, the DUP and Plaid Cymru in that graph. Those are regional parties who don't care about the rest of the country. They are only relevant when QT is broadcasted in Northern Ireland or Wales.

In addition, UKIP received x 3 the number of votes the Greens did in 2010. UKIP have also polled between 10-20% from 2012 onwards. UKIP deserves its place on Question Time. There is no underhanded ploy to get more exposure for UKIP, I expect the BBC hate everything UKIP stand for.

The real question is: whenever a comedian/actor/entertainer is on the panel, why is he/she always left wing?

 

[Truronian]

I think it is misleading to include Sinn Fein, the DUP and Plaid Cymru in that graph. Those are regional parties who don't care about the rest of the country. They are only relevant when QT is broadcasted in Northern Ireland or Wales.

In addition, UKIP received x 3 the number of votes the Greens did in 2010. UKIP have also polled between 10-20% from 2012 onwards. UKIP deserves its place on Question Time. There is no underhanded ploy to get more exposure for UKIP, I expect the BBC hate everything UKIP stand for.

UKIP is also a regional party, and while I don't particularly object to how it compares to the Green party, the comparisons to other regional parties seems off. I suspect it's more of an England bias in the BBC rather than a UKIP bias, but there's no real reason regional parties cannot be represented on shows filmed outside of their region.

The real question is: whenever a comedian/actor/entertainer is on the panel, why is he/she always left wing?

Well, probably because there are no funny right-wing comedians.

 

[Oruc]

UKIP is also a regional party, and while I don't particularly object to how it compares to the Green party, the comparisons to other regional parties seems off. I suspect it's more of an England bias in the BBC rather than a UKIP bias, but there's no real reason regional parties cannot be represented on shows filmed outside of their region.

What makes you think that? They have MEPs from Wales and Scotland

 

[Quackers]

UKIP is also a regional party, and while I don't particularly object to how it compares to the Green party, the comparisons to other regional parties seems off. I suspect it's more of an England bias in the BBC rather than a UKIP bias,

So by that definition are Labour also a regional party because they mostly get support from urban areas?
UKIP have a set of policies for the entire United Kingdom. They do not set out to represent a narrow geographical constituency in Wales. They are a nationwide party. In addition, as oruc pointed out, UKIP have MEPs from outside England. Should we ignore that section of the electorate?

but there's no real reason regional parties cannot be represented on shows filmed outside of their region.

I will be bold and claim i have a half decent reason. Political parties which explicitly run on issues important to a particular area of the country and have no interest in the rest of the UK shouldn't be on QT unless they're in those areas. Why would you have a Plaid Cymru representative in a QT broadcast from Belfast?

Well, probably because there are no funny right-wing comedians.

So you admit that's the case then?
So why is it ok that the BBC allow an extra left wing voice whenever an entertainer is on the program?

 

[Ajidica]

The real question is: whenever a comedian/actor/entertainer is on the panel, why is he/she always left wing?

I remember one British comedian (Hugh Dennis, I think) talking about that. He said that "the right" has positioned itself as a defender of the pre-existing social order, with the following assumption that those who are interested in defending the pre-existing social order are those who are benefiting from it. Meanwhile, "the left" has set itself up as defending those who are harmed by the pre-existing social order. He claimed that poking fun at "the right" is easier for people to find funny because you are poking fun at people who are well off and secure. On the other hand, poking fun at the disadvantaged comes off poorly and mean-spirited.

That said, I've watched a lot of British comedy/panel shows and from what I've seen Cameron, Blair, Milliband, Clegg, and Brown all are made fun of in equal amount. The BNP and UKIP are routinely mocked only because their members make it so easy.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

I will be bold and claim i have a half decent reason. Political parties which explicitly run on issues important to a particular area of the country and have no interest in the rest of the UK shouldn't be on QT unless they're in those areas. Why would you have a Plaid Cymru representative in a QT broadcast from Belfast?

I rarely have access to 'Question Time' but the pattern you describe seems to be how BBC radio normally works. But Plaid Cymru MPs have votes both on UK issues like defence and on devolved issues like sentencing. Does QT take a vow of omerta on these topics when it's recorded in London or Leeds? I doubt it.

 

[Quackers]

I remember one British comedian (Hugh Dennis, I think) talking about that. He said that "the right" has positioned itself as a defender of the pre-existing social order, with the following assumption that those who are interested in defending the pre-existing social order are those who are benefiting from it. Meanwhile, "the left" has set itself up as defending those who are harmed by the pre-existing social order. He claimed that poking fun at "the right" is easier for people to find funny because you are poking fun at people who are well off and secure. On the other hand, poking fun at the disadvantaged comes off poorly and mean-spirited.

Well the existing social order is left wing. The establishment and the institutions are all in favor of the socially liberal position. To claim that Huge Dennis (and I'm surprised he was the one who said that as his humor is typically neutral and apolitical) is some type of anti-establishment figure who is bravely contradicting political consensus is hilarious because it is so incorrect. I just checked his Wikipedia page, he has had an extremely privileged upbringing like many British comedians. The days have long gone where the court jester could say politically inconvenient truths. They all parrot the same old left wing bollocks.

That said, I've watched a lot of British comedy/panel shows and from what I've seen Cameron, Blair, Milliband, Clegg, and Brown all are made fun of in equal amount. The BNP and UKIP are routinely mocked only because their members make it so easy.

...once you get them onto a political program like Question Time they are always to the left of the labour party (but anti-Iraq war and anti-Blairite).

 

[useless]

Tell us some of those "politically inconvenient truths" then Quackers.