The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Or...........

Heathrow also supported the recent Labour, Tory and Libs conferences ?

Yep, heathrow wants to buy itself votes. Who knew?

I'm pointing out that the SNP are selling Scotland to Heathrow, instead of selling Scotland to Scotland - you know, the thing they claim to be about.

 

18 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It`s easy to find quotes from various Scottish airport managers backing the plans and the extra slots / opportunities they will bring to Scotland. Not to mention quotes from politicians from all parties ( apart from the greens ) representing Scottish constituents - I already provided one from the Labour dude the other day - stating the benefits to Scotland. Perhaps they are all wrong 

I accept that you cannot understand how Heathrow`s expansion will bring benefits to Scotland.

Fortunately you are neither a politician representing Scotland and responsible for trade, jobs, investment etc or an Airport manager. We already know your views on the Scottish Govt supporting the survival of Prestwick Airport and the jobs therein.

Is this an issue because all these folk are working with an Airport in London ? Would you be taking the same position if the airport was another european hub eg Amsterdam ?

Does this working together in partnership with our friends in England to benefit both Countries not fit with your own narrative or personal view 

I suspect the most benefit to Scotland will be within the block grant from the increased economic activity in England.

When Scotland has huge overcapacity it's just about impossible to see how otherwise Scotland could benefit, because there's more benefit to Scotland if 'traffic' for Scotland uses a Scottish facility and not an English one.

 

 

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

They were asked & oxfam weren't mentioned which means you were lying.

'Instructed' is more accurate than 'asked'.

Oxfam were in the zone those people were instructed to not support.

The SNP knew who they were excluding, even if those instructed to stay away were know-nothing numpties.

24 minutes ago, LJS said:

I understand that all SNP members are totally free to support oxfam.

not on all occasions, they're not, as that instruction showed.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

In the real world, there are some destinations that Scotland will never have direct flights to.

you're not suggesting that geography and demographics have a negative economic impact onto Scotland, are you? Cos that would be talking Scotland down.

</snipper>

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

Every poll since the referendum has shown yes support higher than it was in the referendum. Support for Indy rose during the last campaign.

polls were higher than the vote last indyref. It's one thing being asked the question when nothing comes of the answer, and another when it does.

And there's not many minds yet to hear the arguments to be convinced one way or another. I've no doubt some can be won-over tho - but by both sides.

And sadly for the SNP and indy, the pro-indy arguments that can be made now are worse than they were last time - so if people are going to listen to the factual arguments, that'll see plenty turn away from indy.

All indy has in support are the emotional arguments. while people tend to think with their pockets.

It's not (as things thand today) impossible indy might win, but if it does the victory will be closer than it was in the EUref, and just like with the EUref that's a nightmare to go forwards from. For such a big change to work well you need big support.

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

polls were higher than the vote last indyref. It's one thing being asked the question when nothing comes of the answer, and another when it does.

And there's not many minds yet to hear the arguments to be convinced one way or another. I've no doubt some can be won-over tho - but by both sides.

And sadly for the SNP and indy, the pro-indy arguments that can be made now are worse than they were last time - so if people are going to listen to the factual arguments, that'll see plenty turn away from indy.

All indy has in support are the emotional arguments. while people tend to think with their pockets.

It's not (as things thand today) impossible indy might win, but if it does the victory will be closer than it was in the EUref, and just like with the EUref that's a nightmare to go forwards from. For such a big change to work well you need big support.

 

Ah, Neil, I wish I could foresee the future with your clarity.

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

'Instructed' is more accurate than 'asked'.

Oxfam were in the zone those people were instructed to not support.

The SNP knew who they were excluding, even if those instructed to stay away were know-nothing numpties.

not on all occasions, they're not, as that instruction showed.

Here is the only report I can find that actually quotes the "instruction"

 

Quote

 

An email, seen by CommonSpace, was sent out to elected SNP representatives in mid-August asking representatives to “politely decline” any invitations “to speak at dinners, fringe events or receptions” which fall outside of the SNP conference “secure zone”, which includes the SECC and three nearby hotels; Crowne Plaza Hotel, the Village Hotel and the Hilton Garden Inn.

The email stated that the reason for this proscription on SNP representatives being involved in unofficial fringe events is that events “held outwith this area does not benefit the party” and could undermine the official conference fringe.

“As conference approaches and organisations plan their fringe events, we would like to take this opportunity to request that you politely decline any invitation to speak at dinners, fringe events or receptions which are outside the conference secure zone,” the email said.

“As you’ll appreciate, events within the secure area as part of the official fringe are those paid for by chairites and commercial organisations who contribute greatly to the costs of the conference.

“Any event held outwith this are does not benefit the party, and your involvement in such events means that you are not available to support events on the official fringe during that time.”

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9190/exclusive-snp-hq-instructs-politicians-not-attend-unofficial-conference-event-amid

 

 

So the e mail went to " elected SNP representatives" not all delegates.  It didn't ban them it asked them to "“politely decline” any invitations “to speak at dinners, fringe events or receptions” which fall outside of the SNP conference “secure zone”"

It made no mention at all of Oxfam and as it was sent out some considerable time before the conference there is no way of knowing if they were aware Oxfam would be there. 

Its a bit like your claim that Salmond said Scotland would take a million years to grow its economy enough to close the deficit (or whatever figure you actually made up) which you concocted out of a number of unconnected statements because that is what you did then & its what you have done now. 

For what its worth I have already said I disapprove of the SNP's e mail which smacks of unnecessary control freakery. and I am delighted to say that it seems to have been widely ignored.

Quote

 

FORMER Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill has said that the people of Scotland could “blame” the SNP if the “most rightwing Tory Government in a generation” is returned to power in 2020, necessitating a progressive alliance.

MacAskill made the comments in a meeting on the subject of co-operation between centre left parties at Westminster, at the IdeaSpace 2016 SNP conference fringe festival. He spoke in a session on possible co-operation between the SNP, Labour and the Green Party.

Speaking to an audience of SNP delegates alongside SNP MP Philippa Whitford, Compass think tank director Neal Lawson and Green party of England and Wales co-leader Jonathan Bartley, MacAskill said that the idea of an alliance, possibly based on a shared programme of opposition to Trident and Austerity and support for proportional representation, which could be agreed to by candidates from different parties.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Organised alongside the SNP conference after many grassroots organisations were unable to afford the fees for exhibiting, the IdeaSpace festival was the destination of the day, with fringe meetings packed with SNP delegates.

 

View image on Twitter

 

 Follow

CommonSpace @TheCommonSpace

Standing room only at Our Democracy fringe event at#IdeaSpace

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Leading party economist says Scottish national investment bank urgent given proximity of #indyref2

ONE of the SNP’s leading economists has said that a Scottish national investment bank (Snib) should be debated at the 2017 SNP conference.

George Kerevan MP told an audience of SNP delegates at the IdeaSpace conference fringe festival that the policy urgently needed to be considered, given the proximity of a possible second independence referendum.

Addressing a meeting on Snib, which heard advocates discuss the idea of a bank that could lend to socially useful enterprises to combat low investment by both the UK Government and private industry, Kerevan said that the time for the policy “has come”.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Across the river, the opening IdeaSpace fringe meeting on land reform was packed to capacity, with speakers calling for national action on land injustice.

 

View image on Twitter

 

 Follow

Michael Gray @GrayInGlasgow

Packed out land reform movement meeting at #IdeaSpaceacross the Clyde from #SNP16.

12:47 PM - 13 Oct 2016

 

 

p.s. it doesn't appear Oxfam were greatly fussed...

Quote

 

you're not suggesting that geography and demographics have a negative economic impact onto Scotland, are you? Cos that would be talking Scotland down.

</snipper>

 

Geography & demographics have negative and positive impacts on every single country in the world.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

Oh, & while we are on about Oxfam the meeting referred to above took place at the OFFICIAL conference fringe.

 

Nasty Nasty SNP banning their members from supporting Oxfam by letting them have a meeting at their conference. 

 

Anything to say, Neil?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Geography & demographics have negative and positive impacts on every single country in the world.

and in Scotland it's negative impact is an extra 20%-ish cost in delivering public services. Even St Nicola has made that abundantly clear (I can find the quote, if you like...?).

So the Scottish deficit is nothing about poor governance from Westminster, it's about poor geography in Scotland.

Something decided by Scotland, that's not delivering a better Scotland but a worse one.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Oh, & while we are on about Oxfam the meeting referred to above took place at the OFFICIAL conference fringe.

 

Nasty Nasty SNP banning their members from supporting Oxfam by letting them have a meeting at their conference. 

 

Anything to say, Neil?

the SNP banned their conference delegates from supporting Oxfam. You've seen the letter, and the effect that letter tries to bring about is 100% clear,

Anything to say about the geezer who reckons 51% of the English are xenophobic, based on the most spurious of ideas?  Do you also think 100% of SNP are smart cookies who believe in ethnic nationalism? :

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

the SNP banned their conference delegates from supporting Oxfam. You've seen the letter, and the effect that letter tries to bring about is 100% clear,

You Ignore the bit where I showed clearly (with evidence) that you are totally wrong and then repeating your original lie doesn't work Neil.

Quote

Anything to say about the geezer who reckons 51% of the English are xenophobic, based on the most spurious of ideas?  Do you also think 100% of SNP are smart cookies who believe in ethnic nationalism? :

As you will see if you return to the other forum, I have clarified my position. I accept that my original post was open to interpretation in the way you so gleefully have.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

You Ignore the bit where I showed clearly (with evidence) that you are totally wrong and then repeating your original lie doesn't work Neil.

the evidence of a letter from the SNP that tells SNP supporters that they can't suppoirt Oxfam, you mean? That evidence?

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

As you will see if you return to the other forum, I have clarified my position. I accept that my original post was open to interpretation in the way you so gleefully have.

and yet you'd consider me saying that all SNP supporters are beyond stupid as something beyond the redemption of an apology.

Perhaps take a look at yourself and why you're being xenophobic towards the English, on the basis of only your fantasies?

[LJS]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the evidence of a letter from the SNP that tells SNP supporters that they can't suppoirt Oxfam, you mean? That evidence?

I haven't seen that e mail because it doesn't exist. 

If I am wrong I am sure you can supply the evidence.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and yet you'd consider me saying that all SNP supporters are beyond stupid as something beyond the redemption of an apology.

You've been saying something very similar for a long time. I am immune to it. Must be all that punching myself in the face.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Perhaps take a look at yourself and why you're being xenophobic towards the English, on the basis of only your fantasies?

How am I being xenophobic against the English?

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

I haven't seen that e mail because it doesn't exist

you've seen the email, and it's only stupidity that has you deny its effect. ;rolleyes:

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

How am I being xenophobic against the English?

More stupidity?

You're over-doing your norm.

 

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you've seen the email, and it's only stupidity that has you deny its effect. ;rolleyes:

I can only assume that your reading skills are limited. Unlike your imagination.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

More stupidity?

You're over-doing your norm.

 

I must be stupid because I don't know how I am being xenophobic.

And you won't help me.

[LJS]

 

 

[LJS]

I'm loving all the outrage at the Scottish government publishing a bill saying they might think about having another referendum...maybe.

Apparently, treeza thinks they don't have a mandate for it. 

Comedy gold.

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm loving all the outrage at the Scottish government publishing a bill saying they might think about having another referendum...maybe.

Apparently, treeza thinks they don't have a mandate for it. 

Comedy gold.

I see you're hoping to get the not-UK-nationals to vote themselves out of a vote again.

What outrage? I can't find mention of it. Is the comedy gold your claim of outrage?

I wouldn't be stupid enough to suggest that the SNP don't have a mandate via their manifesto - it's as good as any party ever gets. But there is the different question of whether its appropriate to have at all, given that it's only two years since the last one.

Yes, I get the argument of there having been a "fundamental change", but it's no less of a good argument to say the Scotland voted to be a part of whole-UK decisions with or without any 'fundamental change'.

Meanwhile, polls suggest Sturgeon doesn't have the public's support to hold a new referendum (for as things stand at the mo, anyway) anyway, so May would be wise to keep her gob shut.

If she wants Scotland to stay, she should start saying she doesn't care if they go, let Scotland get on with it. Support for indy would drop in a flash.

[LJS]

 

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I see you're hoping to get the not-UK-nationals to vote themselves out of a vote again.

I am guessing this is based on some interpretation of the franchise for an Indy Scotland in the white paper for the last ref. I kind of suspect they may not use that this time round. So, unless you have some inside info, this is a totally vacuous point.

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What outrage? I can't find mention of it. Is the comedy gold your claim of outrage?

I have a dirty confession to make. I have been BTL on the websites of a couple of our fine national newspapers. I'm off to have a shower now.

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I wouldn't be stupid enough to suggest that the SNP don't have a mandate via their manifesto - it's as good as any party ever gets.

Indyref endorsed by top festy website shock!

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But there is the different question of whether its appropriate to have at all, given that it's only two years since the last one.

Has anything happened in these 2 years of any significance?

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yes, I get the argument of there having been a "fundamental change", but it's no less of a good argument to say the Scotland voted to be a part of whole-UK decisions with or without any 'fundamental change'.

On a serious note, it's perfectly fine to say "it's not a good idea to have a new ref" as long as you accept that the SG has the right to ask for one. 

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Meanwhile, polls suggest Sturgeon doesn't have the public's support to hold a new referendum (for as things stand at the mo, anyway) anyway, so May would be wise to keep her gob shut.

True.

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If she wants Scotland to stay, she should start saying she doesn't care if they go, let Scotland get on with it. Support for indy would drop in a flash.

I may need your help here. The only logical interpretation I can put on this is that you think we would only vote yes to piss off treeza.

I'll admit it's a good reason.I just think there might be a wee bit more to it.

[kaosmark2]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have a dirty confession to make. I have been BTL on the websites of a couple of our fine national newspapers. I'm off to have a shower now.

You fool. Self-harm isn't the answer.

Edited October 20, 2016 by kaosmark2

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

I am guessing this is based on some interpretation of the franchise for an Indy Scotland in the white paper for the last ref. I kind of suspect they may not use that this time round. So, unless you have some inside info, this is a totally vacuous point.

It's not a vacuous point. It's a very real reason why non-UK nationals might not support indie, that was mostly missed last time around.

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Has anything happened in these 2 years of any significance?

It depends on your point of view.

"It's an outrage" if you think scotland should be sovereign, and it's something you'd expect to roll with (perhaps with disappointment) if you recognise the reality that scotland is not sovereign.

But more to the point, Scotland has chosen to not be sovereign, yet you're attempting to use a logic as tho it has done.

The intellectual fail here is all yours, just like the mock outrage is too. I say 'mock', because brexit has absolutely fuck all to do with anything of your want for another ref, and this type of bollocks is fooling no one.

I'm glad it's not my decision to make, and I'd personally think that anything other than granting a ref would be counter-productive, but I can see perfectly valid arguments for why a new ref might be refused. Referendums are not issues to be triggered by everyday events - and the UK deciding to cancel a treaty is nothing extraordinary no matter how inconvenient it is.

I don't think it's an unreasonable argument to say that a referendum shouldn't be held more often than an election no matter what the circumstances. Constitutional matters are about bigger things than immediate circumstances.

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

I may need your help here. The only logical interpretation I can put on this is that you think we would only vote yes to piss off treeza.

I'll admit it's a good reason.I just think there might be a wee bit more to it.

Lord Slimy himself said last ti me around that if Westminster try talking sense to Scotland they wouldn't be believed, and scotland would do the opposite.

To your shame, he was right.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's not a vacuous point. It's a very real reason why non-UK nationals might not support indie, that was mostly missed last time around.

Because it was bollocks, as it will be this time. 

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It depends on your point of view.

"It's an outrage" if you think scotland should be sovereign, and it's something you'd expect to roll with (perhaps with disappointment) if you recognise the reality that scotland is not sovereign.

But more to the point, Scotland has chosen to not be sovereign, yet you're attempting to use a logic as tho it has done.

No I'm not. I'm using the argument that the democratically elected government of Scotland has every right to request a referendum based on its manifesto. You have already accepted this so you are now arguing with yourself.

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The intellectual fail here is all yours, just like the mock outrage is too. I say 'mock', because brexit has absolutely fuck all to do with anything of your want for another ref, and this type of bollocks is fooling no one.

Wrong. It's just another in the long list where Scotland doesn't get what it votes for.

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm glad it's not my decision to make, and I'd personally think that anything other than granting a ref would be counter-productive, but I can see perfectly valid arguments for why a new ref might be refused. Referendums are not issues to be triggered by everyday events - and the UK deciding to cancel a treaty is nothing extraordinary no matter how inconvenient it is.

Leaving the EU is an "everyday event?" Are you having a laugh?

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't think it's an unreasonable argument to say that a referendum shouldn't be held more often than an election no matter what the circumstances. Constitutional matters are about bigger things than immediate circumstances.

You could make that point  but it would be a bot odd to suddenly invent this condition at this stage.

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Lord Slimy himself said last ti me around that if Westminster try talking sense to Scotland they wouldn't be believed, and scotland would do the opposite.

To your shame, he was right.

 

 

I have no idea who lord slimy is. I can think of many candidates. And as for talking sense would that be like being invaded from outer space & not being allowed to watch Dr. Who?

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, LJS said:

Because it was bollocks, as it will be this time. 

It certainly wasn't bollocks last time. The national vote is for citizens, not residents, and that's what it'll be post-indy (if it happens).

30 minutes ago, LJS said:

Wrong. It's just another in the long list where Scotland doesn't get what it votes for.

That's because, within the UK voting bit, there is nothing called Scotland.

Just like there's no Yorkshire or no London. It's the UK. Anyone who's vote is for the not-winning side(s) doesn't get what they voted for. It's about all people being equal [with their vote, supposedly] and not imaginary internal divisions.

You tell me I'm wrong by again doing the same wrong thing yourself. You're claiming something that doesn't exist as the over-riding principle, to with which you hope to bring that thing into existence.

You only get to claim and use the sovereignty for Scotland AFTER Scotland is sovereign.

30 minutes ago, LJS said:

Leaving the EU is an "everyday event?" Are you having a laugh?

On one level, yes it is. It's big in its effect, but the leaving is just the little thing of triggering a50.

But, you know, saying "we don't want this big effect" and then saying you'll cause a bigger effect onto yourselves is not necessarily the wise thing in response, is it? If avoiding the deepest shit is your want, brexit is better than indy.

30 minutes ago, LJS said:

You could make that point  but it would be a bot odd to suddenly invent this condition at this stage

PMSL

It's hardly an invented condition. Referendums everywhere are considered to be spaced a fair distance apart.

Perhaps expressed as "once in a generation" as one party leader said followed by another leader of that same party said followed by an official white paper of the Scottish Govt said followed by the endorsement of your vote in support.

There can be endless logical arguments for how long "a generation" might be considered to be, but I reckon it gets hard to argue to be shorter than the timeframe of a standard election cycle, because (logically) if it's more regular than an election, it's for issues something lesser than elections are meant to settle. Referendums are (generally considered to be, and definitely here) for the bigger issues.

If May happened to say "there has to be ten years at least apart" that would actually be a very reasonable - generous even - offer in general political terms (tho not necessarily with a great outcome if that was what she did). In the limited research I've done 15 years seems to be about the minimum for repeating refs on a big issue like indy.

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It certainly wasn't bollocks last time. The national vote is for citizens, not residents, and that's what it'll be post-indy (if it happens).

Let's leave last time to one side. It's hard to imagine that our love for our European friends will not form a large part of an indyref2 campaign. You think Nic & the Nats will combine that with plans to disenfranchise them? 

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's because, within the UK voting bit, there is nothing called Scotland.

Just like there's no Yorkshire or no London. It's the UK. Anyone who's vote is for the not-winning side(s) doesn't get what they voted for. It's about all people being equal [with their vote, supposedly] and not imaginary internal divisions.

Pointless to argue with you. This is a fundamental point where we will never agree. 

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You tell me I'm wrong by again doing the same wrong thing yourself. You're claiming something that doesn't exist as the over-riding principle, to with which you hope to bring that thing into existence.

I think I know what your trying to say. It's nonsense of course.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You only get to claim and use the sovereignty for Scotland AFTER Scotland is sovereign.

Thanks but I can "claim" sovereignty for Scotland any time I want.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

On one level, yes it is. It's big in its effect, but the leaving is just the little thing of triggering a50.

Yeah & Hiroshima was just the little thing of pushing a button on the enola gay.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But, you know, saying "we don't want this big effect" and then saying you'll cause a bigger effect onto yourselves is not necessarily the wise thing in response, is it? If avoiding the deepest shit is your want, brexit is better than indy.

Thanks again for your opinion. I have no doubt this will form much of the indtref2 debate.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL

Dry your thighs.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's hardly an invented condition. Referendums everywhere are considered to be spaced a fair distance apart.

Are they?

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Perhaps expressed as "once in a generation" as one party leader said followed by another leader of that same party said followed by an official white paper of the Scottish Govt said followed by the endorsement of your vote in support.

"Yawns"

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There can be endless logical arguments for how long "a generation" might be considered to be, but I reckon it gets hard to argue to be shorter than the timeframe of a standard election cycle, because (logically) if it's more regular than an election, it's for issues something lesser than elections are meant to settle. Referendums are (generally considered to be, and definitely here) for the bigger issues.

How long a generation is as there was never any "once in a generation" commitment.  And leaving the EU is a very big issue.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If May happened to say "there has to be ten years at least apart" that would actually be a very reasonable - generous even - offer in general political terms (tho not necessarily with a great outcome if that was what she did). In the limited research I've done 15 years seems to be about the minimum for repeating refs.

 

 

I really think there are no rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Let's leave last time to one side. It's hard to imagine that our love for our European friends will not form a large part of an indyref2 campaign. You think Nic & the Nats will combine that with plans to disenfranchise them? 

They did last time, they made that explicitly clear.

And if Scotland do as you say, Scotland will be the world's first state to not privilege its citizens over non-citizens. I think that's unlikely.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Pointless to argue with you. This is a fundamental point where we will never agree. 

while we might never agree, the facts are 100% on my side and 0% on yours.

There is no right of Scotland to get what it votes for in a UK-wide result that Scotland has deemed its choice over Scottish sovereignty.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I think I know what your trying to say. It's nonsense of course.

It's "nonsense" to point out that Scotland isn't sovereign? PMSL.

You're in fruitcake land, where there's no fact you can't invent.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Thanks but I can "claim" sovereignty for Scotland any time I want.

Well, you can ... but you'd be talking nonsense at the current time.

Simple fact is that the people of Scotland do not claim the sovereignty that you do. It was 100% rejected on the SNP's own rules.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Yeah & Hiroshima was just the little thing of pushing a button on the enola gay.

and change is such a bad thing when it's brexit that the answer is to have bigger and worse change.

Yeah, i know. You're logically rejecting intelligence for wacknuts.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Are they?

In those places where referendums are used for the big issues, yes they are.

You only get to reject this idea when the SG invalidates itself to hand the power of choice to the people for everything to be up for referendums,. Control freakery and self-serving takes doesn't permit that any more than it permits local vetos within Scotland while demanding there's local vetos within the UK.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

How long a generation is as there was never any "once in a generation" commitment.  And leaving the EU is a very big issue.

It was stated clearly within the white paper.

It was very explicitly a part of what you voted on.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I really think there are no rules.

for those who can invent any and all facts, you're right.

The sane think differently.

I spent a while last night reading the "outrage" you mentioned - where I saw no outrage at all.

What I saw was those who support independence claiming a valid referendum result should be ignored in favour of a referendum they want no matter what circumstances and where a valid referendum result should be ignored.

And I saw not a single soul who wants another ref because of brexit.

All in Scotland's biggest newspapers.

But hey, they'd suddenly be rules if indy won, wouldn't there?

It's truly a different type of politics. Never in the history of mankind have humans sold their intelligence for such a self-serving view.

Edited October 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I'm rather liking the latest snippers' meme, that has snippers everywhere proclaiming that the act of union gives Scotland equal rights with England, and then translating 'England' to be 'the UK', and so then demanding that Scotland has a veto of UK decisions.

Cos it seems to have taken Scotland 300 years to suddenly discover this 'right' ... but those snippers demand that they're treated 'equally'. Ok, so let's see how equal they really want things....

Does Scotland fancy equal per-head distribution of UK money? Nope, i didn't think so.

What about Scotland being so equal that it's financial contribution should be equal? Nope, they don't fancy that one either.

They don't fancy equality at all, what they want is special treatment, with more money and more power to Scotland than is deserved.

So much for equality, eh?

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm rather liking the latest snippers' meme, that has snippers everywhere proclaiming that the act of union gives Scotland equal rights with England, and then translating 'England' to be 'the UK', and so then demanding that Scotland has a veto of UK decisions.

Cos it seems to have taken Scotland 300 years to suddenly discover this 'right' ... but those snippers demand that they're treated 'equally'. Ok, so let's see how equal they really want things....

Does Scotland fancy equal per-head distribution of UK money? Nope, i didn't think so.

What about Scotland being so equal that it's financial contribution should be equal? Nope, they don't fancy that one either.

They don't fancy equality at all, what they want is special treatment, with more money and more power to Scotland than is deserved.

So much for equality, eh?

I think this all springs from the constant assurances during indyref1 that we were all equal partners in the union. Funnily enough the artists formerly known as better together aren't so interested in the equal partners stuff if it actually has any practical application 

And, as you aware,those of us who favour Indy, specifically don't want any of your money.