The Dirty Independence Question

[gary1979666]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

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

Really?  I haven't seen the SNP turn down the Barnett top ups?

[eFestivals]

Sturgeon, today...

Quote

She said she was prepared to listen to options, and I have said we will bring forward specific proposals over the next few weeks which would keep Scotland in the single market even if the rest of the UK leaves.

We are hearing the words that she will consider options but that is not being matched by substance or action.

 

I sympathise with the desire to stay attached to the EU, but...

Why the fuck does Sturgeon think an arrangement like that is wanted by the rUK, or is even possible in practical senses?

If Scotland were in and the UK were out of the single market with each having a different status' towards the EU (from Sturgeon's words), that creates the requirement for both customs border (which would be Scotland's requirement as a border state of the EU's single market) and a people's border (rUK's requirement) because of Scotland having free movement of people and the rUK not.

It cannot be to Scotland's economic advantage to have a block to trade with the UK but not the EU when the UK trade is four times the size, as would be the case in that scenario. And it cannot make sense for a sovereign state for some parts of it to have closer arrangements with foreign entities than exist within that state's borders.

And further than that, it ends up as pretty much everything of sovereignty for Scotland because, after all, the SG would now control Scotland's foreign & trade policy, and if the SNP's "we'll scream if you don't do what we say" routine has won it control of foreign policy, then it can now demand other wishes fulfilled such as Trident and expect them granted.

So you have to stop and ask yourself: with it essentially being sovereignty, why wouldn't the SNP go the whole hog for independence? After all, it's the reason for their very existence.

The first answer might be: they'd lose an indyref2 just like they lost indyref1.

The 2nd answer might be: they'd have to pay their own way and they don't want to.

The 3rd answer might be: they'd have to find a solution for all of those unanswered big questions, and there are no satisfactory answers.

So it looks very much like the SNP are bluffing, threatening something they know they can't follow thru on... cos if they could follow thru they'd be doing it already.

The only rational conclusion from all of that is: it's time to call her bluff.

There's a risk of course with doing that, tho there's a lesser risk to the longterm stability of the country than by having the tail wag the dog.

> We are hearing the words that she will consider options but that is not being matched by substance or action

We've heard the words of the threats from Sturgeon but they're not matched by substance or action.

I'm not claiming to know what the sensible solution might be apart from no-brexit, but I do know that Sturgeon's suggestion isn't it. If it was, all remain voting parts of the UK could demand the same, and it doesn't take a genius to see it's just not workable.

Edited October 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Sturgeon, today...

 

I sympathise with the desire to stay attached to the EU, but...

Why the fuck does Sturgeon think an arrangement like that is wanted by the rUK, or is even possible in practical senses?

If Scotland were in and the UK were out of the single market with each having a different status' towards the EU (from Sturgeon's words), that creates the requirement for both customs border (which would be Scotland's requirement as a border state of the EU's single market) and a people's border (rUK's requirement) because of Scotland having free movement of people and the rUK not.

It cannot be to Scotland's economic advantage to have a block to trade with the UK but not the EU when the UK trade is four times the size, as would be the case in that scenario. And it cannot make sense for a sovereign state for some parts of it to have closer arrangements with foreign entities than exist within that state's borders.

And further than that, it ends up as pretty much everything of sovereignty for Scotland because, after all, the SG would now control Scotland's foreign & trade policy, and if the SNP's "we'll scream if you don't do what we say" routine has won it control of foreign policy, then it can now demand other wishes fulfilled such as Trident and expect them granted.

So you have to stop and ask yourself: with it essentially being sovereignty, why wouldn't the SNP go the whole hog for independence? After all, it's the reason for their very existence.

The first answer might be: they'd lose an indyref2 just like they lost indyref1.

The 2nd answer might be: they'd have to pay their own way and they don't want to.

The 3rd answer might be: they'd have to find a solution for all of those unanswered big questions, and there are no satisfactory answers.

So it looks very much like the SNP are bluffing, threatening something they know they can't follow thru on... cos if they could follow thru they'd be doing it already.

The only rational conclusion from all of that is: it's time to call her bluff.

There's a risk of course with doing that, tho there's a lesser risk to the longterm stability of the country than by having the tail wag the dog.

> We are hearing the words that she will consider options but that is not being matched by substance or action

We've heard the words of the threats from Sturgeon but they're not matched by substance or action.

I'm not claiming to know what the sensible solution might be apart from no-brexit, but I do know that Sturgeon's suggestion isn't it. If it was, all remain voting parts of the UK could demand the same, and it doesn't take a genius to see it's just not workable.

Or for us to stay in the single market. Soft Brexit. May can blame Scotland and NI for there being no hard brexit, the country isnt massively fucked by doing something so Stupid

[LJS]

9 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Really?  I haven't seen the SNP turn down the Barnett top ups?

Oh, if you guys want to keep flinging money at us, it would be rude to refuse. And your leaders were falling over each other to promise us the earth when it looked for a few minutes like we might vote yes.

But I for one would happily forego your largesse for independence.

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Or for us to stay in the single market. Soft Brexit. May can blame Scotland and NI for there being no hard brexit, the country isnt massively fucked by doing something so Stupid

while it might be argued over for what brexit angle people were voting for, the standard one that you're suggesting of everything the same but no say on new rules defo isn't the 'leave the EU' that people voted for. You'd have to be mad to think that could be in any way acceptable to the UK. May trying to see a principled reverse of brexit would go down better with the population.

Meanwhile, i've just read what May/No.10 have just said....

Quote

The PM told Nicola Sturgeon, Carwyn Jones, Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness repeatedly that how the UK leaves the EU should not be seen as a series of binary choices and will instead amount to a bespoke agreement for the UK 

We can argue about how possible that might be to actually achieve, but as an aim that looks like it is able to fulfil the wants of all three devolved administrations - we all get to keep in the single market, there's no border between NI & I, and Wales can have more subsidy funding spunked on it than is allowed by the EU (and Scotland, never forget that Scotland is nicking money from Wales).

I've yet to hear Sturgeon recognise the result as a whole-UK result, which is not the manner of someone who accepts the 2014 result as she previously claimed to. Sturgeon isn't after the best deal for Scotland, she's after the best deal for her political desires, which very definitely includes demanding what she knows cannot be granted. To create the false grievance so she can go off in a huff, and say "look, the nasty people didn't let us have the thing we've no right to that we tried to steal from them, that's how nasty they are".

And LJS and co. will suck it up and scream outrage, and will really and actually pretend they mean it.

Edited October 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, LJS said:

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.

You are equal. Votes everywhere around the UK are treated equally.

If you think it means more than that, I reckon the onus is on Scotland to prove it's equality - by sending back the Barnett extras or by paying into the UK equal with 'England'.

No?

So suck up the truth that Scotland is an equal part of the UK, on a population basis and feck all else.

After all, the BT claim the likes of you is now spouting is something you never accepted in the first place, and your own real arguments are so very weak you're left grasping for the ridiculous like that and looking ridiculous as a consequence.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Oh, if you guys want to keep flinging money at us, it would be rude to refuse. And your leaders were falling over each other to promise us the earth when it looked for a few minutes like we might vote yes.

PMSL at the blatant lies.

The SNP - and YOU - *DEMANDED* that Barnett continues.

Even the SNP's FFA amendment to the Scotland Act demanded that Barnet continue.

FFS.

 

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

But I for one would happily forego your largesse for independence.

So what's stopping you?

More to the point, what's stopping Nicola?

Bluff bluff and guff, it's all you have.

[kaosmark2]

I'm no fan of Sturgeon as I think everyone knows, but I did like this comment:

"I don't know what the UK's negotiating position is, so there's nothing that that I can see to undermine"
"I can't undermine something that doesn't exist, and at the moment it doesn't seem to me like there is a UK negotiating strategy"

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'm no fan of Sturgeon as I think everyone knows, but I did like this comment:

"I don't know what the UK's negotiating position is, so there's nothing that that I can see to undermine"
"I can't undermine something that doesn't exist, and at the moment it doesn't seem to me like there is a UK negotiating strategy"

There's no doubt she's a capable woman, yet at the same time you don't need to be a genius to play the standard nationalists divisive game. Adopt a position that can't be fulfilled, and then scream 'outrage' when things happen as expected.

She's overplayed her hand tho. She's already downgraded her stance from "if we don't stay in the EU they'll be another indyref" to "if we don't stay n the single market they'll be another indyref", and while the polling if more favourable with that it's still looking unlikely to take indy over the line.

Just as was LJS's argument the other day, she's adopting a position of sovereignty when none exists. I'm actually surprised at how much May has allowed her to play that one so far. Then again, the SNP are useful idiots as far as the tory party is concerned,  so perhaps that's why. They're two parties that need each other far more than either would care to admit.

Edited October 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There's no doubt she's a capable woman, yet at the same time you don't need to be a genius to play the standard nationalists divisive game. Adopt a position that can't be fulfilled, and then scream 'outrage' when things happen as expected.

She's overplayed her hand tho. She's already downgraded her stance from "if we don't stay in the EU they'll be another indyref" to "if we don't stay n the single market they'll be another indyref", and while the polling if more favourable with that it's still looking unlikely to take indy over the line.

Just as was LJS's argument the other day, she's adopting a position of sovereignty when none exists. I'm actually surprised at how much May has allowed her to play that one so far. Then again, the SNP are useful idiots as far as the tory party is concerned,  so perhaps that's why. They're two parties that need each other far more than either would care to admit.

So you dont think sturgeon is sincere in what she says about insistence on a EU single market?

I think the irish issue will be a lot thornier anyway. 

[LJS]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Sturgeon, today...

 

I sympathise with the desire to stay attached to the EU, but...

Why the fuck does Sturgeon think an arrangement like that is wanted by the rUK, or is even possible in practical senses?

Why the fuck does that matte?  Her job is to represent her electorate, a clear majority of whom voted to remain. Whether it is practical or not remains to be seen. She has clearly stated she will submit proposals. Perhaps we should wait & see what these proposals are.

Quote

If Scotland were in and the UK were out of the single market with each having a different status' towards the EU (from Sturgeon's words), that creates the requirement for both customs border (which would be Scotland's requirement as a border state of the EU's single market) and a people's border (rUK's requirement) because of Scotland having free movement of people and the rUK not.

Perhaps we should wait & see what her proposals are.

Quote

It cannot be to Scotland's economic advantage to have a block to trade with the UK but not the EU when the UK trade is four times the size, as would be the case in that scenario. And it cannot make sense for a sovereign state for some parts of it to have closer arrangements with foreign entities than exist within that state's borders.

Perhaps we should wait & see what her proposals are.

Quote

And further than that, it ends up as pretty much everything of sovereignty for Scotland because, after all, the SG would now control Scotland's foreign & trade policy, and if the SNP's "we'll scream if you don't do what we say" routine has won it control of foreign policy, then it can now demand other wishes fulfilled such as Trident and expect them granted.

Perhaps....

Quote

So you have to stop and ask yourself: with it essentially being sovereignty, why wouldn't the SNP go the whole hog for independence? After all, it's the reason for their very existence.

Because they ate trying to respect the wishes of the Scottish people in 2014?

Quote

The first answer might be: they'd lose an indyref2 just like they lost indyref1.

Or not.

Quote

The 2nd answer might be: they'd have to pay their own way and they don't want to.

I'm up for that.

Quote

The 3rd answer might be: they'd have to find a solution for all of those unanswered big questions, and there are no satisfactory answers.

Or maybe we don't want to be part of a country where Gary fucking Lineker is a dangerous and subversive radical.

Quote

So it looks very much like the SNP are bluffing, threatening something they know they can't follow thru on... cos if they could follow thru they'd be doing it already.

& you would be the first to call them out for a headlong desperate rush to independence. Heads they lose, tails they lose.

Quote

The only rational conclusion from all of that is: it's time to call her bluff.

Perhaps we should wait until we have heard her proposals.

Quote

There's a risk of course with doing that, tho there's a lesser risk to the longterm stability of the country than by having the tail wag the dog.

I don't sense Treeza intends to be wagged.

Quote

> We are hearing the words that she will consider options but that is not being matched by substance or action

We've heard the words of the threats from Sturgeon but they're not matched by substance or action.

Perhaps we should wait until we have heard her proposals.

Quote

I'm not claiming to know what the sensible solution might be apart from no-brexit, but I do know that Sturgeon's suggestion isn't it.

Perhaps we should wait until we've actually heard Sturgeon's suggestion. I know we can rely on you rejecting it (whatever it is) but some of us may have open minds.

Quote

 

If it was, all remain voting parts of the UK could demand the same, and it doesn't take a genius to see it's just not workable.

How many remain voting parts are there? And that is Teresa's problem that her party created. Nicola is only doing her job.

Edited October 24, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

while it might be argued over for what brexit angle people were voting for, the standard one that you're suggesting of everything the same but no say on new rules defo isn't the 'leave the EU' that people voted for. You'd have to be mad to think that could be in any way acceptable to the UK. May trying to see a principled reverse of brexit would go down better with the population.

Meanwhile, i've just read what May/No.10 have just said....

We can argue about how possible that might be to actually achieve, but as an aim that looks like it is able to fulfil the wants of all three devolved administrations - we all get to keep in the single market, there's no border between NI & I, and Wales can have more subsidy funding spunked on it than is allowed by the EU (and Scotland, never forget that Scotland is nicking money from Wales).

I've yet to hear Sturgeon recognise the result as a whole-UK result, which is not the manner of someone who accepts the 2014 result as she previously claimed to. Sturgeon isn't after the best deal for Scotland, she's after the best deal for her political desires, which very definitely includes demanding what she knows cannot be granted. To create the false grievance so she can go off in a huff, and say "look, the nasty people didn't let us have the thing we've no right to that we tried to steal from them, that's how nasty they are".

And LJS and co. will suck it up and scream outrage, and will really and actually pretend they mean it.

I'm outraged.

More spectacular mind reading from Neil, the great oracle. Your knowledge of Nicola's inner thoughts is truly uncanny (or complete bullshit)

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL at the blatant lies.

The vow dear boy, the vow.

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The SNP - and YOU - *DEMANDED* that Barnett continues.

The vow was not demanded. It was "freely" offered. Me & the SNP wanted independence which inconveniently for you would have done away with the Barnett formula. (Unless you were planning to log a few billion a year over the border as a leaving present)

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Even the SNP's FFA amendment to the Scotland Act demanded that Barnet continue.

Not exactly.

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

FFS.

 

So what's stopping you?

I need another referendum.

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

More to the point, what's stopping Nicola?

Political nous & common sense mainly. 

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Bluff bluff and guff, it's all you have.

& charm & sophisticated wit is all you have.

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There's no doubt she's a capable woman, yet at the same time you don't need to be a genius to play the standard nationalists divisive game.

I think you misrepresent her & I think her game is far more about trying to unite opinion in Scotland than divide opinion in the UK.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Adopt a position that can't be fulfilled, and then scream 'outrage' when things happen as expected.

Perhaps we should wait until we see her proposals.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

She's overplayed her hand tho. She's already downgraded her stance from "if we don't stay in the EU they'll be another indyref"

Which I don't think she ever said.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

to "if we don't stay n the single market they'll be another indyref",

Which she also hasn't said.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and while the polling if more favourable with that it's still looking unlikely to take indy over the line.

Only if you assume that support for Indy is fixed & can't rise.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Just as was LJS's argument the other day, she's adopting a position of sovereignty when none exists.

No. She is representing the views of her electorate in a way that was clearly laid out in the SNP manifesto.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm actually surprised at how much May has allowed her to play that one so far.

What should she do? Tell her to GTF? 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Then again, the SNP are useful idiots as far as the tory party is concerned,  so perhaps that's why.

What utter Tosh.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

They're two parties that need each other far more than either would care to admit.

I think you are hugely over-simplifying things here.  I understand the SNP need the Tories argument because every time the UK votes Tory Scotland ain't getting the government we vote for. However, especially at present, I suspect Treeza views the SNP as an irritant she could do without but can't afford to ignore if she wants to maintain the union.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

So you dont think sturgeon is sincere in what she says about insistence on a EU single market?

She's already moved the goal posts from "leaving the EU" to "outside the single market".

Her angle on that is fuck all to do with sincerity and everything to do with political posturing in light of what polls have told her.

 

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

I think the irish issue will be a lot thornier anyway. 

Ultimately, no.

NI doesn't want to join Ireland, and Ireland doesn't want (or at least, can't afford) NI.

Which is why there's not much noise. What will be will be.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Why the fuck does that matte?  Her job is to represent her electorate, a clear majority of whom voted to remain. Whether it is practical or not remains to be seen. She has clearly stated she will submit proposals. Perhaps we should wait & see what these proposals are.

A clear majority voted to remain with the EU, but a clear majority also voted to go along with UK decisions, too.

While she might have a mandate, the mandate she's got is a mandate she'd try to bring about in any and all circumstances, so ultimately it's fuck all to do with the EU and everything to do with the likes of you and her and you and her's want for indy in all circumstances.

As proven by you not giving a shit about voting yourselves out of the EU in 2014. Sturgeon even has letters from the EU saying that's what would happen in her office draw.

FFS, you really think people are believing the guff you're posting? PMSL.

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Perhaps we should wait & see what her proposals are.

Including her proposals for the economic state of Scotland if Scotland goes with its indyref threat.

What's that? You're saying 'no', that that's not a relevant of her having said she'd do what's best for Scotland's economy? Really?

Sorry bud, but if she's claiming an economic case, she needs to lay out that economic case rather than lead idjuts by the nose with empty guff.

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Because they ate trying to respect the wishes of the Scottish people in 2014?

Principled, you say?

So what about the "mandate" she's already changed - so not a mandate - to suit herself which has fuck all to do with any principle apart from her hope of an indy victory?

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Perhaps we should wait until we've actually heard Sturgeon's suggestion. I know we can rely on you rejecting it (whatever it is) but some of us may have open minds.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves why she's being so secretive about her suggestion, so secretive it's a secret to the people who supposedly gave her a mandate proving it's no mandate.

It wouldn't be that she's holding back as long as possible to ensure her ask is for the impossible, would it? Her whipping up false grievance from unthinking numpties isn't what she does, is it?

7 hours ago, LJS said:

How many remain voting parts are there? And that is Teresa's problem that her party created. Nicola is only doing her job.

About 10 times the Scottish 'remain' population, that's how many remain voting parts there are. Oh, did you miss that?

And nope, the division of opinion is not anything which the tories created, it's what circumstances created ... unless 40% of Scotland are tories including 30% of SNP voters?

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

I'm outraged.

More spectacular mind reading from Neil, the great oracle. Your knowledge of Nicola's inner thoughts is truly uncanny (or complete bullshit)

You mean you're not expressing false outrage?

Then tell me, what of your support for indy changed with the UK voting leave?

Nothing at all.

False outrage.

 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

The vow dear boy, the vow.

That vow that was delivered in full and on to schedule, you mean? That vow?

Like everything else you present, you're talking bollocks. You invent false bits to the vow so you can claim it wasn't delivered.

FFS.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

The vow was not demanded. It was "freely" offered.

And it was freely and fully delivered, too.

Go on tell me what wasn't, without you having to post fantasy.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Me & the SNP wanted independence which inconveniently for you would have done away with the Barnett formula. (Unless you were planning to log a few billion a year over the border as a leaving present)

Yep, but you wanted to win independence by lying that (in effect) it wouldn't disappear, because you and the poison dwarf claimed Scotland wouldn't be poorer without that money.

More recently you've welcomed tory cuts that remove part of that Barnett problem, proving you know what's what really, and proving you'll post lies to claim differently. Oh dear.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Not exactly.

I need another referendum.

Nicola's less keen. Why not ask her why?

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Political nous & common sense mainly. 

Oh, you mean that she knows she'd lose?

So does everyone else. I'm kind-of pointing that out to you.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

& charm & sophisticated wit is all you have.

Yep, but not lies like you.

I'm hoping Scotland is inhabited with people with brains, who are able to look at Project Fact and see the facts of poorer thru change, the very thing which has ruffled your feather right now.

You're hoping it's inhabited by the mind-numbingly stupid who'll fall for the guff you know you're posting.

Never mind, eh?

 

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You mean you're not expressing false outrage?

I'm not expressing any outrage.

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Then tell me, what of your support for indy changed with the UK voting leave?

Nothing at all.

Correct, I have for some time believed that Scotland's voters are not being justly represented by our current constitutional arrangement. The EU ref is simply another shining example of this.

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

False outrage.

 

Well, ignoring the fact that I'm not outraged, if I were it wouldn't be "false" just because it's something I've been outraged about before.

It's not the outrage Thatch's false. It's the UK we voted to remain part of that is false.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That vow that was delivered in full and on to schedule, you mean? That vow?

I'm not arguing about whether it was delivered. I'm arguing that part of the vow promised the continuation of the Barnett formula. But do feel free to change the subject when it's inconvenient for you.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Like everything else you present, you're talking bollocks. You invent false bits to the vow so you can claim it wasn't delivered.

Except I didn't claim it wasn't delivered (at least not here because it's not relevant)

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

FFS.

 

And it was freely and fully delivered, too.

& your point is?

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Go on tell me what wasn't, without you having to post fantasy.

 

You're getting very boring now.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, but you wanted to win independence by lying that (in effect) it wouldn't disappear, because you and the poison dwarf

(How old are you?)

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

claimed Scotland wouldn't be poorer without that money.

Did I support the claims of great wealth? No, I didn't. Incidentally neither did virtually every yes voter i knew. And, in the long run I still don't believe Scotland will be poorer.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

More recently you've welcomed tory cuts

Lie!

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that remove part of that Barnett problem, proving you know what's what really, and proving you'll post lies to claim differently. Oh dear.

 

Unfortunately, it's you that has just posted a whopper of a lie!

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nicola's less keen. Why not ask her why?

Is there some sort of crazy urgency here? No, there isn't. 

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Oh, you mean that she knows she'd lose?

No. She knows that timing is important. Right now is not the time. Whether you think she is sincere in trying to find a way to keep Scotland in the single market or you think she's playing games, she has to pursue that strategy to the end before going for a referendum.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So does everyone else. I'm kind-of pointing that out to you.

No they don't.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, but not lies like you.

I'm hoping Scotland is inhabited with people with brains, who are able to look at Project Fact and see the facts of poorer thru change, the very thing which has ruffled your feather right now.

My feathers are entirely unruffled. Lovely plumage.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You're hoping it's inhabited by the mind-numbingly stupid who'll fall for the guff you know you're posting.

Never mind, eh?

 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

I think you misrepresent her & I think her game is far more about trying to unite opinion in Scotland than divide opinion in the UK.

Yeah, of course it is.

She's such an honest broker she wouldn't be claiming powers she doesn't have, would she?

You know, like telling Scotland that Scotland will decide, while inserting clauses into legal papers that shows Scotland doesn't.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Perhaps we should wait until we see her proposals.

The big secret, like the big secret economic plan for indy.

It's funny how someone who claims to represent Scotland isn't able to tell Scotland what it is she's representing.

Perhaps it's because she's got nothing to represent except a false narrative to create false grievence?

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Which I don't think she ever said.

I'm not surprised you don't think that. You don't think very much.

The rest of us are able to listen and notice the words have changed.

never mind, eh?

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Which she also hasn't said.

True, tho she's threatened it.

She's not committed to fulfilling the mandate she has, which is because she's not doing what she's promised.

She is keeping herself a get-out, where she'll fuck you over to save herself. That's the mandate she thinks she has.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Only if you assume that support for Indy is fixed & can't rise.

I'm assuming that less than Sturgeon is, as it happens.

Otherwise she'd be all-in already.

It's because she thinks it can't rise that she's not announced a new ref.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

No. She is representing the views of her electorate in a way that was clearly laid out in the SNP manifesto.

There's representing her electorate, and then there's lying duplicitousness.

She's a clever multi-tasking woman is Nicola, cos she's managing to do both at the same time.

You, tho, only do the 2nd, and claim it as truth.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

What should she do? Tell her to GTF? 

given that Sturgeon has no power for this, May could rightfully do it.

Sooner of later she'll have to. Just because Sturgeon wants something doesn't get to mean she's a right to get it.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

What utter Tosh.

A strong SNP in Scotland isn't to the Tory party's advantage?

A strong tory party in Westminster isn't to the SNP's advantage?

I'll look forwards to you explaining to me why those things are "utter tosh", cos it'll be ...erm ... interesting.

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

I think you are hugely over-simplifying things here.  I understand the SNP need the Tories argument because every time the UK votes Tory Scotland ain't getting the government we vote for. However, especially at present, I suspect Treeza views the SNP as an irritant she could do without but can't afford to ignore if she wants to maintain the union.

Oh FFS.

Will what May decides to do possibly change Sturgeon's mind about independence...?

Or, just perhaps, might Sturgeon think that independence is best for Scotland no matter what May does?

Meanwhile, if May caves to Sturgeon over this she has to cave to everything - and Sturgeon would still be wanting indy, so it gets May nowhere.

What May does makes absolutely fuck all difference to anything in Sturgeon's mind.

The one with the closed mind is Sturgeon. No matter what Scotland's problem, indy is the answer.

[LJS]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

A clear majority voted to remain with the EU, but a clear majority also voted to go along with UK decisions, too.

That UK no longer exists.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

While she might have a mandate, the mandate she's got is a mandate she'd try to bring about in any and all circumstances, so ultimately it's fuck all to do with the EU and everything to do with the likes of you and her and you and her's want for indy in all circumstances.

Make your mind up Neil. One minute she's running scared of indyref2 & the next she wants it in "any & all circumstances"

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As proven by you not giving a shit about voting yourselves out of the EU in 2014.

I didn't.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Sturgeon even has letters from the EU saying that's what would happen in her office draw.

She hasn't.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

FFS, you really think people are believing the guff you're posting? PMSL.

You do own a mirror?

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Including her proposals for the economic state of Scotland if Scotland goes with its indyref threat.

In due course. But here we are discussing brexit & her proposals to protect scoand's interests. You are again trying to move the goalposts.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What's that? You're saying 'no', that that's not a relevant of her having said she'd do what's best for Scotland's economy? Really?

Where have those pesky goalposts gone now?

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Sorry bud, but if she's claiming an economic case, she needs to lay out that economic case rather than lead idjuts by the nose with empty guff.

For indyref2 , you are right. We are not discussing indyref2. We are discussing brexit.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Principled, you say?

So what about the "mandate" she's already changed - so not a mandate - to suit herself which has fuck all to do with any principle apart from her hope of an indy victory?

She hasn't changed the mandate in any way. 

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Perhaps we should ask ourselves why she's being so secretive about her suggestion, so secretive it's a secret to the people who supposedly gave her a mandate proving it's no mandate.

Maybe she's not finalised them yet.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It wouldn't be that she's holding back as long as possible to ensure her ask is for the impossible, would it?

I have no idea.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Her whipping up false grievance from unthinking numpties isn't what she does, is it?

Well, it's not how I'd describe it.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

About 10 times the Scottish 'remain' population, that's how many remain voting parts there are. Oh, did you miss that?

They're not parts they are people.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And nope, the division of opinion is not anything which the tories created, it's what circumstances created ... unless 40% of Scotland are tories including 30% of SNP voters?

And the "circumstances" just happened did they? They weren't created by a Tory party that prioritised it's own preservation over the preservation of the UK?

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm not arguing about whether it was delivered. I'm arguing that part of the vow promised the continuation of the Barnett formula. But do feel free to change the subject when it's inconvenient for you.

So it's Westminster's fault that you and the SNP are greedy fucks who don't give a shit about the state of Wales?

It's Westminster's fault that the SNP won't consider any amendment?

Then I guess at those fiscal talks Sturgeon's body because inhabited by Westminster tories.

PMSL

I've heard it all now. If you let mindless w*nkers set the narrative, there's only mindless w*nks.

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

Did I support the claims of great wealth? No, I didn't. Incidentally neither did virtually every yes voter i knew. And, in the long run I still don't believe Scotland will be poorer.

Just like a kipper you rejected the experts.

And just like a kipper fucking the UK you'll fuck Scotland like a kipper.

Just like a kipper you still reject the experts today, claiming that GERS says nothing of Scotland's finances if indy .... yet you claimed the same GERS proved in 2014 how rich Scotland would be.

Even Sturgeon isn't as thick as you. She accepts GERS so very much for an iScotland's position she gave it as the whole basis last time.

So in your quest for kipper-like indy-purity you even end up rejecting the biggest proponent, and end up like a kipper wanting to vote stupid but without any follow thru plan.

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

Lie!

Yeah, it's a lie for me to claim that you've welcomed the effect of tory cuts that gets Scotland closer to an unchanged post-indy economy.

Fuck sake, you're the most ridiculous human being ever. Trump looks sane alongside you.

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

Is there some sort of crazy urgency here? No, there isn't. 

If there's no urgency, then Sturgeon can wait around and see if brexit is as bad as some claim.

So ask yourself: if there's no urgency, why isn't she prepared to do that?

So there's urgency, but fuunnily enough not enough urgency for Sturgeon to follow thru. I was going to sarcastically post "I wonder why?" but we all know the why, even you.

Never mind, eh?

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

No. She knows that timing is important. Right now is not the time. Whether you think she is sincere in trying to find a way to keep Scotland in the single market or you think she's playing games, she has to pursue that strategy to the end before going for a referendum.

so you're saying she knows she can only win if she can whip up enough false reverence.

Yep, we all know that. It's what i've been pointing out.

She knows she can't win an honest debate, but only a debate around the false narrative she hopes to create.

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

No they don't.

You want indy yesterday, so the very fact of your urging patience gets to prove you know she can't win.

Jesus.

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

Then I look forwards to the honest white paper that commits Scotland to less wealth.

If it's not and you support it, you know you can only win on a lie.

Like a kipper.

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

She is pressurising May into a soft Brexit rather than a crazy brexit because of the moronic 'Freedom of movement being curtailed is more important than the customs union or single market' idea. 

 

All power to her.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

She is pressurising May into a soft Brexit rather than a crazy brexit because of the moronic 'Freedom of movement being curtailed is more important than the customs union or single market' idea. 

 

All power to her.

May's said more than once that she's not for a hard brexit, so any Sturgeon pressure is ineffective.

Whether we can get what May wants is something different, but what we won't get is Scotland having free movement while rUK doesn't.

Free movement does fuck all for Scotland anyway, if you care to look at the numbers. Sturgeon would do better trying to persuade the Scots already in Scotland to stay in Scotland.

And surely its an indictment of her failings that she's not able to, and so wants others to achieve for her what she can't achieve herself....?

Snippers love to bang on about how small countries can be successful, but none of them are as successful in offering their countrymen the wider range of opportunities that are available in a bigger nation state, and particularly when the small country involved is right on the periphery of an economic zone rather than centrally located within it (there's a reason why Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc are poorer than the central EU states, and it's a flag for an iScotland's future).

Which is why so many Scots head south.

Edited October 25, 2016 by eFestivals