The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

On 4/10/2021 at 4:14 PM, mcshed said:

I've always said if an SNP majority at Holyrood explicitly standing on a referendum in the upcoming term should be allowed to hold a referendum.

Whether a Green/SNP majority has a mandate depends on what the Green manifesto says, they are clearly a pro-Indy party but whether a vote for them is a vote for IndyRef2 remains to be seen.

Thankfully it doesn't look like Alba need to come into consideration but certainly a vote for Alba is clearly a more aggressive vote for Independence so I'd say an SNP/Alba majority would have legitimacy as well.

As for SNP getting above 50% in the constituencies, it would certainly add heft to any claim. Broadly speaking I'm not in favour of ignoring the majority of the populations wishes anything that looks like standing in the way of Scotland making it's own choice only helps the separatists.

 

A vote for the SNP or alba is a vote for the abuse of women in scotland. 

[eFestivals]

On 4/10/2021 at 4:14 PM, mcshed said:

I've always said if an SNP majority at Holyrood explicitly standing on a referendum in the upcoming term should be allowed to hold a referendum.

Whether a Green/SNP majority has a mandate depends on what the Green manifesto says, they are clearly a pro-Indy party but whether a vote for them is a vote for IndyRef2 remains to be seen.

Thankfully it doesn't look like Alba need to come into consideration but certainly a vote for Alba is clearly a more aggressive vote for Independence so I'd say an SNP/Alba majority would have legitimacy as well.

As for SNP getting above 50% in the constituencies, it would certainly add heft to any claim. Broadly speaking I'm not in favour of ignoring the majority of the populations wishes anything that looks like standing in the way of Scotland making it's own choice only helps the separatists.

The first half of Parliament seems awfully soon, for all Neil likes to laugh at the 2014 White Paper it was at least a serious attempt to lay the groundwork for what independence might look like and for all that it missed out or glossed over it was light years ahead of any official analysis of the consequences of Brexit,

 

It was a serious attempt to con the people of scotlandas bad as anything around Brexit. It was the template for the Brexit campaign. 

The holes were so large youd have to want to be conned not to question it. It was a serious attempt  to lie like a tory. 

Quote

 

and where it's assumptions looked dodgy it was a jumping off place for the debate.  I would like to see something similar produced if we are going to have another referendum and not have a Brexit like promise unicorns debate,

 

I DIY t there will even be a commitment to try to join. The EU Sturgeon won't want that can of worms open. 

 

Quote

 

as if we become independent based on lies I'm sure you agree we all suffer.

That wall will need rebuilding to keep the economic refugees out. 

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

It was a serious attempt to con the people of scotlandas bad as anything around Brexit. It was the template for the Brexit campaign. 

The holes were so large youd have to want to be conned not to question it. It was a serious attempt  to lie like a tory. 

I DIY t there will even be a commitment to try to join. The EU Sturgeon won't want that can of worms open. 

 

That wall will need rebuilding to keep the economic refugees out. 

I see amongst all your ranting & raving you haven't found time to answer my question about what constitutes a mandate.

[eFestivals]

On 1/11/2012 at 8:35 AM, Barry Fish said:

The whole independence argument seems to centre around the oil and Scotland's ability to set its own taxation rules.

 

One is going to run out and the other won't bring them the riches they seem to think it will...

 

I think Salmond and that poisoned Krankie are ready to sell Scotland up the river for their own selfish dogma.

 

While I want to stay in a United Kingdom involving Scotland, I don't want it at any cost and I reckon England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be just fine without them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  krankies both regularlymake clear. No lie with hatred is driving their nonthoughts along. Scotland has its own historic issues its never managed to resolve clans and sectarianism. Both of which willcometio the fordin the preundie power vacuum. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

I see amongst all your ranting & raving you haven't found time to answer my question about what constitutes a mandate.

A clear outline in  mamefestoes that is   voted for. Sturgeon has failed with the first so a mandate is not available

Edited April 12, 2021 by eFestivals

[mcshed]

I see Alba are claiming the SNP are paedophiles, they really are mad, to think when they launched I was worried they would become a serious anti-SNP pro-Indy option that would compete with Labour for SNP voters put off by the terrible SNP record in government.

 

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, mcshed said:

I see Alba are claiming the SNP are paedophiles, 

 

Because one sex offender indy party isn't enough 

[eFestivals]

On 4/10/2021 at 11:48 AM, LJS said:

So, Neil (or anyone else passing by)I thought it might be worth asking a serious question.

We spent some time discussing whether the Scottish had a valid mandate for Indyref2 in the last parliament.

So this time round it looks pretty clear that the SNP are "promising" Indyref2 in the first half the next parliamentary term. 

And it also appears clear that the Greens are explicitly and clearly supporting Indy ref2

So what outcome do we need in your view for the Scottish Government to have a mandate for Indyref2 that Westminster ought to recognise?

how about: SNP get over 50% of the constituency vote?

or : SNP get a clear majority of seats in Holyrood?

What about SNP + Green get over 50% in list vote?

or SNP + Green get a clear majority of seats in Holyrood?

Or is it impossible for them to gain a mandate that you would recognise?

I'd say they had a nmandate with everything dabove down to holyrrod setts majority. But I've not followed things closely but as far as I'm aware the SNP have been a bit shy about theirindyrefplans this time round. Also Scotland doesn't get to decide these rthings for itself. If itewasmeant to that would be i the devolution settlement.

 

And last time the SNP didn't honour the result and wsent all trumpclaimiing fakevotes. 

Sowhy should westmi ister respect a mandate the Scottish govt cannot klegally have. 

 

 

On 4/10/2021 at 11:48 AM, LJS said:

 

 

[LJS]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'd say they had a nmandate with everything dabove down to holyrrod setts majority. But I've not followed things closely but as far as I'm aware the SNP have been a bit shy about theirindyrefplans this time round. Also Scotland doesn't get to decide these rthings for itself. If itewasmeant to that would be i the devolution settlement.

 

And last time the SNP didn't honour the result and wsent all trumpclaimiing fakevotes. 

Sowhy should westmi ister respect a mandate the Scottish govt cannot klegally have. 

 

 

 

OK thanks for your opinion(s)

[LJS]

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

I see Alba are claiming the SNP are paedophiles, they really are mad, to think when they launched I was worried they would become a serious anti-SNP pro-Indy option that would compete with Labour for SNP voters put off by the terrible SNP record in government.

I don't want to appear to be defending Ali Baba in any way, however you are not strictly correct. It was StuAnon of Wings over Scotland (also known as the StuKippers) who alleged that the SNP was funding organisations who were lobbying for the age of consent to be reduced to 10. The claims was retweeted (or shared or something) by an Alba party candidate. 

As far as I can tell Alex's Alba has no official policy on whether the SNP are paedophiles or not.

StuAnon's claims are, of course, complete and utter nonsense as shown here...

Quote

 

https://theferret.scot/claim-snp-funding-paedophile-charter-groups-ffs/

The claims made by Wings Over Scotland are false. There is no evidence within the blog to support the claim that these organisations support lowering the age of consent to age 10, and the SNP is not funding any organisations which are. The characterisation of the Feminist Declaration as a ‘paedophile charter’ is not accurate.

 

 

[mcshed]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

The claims was retweeted (or shared or something) by an Alba party candidate. 

As far as I can tell Alex's Alba has no official policy on whether the SNP are paedophiles or not.

I think when you are a party of Alba's size then if one of your MPs is saying something it's fair to say that the party is saying it. Salmond has been sensible enough to not say anything but from what I can see his supporters love it. Not only do the SNP want to lower the age of consent to 10 but somehow it's all trans-activists fault. Whilst all this anti-Trans stuff does seem to get a small base very excited I'm pretty sure it's part of what is holding the party back.

[eFestivals]

User sturgeons first pitch is to make the economic questions 20% harder to answer.

[eFestivals]

Sturgeon does her first proper interview on her indy plans and the bullshit flows think and fast 

With over 30000 Scottish jobs thrown under the bus. The bus with lies on the side. 

Scotland too clever to be trusted with the truth 

https://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2021/04/analysing-sturgeons-stv-interview.html?m=1

Edited April 16, 2021 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Sturgeon does her first proper interview on her indy plans and the bullshit flows think and fast 

With over 30000 Scottish jobs thrown under the bus. The bus with lies on the side. 

Scotland too clever to be trusted with the truth 

https://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2021/04/analysing-sturgeons-stv-interview.html?m=1

Your pal Kev is slipping - a whole blogpost with not a graph in sight. At least he still has the "cost of everything, value of nothing" Schtick going on.

Personally, I thought it was a pretty decent performance from Sturgeon. But, hey I would think that just as you and Kev would think the precise opposite.

There are two questions at this election which tower above all others:

1: who is best placed to lead Scotland out of Covid & into recovery? Sadly the political landscape, not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK is seriously short of reliable & inspiring leaders. At least in Sturgeon, we have one who, at least in part, fits the bill. Not sure there are many more in any part of the UK. (though the Welsh have at least a couple of contenders) No one else is even pretending they have a hope in hell of being first minister.

2: Should there be a second independence referendum? Simple. not "how big is Scotland's deficit?" Or "would we have got a vaccine if we weren't in the UK?" or "do we have a lender of last resort?"  These are questions for a referendum campaign.  The question for now is whether the "union of equals", the "union of consent" is going to be replaced by a Spanish style "Union of no escape" 

Opinion polls suggest that you & Kev won't be liking the Scottish electorate's answer to either of these questions.

Back on the subject of your mate Chokka: he wrote a blogpost in January 2018 entitled "Bonds of Union: Part I"  https://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2018/01/bonds-of-union-part-i.html?m=0 which to summarise very briefly and approximately said that supporters of the Union have to do more than say Independence is shite and that relying on a purely economic argument against independence is not enough ( yeah I know its funny). They have to sell a positive case for the benefits of the union.

he ends "part 1"by saying

"If we're to create a case that combines Napolean's one part physical with the three parts moral, we need to get right back to basics and take a holistic view of what makes a union work  - and that, my weary reader, is what we'll focus on in Part II."

3 years & 3 months later we're still waiting or part 2. I guess he's still trying to find the positive points for the Union.

 

 

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, LJS said:

Your pal Kev is slipping - a whole blogpost with not a graph in sight. At least he still has the "cost of everything, value of nothing" Schtick going on.

Personally, I thought it was a pretty decent performance from Sturgeon.

 

Yeah but you have drunk the kooaid.ad even with kev poinytiuti out the questions that need to be asked you think she has akklll angles overed you you and sturgeon care ofot your country like a Tory does.

Quote

 

But, hey I would think that just as you and Kev would think the precise opposite.

There are two questions at this election which tower above all others:

1: who is best placed to lead Scotland out of Covid & into recovery?

The equal funding from a union of equals

You o know every nat references he wrong act of union it's the 1803 version which appies.

Quote

 

 

Sadly the political landscape, not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK is seriously short of reliable & inspiring leaders.

Including in Scolend where you have otwo of Farage caliber.one a Putin stooge.

 

 

 

 

At least in Sturgeon, we have one who, at least in part, fits the bil

 

As the Scottish farage.

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

 Not sure there are many more in any part of the UK. (though the Welsh have at least a couple of contenders) No one else is even pretending they have a hope in hell of being first minister.

2: Should there be a second independence referendum? Simple. not "how big is Scotland's deficit?" Or "would we have got a vaccine if we weren't in the UK?" or "do we have a lender of last resort?"  These are questions for a referendum campaign.  The question for now is whether the "union of equals", the "union of consent" is going to be replaced by a Spanish style "Union of no escape" 

Opinion polls suggest that you & Kev won't be liking the Scottish electorate's answer to either of these questions.

Back on the subject of your mate Chokka: he wrote a blogpost in January 2018 entitled "Bonds of Union: Part I"  https://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2018/01/bonds-of-union-part-i.html?m=0 which to summarise very briefly and approximately said that supporters of the Union have to do more than say Independence is shite and that relying on a purely economic argument against independence is not enough ( yeah I know its funny). They have to sell a positive case for the benefits of the union.

he ends "part 1"by saying

"If we're to create a case that combines Napolean's one part physical with the three parts moral, we need to get right back to basics and take a holistic view of what makes a union work  - and that, my weary reader, is what we'll focus on in Part II."

3 years & 3 months later we're still waiting or part 2. I guess he's still trying to find the positive points for the Union.

 

 

Hi

Edited April 16, 2021 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yeah but you have drunk the kooaid.ad even with kev poinytiuti out the questions that need to be asked you think she has akklll angles overed you you and sturgeon care ofot your country like a Tory does.

Neither Kev nor you decode what questions need to be asked

Quote

The equal funding from a union of equals

You o know every nat references he wrong act of union it's the 1803 version which appies.

Firstly, I made no reference to any particular piece of legislation. Nor did I invent one, which you appear to have done - unless of course you have just got the year wrong. Anyway- if you have a point to make, just make it instead of trying (& failing) to prove how clever you are. 

Quote

 

As the Scottish farage.

Hi

The thing I particularly like about this post is that, for someone who repeatedly (and wrongly) claims that I dodge discussing the issues, you have dodged discussing the main issues I raised, preferring ad nauseum & ad hominem attacks.

'Twas ever thus.

 

 

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, LJS said:

Neither Kev nor you decode what questions need to be a

Not do you which is the problem for you and your future and the future of Scotland?

Quote

 

Firstly, I made no reference to any particular piece of legislation.

But you did make reference to what you think some legislation offers

Quote

 

or did I invent one, which you appear to have done - unless of course you have just

 

the year wrong.

There's more than one Act of Unionbeith the second superceedding the first

Quote

 

 

Anyway- if you have a point to make, just make it instead of trying (& failing) to prove how clever you are.

You want to pretend that Scotland has something less than equal status th whole indy thing is built on falsehoods

 

Quote

The thing I particularly like about this post is that, for someone who repeatedly (and wrongly) claims that I dodge discussing the issues, you have dodged discussing the main issues I raised, preferring ad nauseum & ad hominem attacks.

'Twas ever thus.

 

The issues you raised was you or hatreds driven by your acceptance of lies from a liar.

You claimed a great politician of someone of the character of Farage.not worth the effort.

Edited April 16, 2021 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not do you which is the problem for you and your future and the future of Scotland?

But you did make reference to what you think some legislation offers

There's more than one Act of Unionwth the second super wedding the first

but not in 1803. so what exactly are you claiming of what piece of legislation? & why - I never referenced legislation. I referred to all the assurances (aka lies) that we were given in 2014. 

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You want to pretend that Scotland has something less than equal status th whole indy thing is built on falsehoods

the "whole indy thing" is built on the democratic right of folk who live in Scotland to determine how they are governed. Which is based on the notion that the Union is based on mutual consent.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

The issues you raised was youor hatreds driven by your acceptance of lies from a liiar.

The issues I raised were the issues that are dominating the election in Scotland. 

I'm curious as to who I am meant to be hating. Is it the bastard English again?

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You claimed a great politician of someone of the character of Farage.

I don't believe there is anyone vaguely resembling a great politician in a senior position in any party in the UK at present.

Here is what I actually said

"Sadly the political landscape, not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK is seriously short of reliable & inspiring leaders. At least in Sturgeon, we have one who, at least in part, fits the bill."

In case you don't understand that, I'm saying Sturgeon is the best of a pretty miserable bunch.

 

[LJS]

2 reasons for posting this 

1: because it partly explains why my list vote will be green as it usually is

2: because I can link back to it when Neil claims the Greens were not 100% behind indy

 

 

[eFestivals]

On 4/12/2021 at 5:32 PM, eFestivals said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  krankies both regularlymake clear. No lie with hatred is driving their nonthoughts along. Scotland has its own historic issues its never managed to resolve clans and sectarianism. Both of which willcometio the fordin the preundie power vacuum. 

 

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

but not in 1803. so what exactly are you claiming of what piece of legislation? & why - I never referenced legislation. I referred to all the assurances (aka lies) that we were given in 2014. 

the "whole indy thing" is built on the democratic right of folk who live in Scotland to determine how they are governed.

Which it did and is being rejected and not respected by Scots.

Quote

 

 

Which is based on the notion that the Union is based on mutual consent.

It was until People like you trash Scottish consent.

Quote

The issues I raised were the issues that are dominating the election in Scotland. 

I'm curious as to who I am meant to be hating. Is it the bastard English again?

And Scotland s consent

Quote

I don't believe there is anyone vaguely resembling a great politician in a senior position in any party in the UK at present.

Here is what I actually said

"Sadly the political landscape, not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK is seriously short of reliable & inspiring leaders. At least in Sturgeon, we have one who, at least in part, fits the bill."

And you say that just after Stugeon showed herself unreliable with a big heap of kies

Quote

In case you don't understand that, I'm saying Sturgeon is the best of a pretty miserable bunch.

 

Low standards

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

2 reasons for posting this 

1: because it partly explains why my list vote will be green as it usually is

2: because I can link back to it when Neil claims the Greens were not 100% behind indy

 

 

Greener by burning all the ooilbis that not the plan this time.greener funded by the partner which treats Scotland badly

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

but not in 1803. so what exactly are you claiming of what piece of legislation? & why - I never referenced legislation. I referred to all the assurances (aka lies) that we were given in 2014. 

Which you claimed would be scotland sbbrihht future but couldn't recognise as lies even when explained in detail to you salmonds oil lies.

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

the "whole indy thing" is built on the democratic right of folk who live in Scotland to determine how they are governed. Which is based on the notion that the Union is based on mutual consent.

The issues I raised were the issues that are dominating the election in Scotland. 

I'm curious as to who I am meant to be hating. Is it the bastard English again?

I don't believe there is anyone vaguely resembling a great politician in a senior position in any party in the UK at present.

Here is what I actually said

"Sadly the political landscape, not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK is seriously short of reliable & inspiring leaders. At least in Sturgeon, we have one who, at least in part, fits the bill."

In case you don't understand that, I'm saying Sturgeon is the best of a pretty miserable bunch.

 

 

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Which it did and is being rejected and not respected by Scots.

wrong

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It was until People like you trash Scottish consent.

wrong again

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And Scotland s consent

repeating something that is wrong does not make it right.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And you say that just after Stugeon showed herself unreliable with a big heap of kies

Low standards

I agree. the standard of people in politics is not a patch on what it was in the mid 20th Century. where are the Healeys, the Jenkins, the Benns, The Footes (feet?) the Heseltines, the Howes. I coudl go on.  You can pick & choose your personal favourites but there is no one I can see on the scene today (including Sturgeon) who is of that sort of calibre. It concerns me. 

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Greener by burning all the ooilbis that not the plan this time.greener funded by the partner which treats Scotland badly

They want to leave the oil in the ground & as they want independence they don't want funded by anyone.

Do keep up.

[LJS]

27 minutes ago, LJS said:

but not in 1803. so what exactly are you claiming of what piece of legislation? & why - I never referenced legislation. I referred to all the assurances (aka lies) that we were given in 2014. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Which you claimed would be scotland sbbrihht future but couldn't recognise as lies even when explained in detail to you salmonds oil lies.

 

I was clearly referring to all the lies we were told about how much we were respected as "equal partners" in the Union. Equal partners have the right to leave if they choose. 
and you still haven't explained what you are on about with your mysterious 1803 legislation & its magic powers.

[kaosmark2]

How frequently do you think is appropriate for a referendum?