|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 26, 2023 22:19:57 GMT
One word: Brexit. Also, there is no reason why people should not continue fighting for the cause. Did Labour stop campaigning because they lost four elections in succession? Another reason for continuing the fight is the possibility that electoral fraud was carried out. A wee anecdote: I was present at the close of polling, as an SNP polling Agent, in one of the rural Moray polling stations. They did not seal the ballot boxes. I queried it and was told that there was no requirement to do this. I thought that was strange but accepted what was said by the staff. There were no police officers present which I thought unusual. I checked the Electoral Commission's website and found that Ballot Boxes have to be sealed at elections. Whatever the agreement was between BT & YES, not sealing the boxes left it wide open for the 'dark forces' to stuff them with a few extra voting slips. Just saying www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-11/UKPGE%20Polling%20Station%20Handbook%20final%20English%20web.pdf (p19) Oh, Brexit Smexit! That’s just the excuse that the Indy movement came up with to try to disguise the fact that they held the Scottish people’s decision in contempt and that they never had any intention of honouring it. If it hadn’t been Brexit it would have been something else equally as irrelevant and inappropriate. I agree that there is no reason why people should not keep fighting for the cause, but not for another referendum. Unlike the example you give of Labour and General Elections ( or were you thinking Holyrood elections - or maybe both?) where the next election is never that far away and campaigning never really stops, the granting of the 2014 referendum by UK govt. was a one-off concession on its part, with no obligation and no setting of a precedent for another to be held at any time thereafter (or ever, in point of fact). Add that to what we see playing out in front of us right now, with SNP ScotGov trying desperately to do something, anything, to force things on but just showing themselves to be impotent to do so, providing evidence, if we needed it, that all of the power over a referendum decision lies with UK govt. then, in my view, the obsession with Indyref 2 has been a major strategic gaff by Indy movement. There was probably never going to be another referendum anyway ( except a confirmatory one, perhaps) but I think that we can almost certainly rule one out now for as far as the eye can see. The Indy movement should have been more astute and concentrated on building up support for independence to a level that took it beyond the critical tipping point, thereby wrestling the power away from UK govt. and putting into the Scottish people’s hands instead. That’s what they need to be getting on with now, I reckon. i am not sure that my first reaction to a few unsealed ballot boxes in one polling station would be to suspect a nationwide conspiracy, rather than one local overseer just making a simple mistake. I think that you are allowing your imagination to run a bit too wild if you entertain serious thoughts of a systematic plot, involving polling station staff and ballot box collection personnel from across the nation, who were all, presumably, willing to participate in electoral fraud, a fraud that benefitted one outcome (either YES or NO btw) and disadvantaged the other, particularly as we can reasonably assume that these people will have been just as much split in their views on the issue of independence as the nation was in general. You underestimate the Scottish people. They know that there was an overwhelming majority for Remaining and, according to Opinion Polls support for going back in has increased. To say that it is unimportant is to misread the political scene spectacularly. You obviously have not taken in what I said on the other forum re the upsurge in support for Indyref2. The thinking was that if the Referendum was lost Independence would be in the doldrums for years - just as it was after the robbery of 1979. It was the upsurge in membership that forced the hierarchy to think again. It was a bottom-up movement. The party went along with the mood of the day but, thinking back, the leadership was never very pro-active in forcing the issue. I say all that as a party member (at the time). You may disagree but what would you know about it? I can assure you that, apart from the few weeks after the election, the Yes movement has been campaigning - although it became a bit moribund some years ago, it is back and ready to act as soon as the whistle goes. There is nothing to say that a 2nd referendum cannot happen. It is not set in stone in our unwritten constitution. And, we have the real situation of NI which could have a referendum every seven years. Why not Scotland? Your argument has no merit whatsoever. The SNP listened to those who called for the polls to be at 60% for a certain period of time. That latter part was never spelt out. We were never told how long the period of time would last. Because of Wishart and his cohort we wasted valuable campaigning time. 20%+ was added to Indy support over the campaign period. A campaign now, I am fairly certain, would see us firmly over the line. In what way was it a mistake? I mean what do you think the SNP is in existence for? Dismissing it doesn't alter the fact that it happened and it wasn't an error. These guys are thoroughly trained on the do's and don'ts of the job. You know, I'm beginning to wonder about you. we all know your fence sitting was a lie but now I must ask, do you actually live in Scotland? You seem to have some weird and wonderful notions which sort of lead me to believe you don't. If that was what happened in one instance, and I was told that it wasn't necessary to do it, you can be really sure ballot boxes were not sealed throughout Scotland. If you think that the State would not stoop to fraud to win the day, you are more naive than I gave you credit for. Had YES won, the game would have been over for the UK. The establishment would have gone to any lengths to prevent that from happening. It is the likes of MI5, Special Branch or whatever Governmen body is wound up in dodgy dealings I am claiming did the dirty deed. I have no proof of course but then the way those guys work means there wouldn't be. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 26, 2023 22:24:53 GMT
It makes no difference. We know how Scotland voted. Dragging us out against our will will be a major part of any Indy campaign Postcode wasn't part of the question. The UK voted to leave the EU. Scotland wasn't on the ballot. The UK voted for independence. Take advantage of it instead of sulking. You say you're a leftie, this is the opportunity for your rabid party to actually put into practice some left wing policies with the sovereignty we've devolved to you. We voted 62-38% to Remain. That's all I and other Scots know and accept. None of your UK bullshit will wash come the next stage of our adventure. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 26, 2023 22:27:32 GMT
WRONG.
It was a UK WIDE VOTE on whether the UK would stay in or leave.
17.41m to 16.1m with no consideration of postcode.
Don't twist it Morayloon.
Scotland voted 55% to 45% to stay in the UK knowing full well this referendum was coming.
2 million Scots voted to stay in the UK.
And the UK voted for independence from the EU.
Make the most of the situation instead of bitching about it.
Told you some benefits the tin pot Holyrood Junta could take advantage of if they actually cared about politics rather than England bashing.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 26, 2023 23:19:52 GMT
WRONG. It was a UK WIDE VOTE on whether the UK would stay in or leave. 17.41m to 16.1m with no consideration of postcode. Don't twist it Morayloon. Scotland voted 55% to 45% to stay in the UK knowing full well this referendum was coming. 2 million Scots voted to stay in the UK. And the UK voted for independence from the EU. Make the most of the situation instead of bitching about it. Told you some benefits the tin pot Holyrood Junta could take advantage of if they actually cared about politics rather than England bashing. 62%-38% enough said |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 26, 2023 23:58:21 GMT
Oh, Brexit Smexit! That’s just the excuse that the Indy movement came up with to try to disguise the fact that they held the Scottish people’s decision in contempt and that they never had any intention of honouring it. If it hadn’t been Brexit it would have been something else equally as irrelevant and inappropriate. I agree that there is no reason why people should not keep fighting for the cause, but not for another referendum. Unlike the example you give of Labour and General Elections ( or were you thinking Holyrood elections - or maybe both?) where the next election is never that far away and campaigning never really stops, the granting of the 2014 referendum by UK govt. was a one-off concession on its part, with no obligation and no setting of a precedent for another to be held at any time thereafter (or ever, in point of fact). Add that to what we see playing out in front of us right now, with SNP ScotGov trying desperately to do something, anything, to force things on but just showing themselves to be impotent to do so, providing evidence, if we needed it, that all of the power over a referendum decision lies with UK govt. then, in my view, the obsession with Indyref 2 has been a major strategic gaff by Indy movement. There was probably never going to be another referendum anyway ( except a confirmatory one, perhaps) but I think that we can almost certainly rule one out now for as far as the eye can see. The Indy movement should have been more astute and concentrated on building up support for independence to a level that took it beyond the critical tipping point, thereby wrestling the power away from UK govt. and putting into the Scottish people’s hands instead. That’s what they need to be getting on with now, I reckon. i am not sure that my first reaction to a few unsealed ballot boxes in one polling station would be to suspect a nationwide conspiracy, rather than one local overseer just making a simple mistake. I think that you are allowing your imagination to run a bit too wild if you entertain serious thoughts of a systematic plot, involving polling station staff and ballot box collection personnel from across the nation, who were all, presumably, willing to participate in electoral fraud, a fraud that benefitted one outcome (either YES or NO btw) and disadvantaged the other, particularly as we can reasonably assume that these people will have been just as much split in their views on the issue of independence as the nation was in general. You underestimate the Scottish people. They know that there was an overwhelming majority for Remaining and, according to Opinion Polls support for going back in has increased. To say that it is unimportant is to misread the political scene spectacularly. You obviously have not taken in what I said on the other forum re the upsurge in support for Indyref2. The thinking was that if the Referendum was lost Independence would be in the doldrums for years - just as it was after the robbery of 1979. It was the upsurge in membership that forced the hierarchy to think again. It was a bottom-up movement. The party went along with the mood of the day but, thinking back, the leadership was never very pro-active in forcing the issue. I say all that as a party member (at the time). You may disagree but what would you know about it? I can assure you that, apart from the few weeks after the election, the Yes movement has been campaigning - although it became a bit moribund some years ago, it is back and ready to act as soon as the whistle goes. There is nothing to say that a 2nd referendum cannot happen. It is not set in stone in our unwritten constitution. And, we have the real situation of NI which could have a referendum every seven years. Why not Scotland? Your argument has no merit whatsoever. The SNP listened to those who called for the polls to be at 60% for a certain period of time. That latter part was never spelt out. We were never told how long the period of time would last. Because of Wishart and his cohort we wasted valuable campaigning time. 20%+ was added to Indy support over the campaign period. A campaign now, I am fairly certain, would see us firmly over the line. In what way was it a mistake? I mean what do you think the SNP is in existence for? Dismissing it doesn't alter the fact that it happened and it wasn't an error. These guys are thoroughly trained on the do's and don'ts of the job. You know, I'm beginning to wonder about you. we all know your fence sitting was a lie but now I must ask, do you actually live in Scotland? You seem to have some weird and wonderful notions which sort of lead me to believe you don't. If that was what happened in one instance, and I was told that it wasn't necessary to do it, you can be really sure ballot boxes were not sealed throughout Scotland. If you think that the State would not stoop to fraud to win the day, you are more naive than I gave you credit for. Had YES won, the game would have been over for the UK. The establishment would have gone to any lengths to prevent that from happening. It is the likes of MI5, Special Branch or whatever Governmen body is wound up in dodgy dealings I am claiming did the dirty deed. I have no proof of course but then the way those guys work means there wouldn't be. I said “irrelevant and inappropriate” - not unimportant. Oh, I took in what you said on the other forum, but I am not naive enough (as you seem to be) to believe it. SNP never, at any stage before, during, or after the indyref, planned to honour a NO vote for any longer than it would take them to find any excuse not to. If you believe that claptrap about reluctantly and humbly bowing to public demand then you were obviously an unthinking footsoldier, prepared to slavishly buy into and promote anything you were fed back then. That’s what I know about it. All that you say in your 4th paragraph up to the point where you ask “Why not Scotland?” is correct but so what? The answer to your “Why not Scotland?” is that the UK’s default position, just like every other country in the world, I suspect, is to resist any pressure on its borders from both external and internal sources. It actually demonstrates how much more liberal the UK is than most other countries that it permitted an indyref at all. Having done so, however, and while it isn’t directly saying so, it won’t risk destabilising the country again - so it considers the question asked and answered and it will not be asked again. That’s just how it is whether you like it or not and whether it has ever been expressly stated or not. However, if we ever find ourselves with another referendum campaign up and running then feel free to tell me that I was wrong. You seem to enjoy doing that when I am not wrong so doubtless it will be a thrill for you to do so if I actually am wrong on something. You might be right that another referendum campaign would get you “over the line” ( I am not sure if you mean 60% here or just 50% +1) but you are just not grasping the point that we will almost certainly never get another referendum (or not in any timescale that either you or I will survive to see the end of). You really need to think about how inconsistent some of your beliefs are. You incessantly make all sorts of comments about the UK government being a parcel of rabid unionist so and sos, that they conspire to falsify information and twist stories, are in cahoots with unionist rags to promote unionist propaganda, and that they adopt all other sorts of corrupt practices and behaviours all designed to to keep the colony of Scotland under the shadow of the butchers block etc etc (sorry, I am trying to parody you here but I can’t get anywhere close to as surreal as you are in full flow, and you are being deadly serious when you say these things too. Jings!). So, if that is the case, then why would a UK government, that does all of that because it desperately wants to hold on to Scotland, even contemplate allowing another referendum that might very well result in precisely what you believe it is determined to prevent, if it doesn’t have to? This is simple joining of the dot stuff - but basic joined up thinking really does not seem to feature in the skillset of any of our Indy fanatics. It was a mistake for the reasons given in my last post. I think that the SNP is in existence to pursue and deliver an independent Scotland. Am I anywhere close to being right in thinking that?. Yes, I was born in Scotland, to Scottish parents who, in turn, both had Scottish parents, and I have lived all of my life in Scotland, with Scottish children and grandchildren. I am every bit as Scottish as you but I don’t allow that to corrupt my thinking or skew my perspective of the world, as I believe you do. I do, however, live in a quite different part of Scotland than where, from your name and some comments you make, I assume you live. The collective view of people down here in my part of the nation is somewhat different than in yours, I suspect. Indeed, I live in the chunk of Scotland that is still NO leaning and which, if independence ever materialises, might demand to stay in the UK and leave you guys in the north to follow your dream without forcing us to endure the nightmare. And then, on cue, is your final paragraph with all the usual state conspiracy theory stuff designed to keep Scotland in the union etc etc while, at the same time, you still hang onto the conviction that that self-same state is going give you the keys to the doorway to freedom by voluntarily sanctioning another indyref. Yet you have the nerve to call me naive! |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 27, 2023 0:47:53 GMT
Question for Morayloon:
Did Michael Gove ever actually publish the data on the Westminster independence polling results that the government suppressed and were told to release after Tommy Sheppard and SNP MPs'successful FOI appeal? I can't find any information about whether they complied or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 27, 2023 1:45:25 GMT
I said “irrelevant and inappropriate” - not unimportant. Oh, I took in what you said on the other forum, but I am not naive enough (as you seem to be) to believe it. SNP never, at any stage before, during, or after the indyref, planned to honour a NO vote for any longer than it would take them to find any excuse not to. If you believe that claptrap about reluctantly and humbly bowing to public demand then you were obviously an unthinking footsoldier, prepared to slavishly buy into and promote anything you were fed back then. That’s what I know about it. All that you say in your 4th paragraph up to the point where you ask “Why not Scotland?” is correct but so what? The answer to your “Why not Scotland?” is that the UK’s default position, just like every other country in the world, I suspect, is to resist any pressure on its borders from both external and internal sources. It actually demonstrates how much more liberal the UK is than most other countries that it permitted an indyref at all. Having done so, however, and while it isn’t directly saying so, it won’t risk destabilising the country again - so it considers the question asked and answered and it will not be asked again. That’s just how it is whether you like it or not and whether it has ever been expressly stated or not. However, if we ever find ourselves with another referendum campaign up and running then feel free to tell me that I was wrong. You seem to enjoy doing that when I am not wrong so doubtless it will be a thrill for you to do so if I actually am wrong on something. You might be right that another referendum campaign would get you “over the line” ( I am not sure if you mean 60% here or just 50% +1) but you are just not grasping the point that we will almost certainly never get another referendum (or not in any timescale that either you or I will survive to see the end of). You really need to think about how inconsistent some of your beliefs are. You incessantly make all sorts of comments about the UK government being a parcel of rabid unionist so and sos, that they conspire to falsify information and twist stories, are in cahoots with unionist rags to promote unionist propaganda, and that they adopt all other sorts of corrupt practices and behaviours all designed to to keep the colony of Scotland under the shadow of the butchers block etc etc (sorry, I am trying to parody you here but I can’t get anywhere close to as surreal as you are in full flow, and you are being deadly serious when you say these things too. Jings!). So, if that is the case, then why would a UK government, that does all of that because it desperately wants to hold on to Scotland, even contemplate allowing another referendum that might very well result in precisely what you believe it is determined to prevent, if it doesn’t have to? This is simple joining of the dot stuff - but basic joined up thinking really does not seem to feature in the skillset of any of our Indy fanatics. It was a mistake for the reasons given in my last post. I think that the SNP is in existence to pursue and deliver an independent Scotland. Am I anywhere close to being right in thinking that?. Yes, I was born in Scotland, to Scottish parents who, in turn, both had Scottish parents, and I have lived all of my life in Scotland, with Scottish children and grandchildren. I am every bit as Scottish as you but I don’t allow that to corrupt my thinking or skew my perspective of the world, as I believe you do. I do, however, live in a quite different part of Scotland than where, from your name and some comments you make, I assume you live. The collective view of people down here in my part of the nation is somewhat different than in yours, I suspect. Indeed, I live in the chunk of Scotland that is still NO leaning and which, if independence ever materialises, might demand to stay in the UK and leave you guys in the north to follow your dream without forcing us to endure the nightmare. And then, on cue, is your final paragraph with all the usual state conspiracy theory stuff designed to keep Scotland in the union etc etc while, at the same time, you still hang onto the conviction that that self-same state is going give you the keys to the doorway to freedom by voluntarily sanctioning another indyref. Yet you have the nerve to call me naive! 1. You can prove your accusation can you? Thought not. As a member of the party, at the time, I think I am better placed than you to speak on the feelings within the Party. 2. If the SNP was seriously seeking a rerun why have they been doing all in their power to steer us away from the idea of a Referendum, never mind Independence? We were told to ditch the idea of calling it Indyref2, it must be called something else. We were told in 2015, 16 & 17 that the election was not a vote for Independence. Then in 2019 they played the referendum and Independence card again and they won back most of the seats lost in 2017. Only for the promise to be side-lined. 3. My god, you really are up yourself! I am seriously becoming more aware that your knowledge of the Scottish political scene is wanting. 4. Your response is rather telling. Dismissing out of hand the prospect of another Referendum is rather naive. Who knows what the future will bring. I have had many conversations with the likes of you - people who think they know it all, who kept on predicting the demise of the SNP and the aim of Independence. I've heard many outlandish assertions which have never come to fruition. Perhaps you will have to eat your words. 5. So what it is going to do if Alba's plan becomes a reality? Are they going to outlaw the resultant election because the YES parties are going to use it as this defacto referendum which, if we win, will lead to the party opening negotiations with rUK. They are not going to risk it so something will happen to prevent it becoming a reality: perhaps a wee word in Sturgeon's ear, from whoever has been pulling her strings, not to do a thing will suffice 6. I only ever accuse you of being wrong when you are wrong and that, unfortunately for you, happens quite a lot. 7. Again you seem blissfully unaware of the nature of the work of the 'dark forces'. You go on about how the Government will not allow this that or the next thing. Well the foot soldiers in MI5 etc are the ones tasked with ensuring (if it can) that the Brit state won't come tumbling down. They do that by any means possible. 8. "Inconsistent"? I don't think so. My belief is that Scotland should be an Independent country and I will campaign to that end until it happens or, until my life is ended. 9. All the hurdles put in our way have been overcome given time. In 1979 we were robbed but we waited 18 years until the establishment realised it had no option but to grant a level of devolution. We then faced sixteen years for the referendum which was obviously lost but we await the next twist in the saga. That will happen. In the video you linked to, the economist stated that it was just a matter of time. The 70+ population are dying off. The ones coming behind are not so thirled to the UK and the younger ones are very pro-Independence. The demographics are on our side. Was that something you did not pick up on when viewing the video? Or, did you just ignore it because id did not fit in with your beliefs. 10. Indeed that is what they are supposed to be about but, since Sturgeon took over, we have not moved one inch further toward the goal the SNP is in existence to achieve. I think we all went along with her for six maybe seven years before members came to the realisation that she had given up on the raison d'etre of the party. People moved away and when Salmond joined Alba many saw that as the means to get what we all want ... hopefully pressurise Sturgeon into doing something. 11. I also live in a NO voting area but, I do not think those people who are anti-Independence would countenance partitioning Scotland. I think your statement is frankly ridiculous. Maybe you should move to England and let the rest of us get on with running our country, free from negative people like you. On the point of partitioning, it may have escaped your notice that the cities of Dundee & Glasgow did not seek to form new statelets in 2014. Your idea of partitioning worked well in Ireland, didn't it. 12. Don't kid yourself. I know exactly what the state will do to prevent Independence from happening. The difference between you and me is that I know we can overcome any obstacles the state puts in our way |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 27, 2023 2:16:37 GMT
Question for Morayloon: Did Michael Gove ever actually publish the data on the Westminster independence polling results that the government suppressed and were told to release after Tommy Sheppard and SNP MPs'successful FOI appeal? I can't find any information about whether they complied or not. No they kept stalling and not complying with rulings that the information be released. The last bit of info I saw was a Court case in September having hired leading human rights lawyer firm Bindmans to fight the case www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20897532.snp-mp-tommy-sheppard-hires-law-firm-won-clive-ponting-case/I have been googling, as i think you have been, but there is no word of a judgement. I suppose, it only being about 5 months since the court sat, the ruling might not have been made yet. There is definitely something afoot when Gove went to such lengths to prevent the findings becoming public knowledge. I mean what can one make his handling of the affair? Parties hiding results of polls they commissioned is not that rare. For example I have taken part in 2 recent Panelbase Scottish polls. The results of the first one were never published and, as for the second one a lot has been divulged - Independence polling, views on the Gender issue - but the party support questions have not seen the light of day. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 27, 2023 2:31:49 GMT
1. So you have no proof
2. They were and are serious, from my view and from most others perspective too, I reckon. Maybe they are just not as aggressive and reckless as the extremists want them to be.
3. I have no idea what you are referencing here
4.No, it is not naive. It is a sensible reading of the situation. You, on the other hand, are totally self- contradictory if you feel that UK govt. will say yes to any initiative for independence or recognise any attempt at claiming de facto authority.
5. See 4 above. Only Indy supporters (and then only some of them) will treat this de facto stuff seriously, I reckon. The rest of us will studiously ignore the desperate shenanigans
6. I am only wrong based upon the perceived wisdom of Indyworld. In the real world I am in touch with the real world facts.
7. Protecting our country’s borders is a key duty of our government. That the government will not allow “this, that, or anything” that threatens our borders from inside or outside is the basis of my argument, but you reject it on one hand and then agree with it on the other. Totally all over the place, dude!
8. Inconsistent as demonstrated above, yes.
9.I don’t ignore things that do not fit in with my beliefs and, as a result, my beliefs change. That is an unfamiliar concept for you to grasp, obviously. You might be right about future generations not going through the journey from radical to cautious but human nature being what it is, we take chances when we have nothing to lose and other people have to pick up the tab, but are safe and steady when we have built up our little stack. I don’t imagine the next couple of generations will be so different deep down, just in terms of their experiences- so as they acquire they will become more protective of the status quo, just as generations before them did.. A problem these days, however, is that it is generally taking younger people a lot longer to get to that tipping point into the safe and steady mode, This reflects badly upon our society but I can see that it is probably a window of opportunity for the Indy movement.
10. So it seems that I know something about Scottish politics.
11.But your NO voting area is not part of a continuous piece of land that forms a border with England to the south as mine is. so while this idea would be a non-starter up there, I think that, in this area, this idea potentially could have legs if we ever get to the stage where a decision has to be made. Dundee and Glasgow would not have been allowed to go independent as separate city states (and that idea is frankly a non-starter) but the area that I am talking about is perhaps as much as 30% (?) of Scotland’s area. I see nothing wrong in principle with that and, as you point out, there is a precedent to point to. There is certainly no reason why the historic area of Scotland must remain intact and all go Indy.
12. Too cryptic to understand never mind answer. The difference between you and me is that I understand why the obstacles are put in place and I don’t find them objectionable. That is just until we pass the critical tipping point of support for Indy, obviously, then they must be removed
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 27, 2023 6:36:55 GMT
Hi happyjack and morayloon
What do you think of the methodology in the OP?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 27, 2023 9:17:13 GMT
WRONG. It was a UK WIDE VOTE on whether the UK would stay in or leave. 17.41m to 16.1m with no consideration of postcode. Don't twist it Morayloon. Scotland voted 55% to 45% to stay in the UK knowing full well this referendum was coming. 2 million Scots voted to stay in the UK. And the UK voted for independence from the EU. Make the most of the situation instead of bitching about it. Told you some benefits the tin pot Holyrood Junta could take advantage of if they actually cared about politics rather than England bashing. 62%-38% enough said WRONG. 17.41m to 16.1m the Scotland vote was no more relevant than the London vote, it was a UK Referendum, not a London referendum, not a Scotland referendum. The UK is a sovereign country and held membership of the EU, Scotland is a member state, nothing more. Get over your bruised ego and look at the benefits of sovereignty that UK independence has provided to Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 27, 2023 9:29:02 GMT
Are you denying northern ireland retained things like eu citizenship and ecj jurisdiction ?
Nope, you said that Northern Ireland is in the EU, itself. It ISN'T.
Start paying attention instead of backpedalling.
You made a completely dishonest statement.
Btw, if Scotland had the same arrangement as Northern Ireland there would be a hard border with the rest of the UK.
It would require paying for.
Do you want our taxes to go up ? I don't.
It is in the EU. You can squeal all you like , but the point is the very things brexiters said they didnt like about eu membership still apply in northern ireland.
Head in the sand denying reality makes you look foolish.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 27, 2023 9:38:10 GMT
1. So you have no proof 2. They were and are serious, from my view and from most others perspective too, I reckon. Maybe they are just not as aggressive and reckless as the extremists want them to be. 3. I have no idea what you are referencing here 4.No, it is not naive. It is a sensible reading of the situation. You, on the other hand, are totally self- contradictory if you feel that UK govt. will say yes to any initiative for independence or recognise any attempt at claiming de facto authority. 5. See 4 above. Only Indy supporters (and then only some of them) will treat this de facto stuff seriously, I reckon. The rest of us will studiously ignore the desperate shenanigans 6. I am only wrong based upon the perceived wisdom of Indyworld. In the real world I am in touch with the real world facts. 7. Protecting our country’s borders is a key duty of our government. That the government will not allow “this, that, or anything” that threatens our borders from inside or outside is the basis of my argument, but you reject it on one hand and then agree with it on the other. Totally all over the place, dude! 8. Inconsistent as demonstrated above, yes. 9.I don’t ignore things that do not fit in with my beliefs and, as a result, my beliefs change. That is an unfamiliar concept for you to grasp, obviously. You might be right about future generations not going through the journey from radical to cautious but human nature being what it is, we take chances when we have nothing to lose and other people have to pick up the tab, but are safe and steady when we have built up our little stack. I don’t imagine the next couple of generations will be so different deep down, just in terms of their experiences- so as they acquire they will become more protective of the status quo, just as generations before them did.. A problem these days, however, is that it is generally taking younger people a lot longer to get to that tipping point into the safe and steady mode, This reflects badly upon our society but I can see that it is probably a window of opportunity for the Indy movement. 10. So it seems that I know something about Scottish politics. 11.But your NO voting area is not part of a continuous piece of land that forms a border with England to the south as mine is. so while this idea would be a non-starter up there, I think that, in this area, this idea potentially could have legs if we ever get to the stage where a decision has to be made. Dundee and Glasgow would not have been allowed to go independent as separate city states (and that idea is frankly a non-starter) but the area that I am talking about is perhaps as much as 30% (?) of Scotland’s area. I see nothing wrong in principle with that and, as you point out, there is a precedent to point to. There is certainly no reason why the historic area of Scotland must remain intact and all go Indy. 12. Too cryptic to understand never mind answer. The difference between you and me is that I understand why the obstacles are put in place and I don’t find them objectionable. That is just until we pass the critical tipping point of support for Indy, obviously, then they must be removed 1. I have no proof? You were the one making the accusation. 2. So, you speak for "most" others. Must be great to have such a high opinion of yourself. 3. I think you are well aware what I mean! 4. The point is that it is an opinion. You have no clear evidence to back up your claim. You use the word "sensible" but coming from a raving Unionist I do not think you have a leg to stand. What is "sensible " to you or your belief that "most" others share your misguided beliefs maybe "sensible" to you but how you can claim that "most" others share your belief is very egotistical, to put it mildly. 5. Again, opinion provided as fact 6. No. You are wrong full stop!!! 7. The reality of the situation is how I explained it. If you don't accept that explanation it is your problem Saying that we will win in the end is also a reality. Think of Ireland where the full force of the state could not prevent the country (or the major part of it) from dissolving the 1801 Union. 8. Inconsistent? You'll have to stop the vague comments and provide some evidence to back up the accusations. 9. You ignore anything that is not part of your belief system. You do not bother to read links unless they are anti Nat or, indeed pro Union. You set out your stall as if you have this wonderful knowledge of the situation re. the constitution - a knowledge which is "sensible" and which "most" others believe in. 10. Doesn't show anything of the sort. 11. But your vision is for part of Scotland to remain in the rUK i.e. partitioning the country. It makes no difference where the area is located, if the Brits think they can pull it off, they will partition. The point is that the YES side accepted the overall vote. You are talking about the Borders unilaterally seceding from Scotland in the event that the vote does not go their way. How childish, but just what is to be expected from someone who does not believe in Scottish Democracy. About 34% voted No in the Borders & D&G in 2014, I reckon the numbers ready to vote YES will have increased. A sizeable minority. Do you expect them to take any such move lightly. You'd be playing with fire. Anyway, I think that only a minority think the way you do. 12. Don't kid yourself. Anyway what, in your mind, is this "critical tipping point" |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 27, 2023 9:41:01 GMT
WRONG. 17.41m to 16.1m the Scotland vote was no more relevant than the London vote, it was a UK Referendum, not a London referendum, not a Scotland referendum. The UK is a sovereign country and held membership of the EU, Scotland is a member state, nothing more. Get over your bruised ego and look at the benefits of sovereignty that UK independence has provided to Scotland. 62-38%. We were dragged out of the EU on the coat tails of the xenophobic attitude of you and your fellow Brexiters. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 27, 2023 9:54:43 GMT
No policy ideas then just a big big sulk.
The xenophobia is yours.
That's all you've got and all you'll ever be.
Your party is an "ingerland" hating party of bigots.
You were OUTVOTED 17.41 million people outvoted the 16.1 million losers.
More than one million Scots as well as 854 thousand Welsh voters and more than 349 thousand Northern Irish voters made the difference in votes that swung the NET UK VOTE.
The 15,188,406 English leave voters would have achieved nothing without Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish leave voters.
It was a truly democratic poll of the whole UK.
All you have is hatred of the English, but the net UK vote was a leave vote.
Get the fuck over it and look to the opportunities rather than the past.
Stop misrepresenting the facts and come to terms with our real independence.
|
|
