|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 25, 2023 20:36:27 GMT
Following on from my final paragraph above, if you and your fellow Indy fanatics really want to engage effectively with, and pique the interest of, persuadable NO voters, then you should try to follow the example of this guy rather than adopting the vote losing approach that you demonstrate on here. m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHyf9FUbRD0 |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 26, 2023 13:24:20 GMT
No, I read most of the stuff that you posted under item 6 (albeit that I skim read some parts only, particularly parts of the blog, which, given who produced it, is probably more than it merited, but I got the gist). How could I not have read it to have been able to refer to its content in item 9 above? So it looks like I totally surpassed your expectations. You, on the other hand, continue to do as I fully expect of those who have bought into the twisted false narrative of Indy extremism, and who simply ignore or block out anything and everything that challenges your agenda. That basically covers all that you say in the above - just big dollops of myth and emotion drowning out and corrupting whatever little bits of fact you might add to the mix. Like yourself, I am no expert in Scottish politics (or Scottish history, for that matter), but, aIso like you, I have a greater awareness of both than the average Joe. However, you don’t have to know anything special about either to know that the Indy argument is based upon flawed understanding of our constitutional arrangements, leading to unrealistic expectations, leading to unjustified grievance, leading to wallowing in self- pity and perpetual whingeing. Scottish Democracy is not a self-defining concept. If it were, then there could only be one reasonable interpretation. However, I can readily think of a number (perhaps because I have an open mind, certainly in comparison with yours) so maybe from a close-minded Indy fanatic perspective it is self defining, but not to the reasonable minded majority. Anyway, I take it that you can’t provide a definition and that this is just another vacuous term from the Indy handbook employed to create false grievances and stir up unwarranted resentment. You just keep deluding yourself about an imminent Indyref if you can’t face up to the reality. As long as you are focussed on that, and churning out your intelligence-insulting arguments, instead of addressing the concerns of the persuadables in the NO camp, you will be doing little harm, I guess. OK so you "skim read" it. Jesus you've got a nerve miscalling Indy supporters when you totally ignore, or make cheap wisecracks, anything from the YES side. The Constitutional arrangement is what has led us to an understanding of the reality of the situation which leads to realistic expectations, leading to justified expressions of dislike for the present set up. What examples of "wallowing in self-pity and perpetual whingeing" are you talking about. Yes it is! I am really surprised that you don't understand the concept. There is only one 'reasonable interpretation' unless you know better. If so, do explain. You mention my closed mind but you seem to be blissfully unaware that your mind is closed to ANY Nationalist argument. You are a Unionist first, last and always. Using words like 'fanatic' to describe Independistas while proclaiming other voters as 'reasonable' betrays your "closed mind". I am not deluding myself about anything. I have posted several times that I very much doubt that there will be a referendum any time soon and that was one reason why I left the SNP. You asked about alternatives. I provided one. Just because you don't like it is not going to make it go away. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 26, 2023 13:26:34 GMT
Following on from my final paragraph above, if you and your fellow Indy fanatics really want to engage effectively with, and pique the interest of, persuadable NO voters, then you should try to follow the example of this guy rather than adopting the vote losing approach that you demonstrate on here. m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHyf9FUbRD0A very interesting interview. You must have been raging when he stated that Scotland has no debt. You rubbished JD for stating that. Have you now changed your mind? |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 27, 2023 0:48:48 GMT
Following on from my final paragraph above, if you and your fellow Indy fanatics really want to engage effectively with, and pique the interest of, persuadable NO voters, then you should try to follow the example of this guy rather than adopting the vote losing approach that you demonstrate on here. m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHyf9FUbRD0A very interesting interview. You must have been raging when he stated that Scotland has no debt. You rubbished JD for stating that. Have you now changed your mind? I agree, it is interesting and persuasive. Did you spot any differences between his arguments and language and yours? Or perhaps it would be quicker and easier for you to answer if I instead asked if you could spot any similarity between his arguments and language and yours? If you decide to answer the 2nd option then you should be staring at a blank sheet of paper by the time you complete the exercise. Why would I be raging, or in any way be perturbed, by what he said about Scotland having no debt? I actually haven’t played the interview back since I originally watched it maybe 7 months or so ago, but I am guessing that he says something along the lines that legally Scotland would have no direct liability to the lenders for any part of the UK’s borrowings because it is the UK, in whatever shape it might be in from time to time, that is legally liable for it. That’s beyond dispute and has even been unreservedly acknowledged by UK govt. However, I can’t remember if he went on to say that this position is effectively illusionary, not least because an Indy Scotland would completely sour relations with its largest trading partner and totally kill its credibility with the markets at a stage where it would be asking the markets to provide massive funding to support the launch of the new country of Scotland. We would be abandoned, and deservedly so. The only time that can remember discussing this issue on this or the old site this was the real world considerations that I flagged up. If that was rubbishing what Jaydee or whoever’s stance it was then I would do so again on the same basis - so, no, I have not changed my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 27, 2023 1:25:19 GMT
No, I read most of the stuff that you posted under item 6 (albeit that I skim read some parts only, particularly parts of the blog, which, given who produced it, is probably more than it merited, but I got the gist). How could I not have read it to have been able to refer to its content in item 9 above? So it looks like I totally surpassed your expectations. You, on the other hand, continue to do as I fully expect of those who have bought into the twisted false narrative of Indy extremism, and who simply ignore or block out anything and everything that challenges your agenda. That basically covers all that you say in the above - just big dollops of myth and emotion drowning out and corrupting whatever little bits of fact you might add to the mix. Like yourself, I am no expert in Scottish politics (or Scottish history, for that matter), but, aIso like you, I have a greater awareness of both than the average Joe. However, you don’t have to know anything special about either to know that the Indy argument is based upon flawed understanding of our constitutional arrangements, leading to unrealistic expectations, leading to unjustified grievance, leading to wallowing in self- pity and perpetual whingeing. Scottish Democracy is not a self-defining concept. If it were, then there could only be one reasonable interpretation. However, I can readily think of a number (perhaps because I have an open mind, certainly in comparison with yours) so maybe from a close-minded Indy fanatic perspective it is self defining, but not to the reasonable minded majority. Anyway, I take it that you can’t provide a definition and that this is just another vacuous term from the Indy handbook employed to create false grievances and stir up unwarranted resentment. You just keep deluding yourself about an imminent Indyref if you can’t face up to the reality. As long as you are focussed on that, and churning out your intelligence-insulting arguments, instead of addressing the concerns of the persuadables in the NO camp, you will be doing little harm, I guess. OK so you "skim read" it. Jesus you've got a nerve miscalling Indy supporters when you totally ignore, or make cheap wisecracks, anything from the YES side. The Constitutional arrangement is what has led us to an understanding of the reality of the situation which leads to realistic expectations, leading to justified expressions of dislike for the present set up. What examples of "wallowing in self-pity and perpetual whingeing" are you talking about. Yes it is! I am really surprised that you don't understand the concept. There is only one 'reasonable interpretation' unless you know better. If so, do explain. You mention my closed mind but you seem to be blissfully unaware that your mind is closed to ANY Nationalist argument. You are a Unionist first, last and always. Using words like 'fanatic' to describe Independistas while proclaiming other voters as 'reasonable' betrays your "closed mind". I am not deluding myself about anything. I have posted several times that I very much doubt that there will be a referendum any time soon and that was one reason why I left the SNP. You asked about alternatives. I provided one. Just because you don't like it is not going to make it go away. If you think that I said that I skim read everything that you posted then you might want to read what I said again. I don’t miscall Indy supporters, but those who talk the twisted and fake narrative, and don’t even recognise reality and who feed their prejudices on a set of. Trump-like “alternative facts”, like you and your 2 sidekicks on here, I describe as I see. Where Indy supporters present sensible and reasonable arguments then I listen attentively and consider what they are saying, and I do take a lot of it on board eg. The guy in the interview that I posted above. Examples of wallowing in self pity and perpetual whingeing are anybody and everybody who sees things in any way remotely similar to the way that you and your 2 sidekicks on here do. No, that would be a waste of time. I want to understand what those who throw around the term “Scottish Democracy” mean by it - so if you think that there is only one reasonable interpretation, then why do you seem so reluctant to produce it? I really don’t think that you have a definition but, instead, have decided what it means to you and just assume that it means the same to everybody else. However, it is probably no more than a cheap grievance stirring term from the latest edition of the Indy fanatics handbook with no real meaning. I don’t call all Indy supporters fanatics, only the fanatics amongst the Indy supporting element such as you and the other 2 on here. Similarly, I don’t call all Indy sceptics fanatics, only those who are the equivalent of the 3 of you on that side of the divide. I am able to do that because, unlike you, I have a healthy and pliable position on the matter and can spot the fanatics and extremists on both sides. If you think that you will get independence in any way other than through winning over the hearts and minds of enough of your fellow Scots to take the demand over the critical tipping point where it is unreasonable for independence to be denied any longer, then you are deluding yourself. There is no quick, easy way to independence. Those who want it still have to persuade quite o big chunk of those who don’t of the merits of their case. And you have to rein in the more moderate YES supporters whose commitment will have suffered through the Supreme Court’s judgement, which laid bare the impotence of ScotGov and the absurdity of the colonialesque comparisons submitted by the SNP, together with the GRR debacle that is unfolding in front of us right now. I think that the hardest part of the road to independence might still lie ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 27, 2023 10:01:29 GMT
OK so you "skim read" it. Jesus you've got a nerve miscalling Indy supporters when you totally ignore, or make cheap wisecracks, anything from the YES side. The Constitutional arrangement is what has led us to an understanding of the reality of the situation which leads to realistic expectations, leading to justified expressions of dislike for the present set up. What examples of "wallowing in self-pity and perpetual whingeing" are you talking about. Yes it is! I am really surprised that you don't understand the concept. There is only one 'reasonable interpretation' unless you know better. If so, do explain. You mention my closed mind but you seem to be blissfully unaware that your mind is closed to ANY Nationalist argument. You are a Unionist first, last and always. Using words like 'fanatic' to describe Independistas while proclaiming other voters as 'reasonable' betrays your "closed mind". I am not deluding myself about anything. I have posted several times that I very much doubt that there will be a referendum any time soon and that was one reason why I left the SNP. You asked about alternatives. I provided one. Just because you don't like it is not going to make it go away. If you think that I said that I skim read everything that you posted then you might want to read what I said again. I don’t miscall Indy supporters, but those who talk the twisted and fake narrative, and don’t even recognise reality and who feed their prejudices on a set of. Trump-like “alternative facts”, like you and your 2 sidekicks on here, I describe as I see. Where Indy supporters present sensible and reasonable arguments then I listen attentively and consider what they are saying, and I do take a lot of it on board eg. The guy in the interview that I posted above. Examples of wallowing in self pity and perpetual whingeing are anybody and everybody who sees things in any way remotely similar to the way that you and your 2 sidekicks on here do. No, that would be a waste of time. I want to understand what those who throw around the term “Scottish Democracy” mean by it - so if you think that there is only one reasonable interpretation, then why do you seem so reluctant to produce it? I really don’t think that you have a definition but, instead, have decided what it means to you and just assume that it means the same to everybody else. However, it is probably no more than a cheap grievance stirring term from the latest edition of the Indy fanatics handbook with no real meaning. I don’t call all Indy supporters fanatics, only the fanatics amongst the Indy supporting element such as you and the other 2 on here. Similarly, I don’t call all Indy sceptics fanatics, only those who are the equivalent of the 3 of you on that side of the divide. I am able to do that because, unlike you, I have a healthy and pliable position on the matter and can spot the fanatics and extremists on both sides. If you think that you will get independence in any way other than through winning over the hearts and minds of enough of your fellow Scots to take the demand over the critical tipping point where it is unreasonable for independence to be denied any longer, then you are deluding yourself. There is no quick, easy way to independence. Those who want it still have to persuade quite o big chunk of those who don’t of the merits of their case. And you have to rein in the more moderate YES supporters whose commitment will have suffered through the Supreme Court’s judgement, which laid bare the impotence of ScotGov and the absurdity of the colonialesque comparisons submitted by the SNP, together with the GRR debacle that is unfolding in front of us right now. I think that the hardest part of the road to independence might still lie ahead. This "twisted and fake narrative" is all in your mind. The mind of a raving Unionist. One who does not accept that Scotland is a country and thinks that we should accept our lot as a region or "territory" of the UK. Well I have news for you, that defeatist, negative view is not shared by at least 50% of the population. Who are you to deny that 50% the right to vote on their future. You say that we must have support at an imaginary "tipping point" before Independence would be on the table. Yet you meekly accept the fact that another 50% are forcing their views on us. Sorry that you are having difficulty in understanding a simple concept. You seem to think there are definitions other than the obvious one. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and provide something you always fail to provide - evidence. You talk utter bullshit. Your self appointed position as the arbiter of who are "fanatics and extremists", is laughable. So far, the Supreme Court judgement has not affected support - see the latest poll. It is precisely because of that "impotence" that we need Independence, to work out solutions to our problems on our terms: not to be dictated to by the colonial power. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 27, 2023 10:25:17 GMT
Following on from my final paragraph above, if you and your fellow Indy fanatics really want to engage effectively with, and pique the interest of, persuadable NO voters, then you should try to follow the example of this guy rather than adopting the vote losing approach that you demonstrate on here. m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHyf9FUbRD0Matey the indy antics ae engaging very effectively. You are the big girls blouse going in the huff. Every time you get simple question. Like now you know what the economy is being part of the Uk. And every thing the BritNat fanatics said would happen if the Scots left the UK. Has happened while in the Union. Having to put up with the shite of EVEL on top as a added bonus. So what is your risk assessment, oh I forgot you have rephrased it to your analysis, telling you now. Oh I forgot again, how silly of me. You are in the huff as you are screwed for a answer. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 27, 2023 18:21:33 GMT
If you think that I said that I skim read everything that you posted then you might want to read what I said again. I don’t miscall Indy supporters, but those who talk the twisted and fake narrative, and don’t even recognise reality and who feed their prejudices on a set of. Trump-like “alternative facts”, like you and your 2 sidekicks on here, I describe as I see. Where Indy supporters present sensible and reasonable arguments then I listen attentively and consider what they are saying, and I do take a lot of it on board eg. The guy in the interview that I posted above. Examples of wallowing in self pity and perpetual whingeing are anybody and everybody who sees things in any way remotely similar to the way that you and your 2 sidekicks on here do. No, that would be a waste of time. I want to understand what those who throw around the term “Scottish Democracy” mean by it - so if you think that there is only one reasonable interpretation, then why do you seem so reluctant to produce it? I really don’t think that you have a definition but, instead, have decided what it means to you and just assume that it means the same to everybody else. However, it is probably no more than a cheap grievance stirring term from the latest edition of the Indy fanatics handbook with no real meaning. I don’t call all Indy supporters fanatics, only the fanatics amongst the Indy supporting element such as you and the other 2 on here. Similarly, I don’t call all Indy sceptics fanatics, only those who are the equivalent of the 3 of you on that side of the divide. I am able to do that because, unlike you, I have a healthy and pliable position on the matter and can spot the fanatics and extremists on both sides. If you think that you will get independence in any way other than through winning over the hearts and minds of enough of your fellow Scots to take the demand over the critical tipping point where it is unreasonable for independence to be denied any longer, then you are deluding yourself. There is no quick, easy way to independence. Those who want it still have to persuade quite o big chunk of those who don’t of the merits of their case. And you have to rein in the more moderate YES supporters whose commitment will have suffered through the Supreme Court’s judgement, which laid bare the impotence of ScotGov and the absurdity of the colonialesque comparisons submitted by the SNP, together with the GRR debacle that is unfolding in front of us right now. I think that the hardest part of the road to independence might still lie ahead. This "twisted and fake narrative" is all in your mind. That’s exactly the opposite of reality, but never mind. I am not going to change your mind about anything because it is closed and a slave to the twisted and fake Indy fanatic narrative, and you are not going to change my mind because, although I have made clear how simple it should be for you to do that, and despite giving you a link showing what a persuasive Indy supporter looks like, you are incapable of responding.
The mind of a raving Unionist. One who does not accept that Scotland is a country and thinks that we should accept our lot as a region or "territory" of the UK. Well I have news for you, that defeatist, negative view is not shared by at least 50% of the population. That which you consider to be a “defeatist, negative view” is what I consider to be a “realistic, non-gullible view” and if it was news to me that at least 50% of the population don’t share my view then you would be right to accuse me of knowing nothing. However, just because at least 50% of the population don’t share my view doesn’t make me wrong. It is simply a matter of fact that Scotland is not a country and has not been since 1707. Since then it has been a region and a sub-national territory. The sooner people educate themselves and recognise this truth, the sooner they will stop having inflated ideas of Scotland’s position, entitlements and rights within the UK, the sooner they will stop feeling that Scotland is being disrespected, the sooner they will stop whingeing and indulging in self- pity, and the sooner we can all get on with fulfilling our potential and improving our society.
Who are you to deny that 50% the right to vote on their future. You say that we must have support at an imaginary "tipping point" before Independence would be on the table. Yet you meekly accept the fact that another 50% are forcing their views on us. I am nobody to do any of that, and you are nobody to do anything about it either. And I am not saying that the other 50% are forcing their views on you, never mind accepting that, meekly or otherwise. You really need to try to read things dispassionately sometimes and you might just be able to get your head around what you are reading. I am saying that the UK govt. holds all of the power in its hands as things stand and the only way that the Scottish people can snatch that power from their hands and deliver independence is to get the level of support for independence up to the point where it is a fait accompli.
So don’t shoot the messenger here but consider the message instead if you can. Then decide if you want to learn from it or to continue to allow the dial to stay more or less stuck where it has been while you and your merry gang have been doing whatever it is that you have been doing over these past few years to try to move it.
Sorry that you are having difficulty in understanding a simple concept. You seem to think there are definitions other than the obvious one. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and provide something you always fail to provide - evidence. Don’t try to get out of this by turning it around on me. You are the one who used the term “Scottish Democracy”. I just asked for a decent definition so that I could understand what you mean by that so the onus is on you here, not me.
If it is a simple concept then it should be simple for you to explain it, but you won’t so you obviously can’t. And yet you see this as reason to have a go at me. Twisted and false seems to sum up your behaviour well here.
And I don’t know what evidence you can expect from someone who can’t read you mind, dig out what you mean when you use that term and then produce that back to you as “evidence”. All you have to do is explain what you mean when you use that term.
You talk utter bullshit. Your self appointed position as the arbiter of who are "fanatics and extremists", is laughable. So far, the Supreme Court judgement has not affected support - see the latest poll. It is precisely because of that "impotence" that we need Independence, to work out solutions to our problems on our terms: not to be dictated to by the colonial power. This is just a mixture of vacuous bluster and twisted mythology. I am not a self-appointed arbiter on anything, but presumably you don’t want to deny me the right to say what I think? And I think, with good reason based upon observable behaviour, that you and your 2 sidekicks are Indy fanatics, with twisted views and corrupted perspectives, who regularly deny reality and who need the mutual comfort of propping one another up on here for reassurance that your views are valid. The Emperor’s New Clothes springs to mind!
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jan 27, 2023 19:14:42 GMT
Sturgeon needs a vision to sell the Scots if she is to win a referendum.
I believe she is talking to the EU yet the sticking point is her own people that refuse to take on any debt from the UK. They expect to be debt free. Even Sturgeon after talking with the EU realises they need to accept a formula for taking on debt.
The EU would help them initially though expect them to cut back on state benefits and frills which could be a tough sell.
The SNP have been promising a 'free lunch' for a long time, I caught a few weeks back Sturgeon taking a hard question and she said they might need to take tough decisions for a short period.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 28, 2023 2:20:41 GMT
This "twisted and fake narrative" is all in your mind. That’s exactly the opposite of reality, but never mind. I am not going to change your mind about anything because it is closed and a slave to the twisted and fake Indy fanatic narrative, and you are not going to change my mind because, although I have made clear how simple it should be for you to do that, and despite giving you a link showing what a persuasive Indy supporter looks like, you are incapable of responding.
The mind of a raving Unionist. One who does not accept that Scotland is a country and thinks that we should accept our lot as a region or "territory" of the UK. Well I have news for you, that defeatist, negative view is not shared by at least 50% of the population. That which you consider to be a “defeatist, negative view” is what I consider to be a “realistic, non-gullible view” and if it was news to me that at least 50% of the population don’t share my view then you would be right to accuse me of knowing nothing. However, just because at least 50% of the population don’t share my view doesn’t make me wrong. It is simply a matter of fact that Scotland is not a country and has not been since 1707. Since then it has been a region and a sub-national territory. The sooner people educate themselves and recognise this truth, the sooner they will stop having inflated ideas of Scotland’s position, entitlements and rights within the UK, the sooner they will stop feeling that Scotland is being disrespected, the sooner they will stop whingeing and indulging in self- pity, and the sooner we can all get on with fulfilling our potential and improving our society.
Who are you to deny that 50% the right to vote on their future. You say that we must have support at an imaginary "tipping point" before Independence would be on the table. Yet you meekly accept the fact that another 50% are forcing their views on us. I am nobody to do any of that, and you are nobody to do anything about it either. And I am not saying that the other 50% are forcing their views on you, never mind accepting that, meekly or otherwise. You really need to try to read things dispassionately sometimes and you might just be able to get your head around what you are reading. I am saying that the UK govt. holds all of the power in its hands as things stand and the only way that the Scottish people can snatch that power from their hands and deliver independence is to get the level of support for independence up to the point where it is a fait accompli.
So don’t shoot the messenger here but consider the message instead if you can. Then decide if you want to learn from it or to continue to allow the dial to stay more or less stuck where it has been while you and your merry gang have been doing whatever it is that you have been doing over these past few years to try to move it.
Sorry that you are having difficulty in understanding a simple concept. You seem to think there are definitions other than the obvious one. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and provide something you always fail to provide - evidence. Don’t try to get out of this by turning it around on me. You are the one who used the term “Scottish Democracy”. I just asked for a decent definition so that I could understand what you mean by that so the onus is on you here, not me.
If it is a simple concept then it should be simple for you to explain it, but you won’t so you obviously can’t. And yet you see this as reason to have a go at me. Twisted and false seems to sum up your behaviour well here.
And I don’t know what evidence you can expect from someone who can’t read you mind, dig out what you mean when you use that term and then produce that back to you as “evidence”. All you have to do is explain what you mean when you use that term.
You talk utter bullshit. Your self appointed position as the arbiter of who are "fanatics and extremists", is laughable. So far, the Supreme Court judgement has not affected support - see the latest poll. It is precisely because of that "impotence" that we need Independence, to work out solutions to our problems on our terms: not to be dictated to by the colonial power. This is just a mixture of vacuous bluster and twisted mythology. I am not a self-appointed arbiter on anything, but presumably you don’t want to deny me the right to say what I think? And I think, with good reason based upon observable behaviour, that you and your 2 sidekicks are Indy fanatics, with twisted views and corrupted perspectives, who regularly deny reality and who need the mutual comfort of propping one another up on here for reassurance that your views are valid. The Emperor’s New Clothes springs to mind!
You for sure are not going to change my mind. As for you, I realised from the start you were a lost cause. All that sitting on the fence, I can be persuaded crap shone through, and still does. Your every utterance smacks of Brit Unionism. I would say your view is a very subjective view. Realism is not a quality you hold and gullibility sums you up. You have bought into the whole Unionist claptrap, probably ex-forces, one of those who finds it very difficult to diverge from your dodgy belief system. You poo-poo all that the SNP has done. Scotland is a country. The UK state comprises 2 countries, a principality and a made up region. You seem to think that I am unaware that devolution means that the state has ultimate control. The Brits could close down Holyrood although I think that would be a step too far even for this Tory bunch. The GRR intrusion showed just how much power Westminster has. It can step in any time and stop any bill that has been passed at Holyrood. "grievance" and "self pity", my god man you talk like a Brit Nat. Oh, I forgot. you are one!!! And, how do you gauge this 'tipping point? You'll be waiting a long time for a definition because, the simple fact is that the concept is self explanatory. You are the one who said you could think of at least two others - meaning that you know what my definition is for Scottish Democracy. All I am asking is for you to tell us all what those other two options are. Simple task, I would have thought. Oh, and don't kid yourself that you know what I am capable of! Yes, I do think that you have set yourself up as the arbiter. You say that 'most' people are on your side. Where is your evidence that this mythical 'most' exists. You call us "unreasonable" without telling us what we are "unreasonable" about. And who are you to presumptuously proclaim that I am a fanatic. The thing is, everybody is entitled to their own views. I accept that you have been brainwashed into believing in "Great" Britain - possibly ex forces as I mentioned above. You lecture me about how you are entitled to your view yet you do not allow me the right to hold an alternative view. I pity your unreasonableness and your need to be patronising about Scottish Nationalism. Typical Unionist. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 28, 2023 9:27:26 GMT
That which you consider to be a “defeatist, negative view” is what I consider to be a “realistic, non-gullible view” and if it was news to me that at least 50% of the population don’t share my view then you would be right to accuse me of knowing nothing. However, just because at least 50% of the population don’t share my view doesn’t make me wrong. It is simply a matter of fact that Scotland is not a country and has not been since 1707. Since then it has been a region and a sub-national territory. The sooner people educate themselves and recognise this truth, the sooner they will stop having inflated ideas of Scotland’s position, entitlements and rights within the UK, the sooner they will stop feeling that Scotland is being disrespected, the sooner they will stop whingeing and indulging in self- pity, and the sooner we can all get on with fulfilling our potential and improving our society. Happyjack suddenly not sitting on the fence. No longerf ranting he is waiting to see how it turns out. He now knows. No matey your realistic view is that the Scots are to wee to poor and to stupid to go it alone. And what ever portion of the population share your view. Does not alter the situation one jot. You are 100% gullibly wrong. So perhaps you could give me one benefit economically after 300 years how the Scots ended up paying for a ginormous English debt. That the Scots did not need or ask for. i have given you facts and figures from HMRC, ONS, UK treasury and so on, several times on your bollocks which you deny called risk assessment, which now has turned into analysis. Which you continually refuse to divulge. Your figures please. What Scotland would gain economically. Then as usual with your statements of all mooth and nae troosers or substance. What gullible view are you on about. You make it more than clear you are the the one with that. Do try and answer the questions on what you post. Instead of waffling more bile. That yuou clearly cannot back up. The rest of your post is just BritNat gullible drivel. Like 20% of the economy of Scotland fulfilling tghe potential and improving the society of the subsidy junkies of SE England. So perhaps you could explain how the Tory slush fund called levelling up was needed in Scotland in the first place. When the Norwegians have some £600 billion in the bank. Oh look Sunak's Constituents got £19 million. Yeh they are not whinging or indulging in self pity. You got nowt of your money.Its called pointing out facts. Which you call whinging. www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/18/rishi-sunak-constituency-bid-raises-fears-of-levelling-up-favouritism |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 28, 2023 14:37:12 GMT
Sturgeon needs a vision to sell the Scots if she is to win a referendum. I believe she is talking to the EU yet the sticking point is her own people that refuse to take on any debt from the UK. They expect to be debt free. Even Sturgeon after talking with the EU realises they need to accept a formula for taking on debt. The EU would help them initially though expect them to cut back on state benefits and frills which could be a tough sell. The SNP have been promising a 'free lunch' for a long time, I caught a few weeks back Sturgeon taking a hard question and she said they might need to take tough decisions for a short period. It seems to be a re run of all the old scaremongering from 2014.
As far as im aware , not one single country that left the british empire , nor ireland when it ended the treaty of union , took a penny of english debt. Westmisnter is responsible for all the uk debt , no one else as George osbourne , the then uk chancellor , had to announce officially to the world in 2014 to calm the markets.
Its especially pertinent as westmisnter , controlling england and possibly wales , want the rump uk to be named the current uks successor state ,with all rights and priveleges pertaining to that being given to westminster.
Im not sure what you are talking about when you say the scottish first minister needs to accept a formula for taking on some of englands debt. Perhaps you can explain?
The plan is to join EFTA at first , which can be achieved in a matter of three months , giving us access to the single market while negotiations are going on about full EU membership. The former greek finance minister and economist varoufakis has publicly said this should tak all of ten seconds for the EU to agree to scotlands full membership. No where i have seen is it a condition of scotland joining to take english debt.
The idea the eu are going to fight englands battles and force scotland to take a share of your collosul debt is laughable.
As for debt , far from other countries taking english debt when they leave , the opposite is more true , that countires are demanding recompense from england for the rape looting and destruction of many nations under the british empire.
India alone are demanding the return of charlie boys koh i noor stone , which sits in the monarchs crown that will be used in his medieval pantomine that will be his coronation , not to mention the trillions westminster stole from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jan 29, 2023 14:10:57 GMT
thomasScotland committed to an act of Union with us so is completely different from Ireland. There are cities and towns around the British empire with Scottish names and we had Prime Ministers like Gordon Brown. So for me this is very different. so would expect some debt sharing otherwise the rest of UK public opinion become angry and then impact Westminster.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 29, 2023 14:51:17 GMT
If you wish to welsh on your debts then so be it. But, I don't think a discredited and probably bankrupt Scotland would meet much enthusiasm with the foreigners you so admire.
But all this is academic, you all can froth and bellow as much as you like, Westminster has told you that you are going nowhere, so you just have to swallow it, however irksome you find it.
You mentioned Scottish currency earlier, and the regrettable fact that business's in England won't accept them as legal tender, why is that do you imagine? and do you suppose that this will change after Separation, your new Scotchmark will be equally valueless I suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 29, 2023 16:10:00 GMT
thomas Scotland committed to an act of Union with us so is completely different from Ireland. There are cities and towns around the British empire with Scottish names and we had Prime Ministers like Gordon Brown. So for me this is very different. so would expect some debt sharing otherwise the rest of UK public opinion become angry and then impact Westminster. what was the difference in the act of union with scotland in 1707 to the act of union with ireland in 1801 that shows scotland has to take english debt?
over to you.
and irish
oh my. England will get angry with westminster iof scotland doesnt take english debt? Are you telling me this is a good or bad thing , because from what i see , its good. 
Westmisnter cannot force anyone to take it debt. That is a fact. It can only be done if a willing party agrees.
Scotland starting debt free would have indy support through the roof.
|
|
