|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 22, 2024 19:56:18 GMT
The key plank was not a devolved issue, that is palpably true. The referendum was on the cards before the Indy ref if the Tories won and they did as the government of the Union. It is hardly Leavers faults that those who thought Remain was a dead cert used it in the Indy ref. The same point still stands however that if one wishes to be part of a Union then one accepts decisions of that Union even if they work against the majority within any specific member. In 2015 both potential ruling parties stated quite clearly that the EU was not working to the benefit of Britain, both wanted to reform the EU from within but only one offered a referendum on the outcome of those negotiations
"It's disingenuous to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means
we stay in, we are a member of the European Union." - Ruth Davidson MSP, 2nd September 2014, at the STV
debate in the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh.
She of course is entitled to her opinion but she is inestimably wrong as 2014 was a decision on a specific union and the decisions made by that union and 2016 was a decision on another union and the decisions made by that union. All that Brexit did was give those who lost in 2014 the mantle of bitter losers. Scotland voted to stay in a Union with a Coalition government, that government became a Tory government after the Indy ref and at the next election in any Union things change without referenda, just as the EU changed dramatically after the 75 referendum and became something totally different to what people voted for in 75. This is the nature of Unions and upping sticks and leaving in a huff is not very becoming. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 22, 2024 19:57:30 GMT
Thanks for helping me out but you are still prevaricating. Two of the definitions above require some attribute of either excellence or special ability. The other one is a passive attribute that can be punctured and belongs to everyone in the first instance and cn nly be lost. You still have not said why you have pride in Scotland, you like what you are, where you come from and the culture and natural beauty of that place but in order to be proud of those things one must have seen other things that are in your opinion lesser. You cannot have pride in your physique if you live in a world of Schwarzeneggers so your pride must be based on a comparison to something else. I have no hesitation is saying I believe Britain and her people are the best. Why do you find that so difficult to say? Which of course is the point. sandy , you are gibbering again. Im not going to degenerate down to an argument about whose pride is better or more worthy. I understand your reluctance. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 22, 2024 19:59:54 GMT
It’s no use Unionists whining that Scotland voted to stay in the UK so it has to accept UK decisions. Scotland voted to stay in a UK that was a member of the EU, and that UK no longer exists. The 2014 decision was made on a blatantly and unarguably false premise and has been overtaken by events.
"It's disingenuous to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means
we stay in, we are a member of the European Union." - Ruth Davidson MSP, 2nd September 2014, at the STV
debate in the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh.
She of course is entitled to her opinion but she is inestimably wrong as 2014 was a decision on a specific union and the decisions made by that union and 2016 was a decision on another union and the decisions made by that union. All that Brexit did was give those who lost in 2014 the mantle of bitter losers. Scotland voted to stay in a Union with a Coalition government, that government became a Tory government after the Indy ref and at the next election in any Union things change without referenda, just as the EU changed dramatically after the 75 referendum and became something totally different to what people voted for in 75. This is the nature of Unions and upping sticks and leaving in a huff is not very becoming. So we have to dismiss prominent British politicians when they say something you dont like , but accept it when its something you do like?  The point is , is inarguable that better together and the union side said to Scots voters that we had to vote to stay in the uk to stay in the EU. It's inarguable sandy. You can try and re write history for eternity , but you are flogging a dead horse. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 22, 2024 20:00:54 GMT
sandy , you are gibbering again. Im not going to degenerate down to an argument about whose pride is better or more worthy. I understand your reluctance. I thought you might be above the level of afterbirths posting sandy. If you have a valid point to make , or something of interest to say , I will debate you. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 22, 2024 20:05:17 GMT
It’s no use Unionists whining that Scotland voted to stay in the UK so it has to accept UK decisions. Scotland voted to stay in a UK that was a member of the EU, and that UK no longer exists. The 2014 decision was made on a blatantly and unarguably false premise and has been overtaken by events.
"It's disingenuous to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means
we stay in, we are a member of the European Union." - Ruth Davidson MSP, 2nd September 2014, at the STV
debate in the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh.
She of course is entitled to her opinion but she is inestimably wrong as 2014 was a decision on a specific union and the decisions made by that union and 2016 was a decision on another union and the decisions made by that union. All that Brexit did was give those who lost in 2014 the mantle of bitter losers. Scotland voted to stay in a Union with a Coalition government, that government became a Tory government after the Indy ref and at the next election in any Union things change without referenda, just as the EU changed dramatically after the 75 referendum and became something totally different to what people voted for in 75. This is the nature of Unions and upping sticks and leaving in a huff is not very becoming. Scotland voted clearly to stay in a uk that was in the EU . The uk is now out the EU , so we need a new vote. so you accept things can and do change politically , and that no previous parliament can bind a future one , yet you want to bind Scotland because we once voted a certain way under false pretences ten years ago? the ever moving goalposts of unionists.  No wonder you are a dying breed......... |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 23, 2024 1:46:47 GMT
It’s no use Unionists whining that Scotland voted to stay in the UK so it has to accept UK decisions. Scotland voted to stay in a UK that was a member of the EU, and that UK no longer exists. The 2014 decision was made on a blatantly and unarguably false premise and has been overtaken by events.
"It's disingenuous to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means
we stay in, we are a member of the European Union." - Ruth Davidson MSP, 2nd September 2014, at the STV
debate in the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh.
"This is the nature of Unions and upping sticks and leaving in a huff is not very becoming", and the following (from Jan 21st, 4.47pm) "just as you would have to accept EU decisions after you 'rejoined', you could not flounce off and say it is not fair" You don't see the irony in those statements? Didn't the UK just "flounce off", "leaving in a huff", from the EU? Mainly because it couldn't live with not being able to order countries about (like England does in the UK) and generally not getting its own way. Those damn foreigners should be kneeling down to the Brits not putting hurdles in their way and voting against the 'true' leaders of Europe. Those against the EU could not accept the fact that countries with smaller populations have the same say as the MIGHTY Britain. In the European Council and the Council of the EU all countries have an equal say. The former gives heads of state, in certain circumstances, a veto to stop proposals it does not like e.g., Hungary's stance on not giving aid to Ukraine, and possibly putting a stop to Ukraine's accession to the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 23, 2024 2:38:11 GMT
whats that got to do with what ive written.? You said earlier , that you couldn't understand why someone could support Scottish indy and also support Scotland in the EU. Ive explained the long history before Scotland has with our European friends , and that two thirds of Scottish people voted to remain in the EU so your view is in a minority in Scotland. so what are you talking about Scotland decided not to leave? The uks place within the EU was key plank of why Scotland decided not to leave in 2014. sorry sandy , but who cares? People dont vote on issues of national importance based on how their neighbour feels , or who is descended from who. Im Scottish , and im European , and proud of both identities , and my identity is linked with Europe . I can't wait to get my European citizenship back. Getting your EU citizenship back certainly holds back a sizeable rump of those who would prefer an independent Scotland. The key plank was not a devolved matter and by the time of the Scottish referendum Cameron had already declared an in out EU referendum. Scotland voted to remain in the Union and that also meant accepting union decisions, just as you would have to accept EU decisions after you 'rejoined', you could not flounce off and say it is not fair once bagpipes could only be made in Turkey through EU regs. Cameron, as a remainer, was dancing to Farage's tune in saying that an EU referendum would be held. The crux of the matter was that there was nothing clear about his ability to put such a plebiscite into action. In the week leading up to 7th May, 6 polls had Labour in front, 9 suggested a tie, and 6 had the Tories in the lead by 1%. Polling in 2015, up to election day had Remain in the lead 17 times. All, bar two or three, by substantial margins. So, the Tories were not guaranteed a win in 2015 election. And, there was no discernible majority in favour of leaving. Cameron promised a referendum to try and stem the flow of Tory support to UKIP. If you had read the "White Paper" you would know that the possibility an EU referendum was acknowledged. As was the situation that Scotland would find itself in if we voted Remain and England didn't. We would not be forced out against our will was the call. Of course, as it happened, we were forced out. I believe that Sturgeon let us down, badly, in the days after the results were announced. She had supporters ready for action, but demoralised the lot of us as she backtracked because positive Poll results were not sustained. If AS had still been leader, I think things would have been different. The campaign for Independence would have been placed first and foremost on the agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 23, 2024 9:23:38 GMT
I understand your reluctance. I thought you might be above the level of afterbirths posting sandy. If you have a valid point to make , or something of interest to say , I will debate you. Interest always lies in the subjective eye. You expressed pride, that expression interested me as to why one should have pride in a nation/country, it is still not clear why that pride exists and if you forgive me you have danced around the houses to avoid saying exactly why that pride exists. I have clearly stated why I have pride in Britain and being British but for some reason you dodge the clear thought that you have pride in something because you believe it is in some way something to be proud of, what is that some way? With all due respect calling my questions gibberish is really not becoming. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 23, 2024 9:29:46 GMT
"This is the nature of Unions and upping sticks and leaving in a huff is not very becoming", and the following (from Jan 21st, 4.47pm) "just as you would have to accept EU decisions after you 'rejoined', you could not flounce off and say it is not fair" You don't see the irony in those statements? Didn't the UK just "flounce off", "leaving in a huff", from the EU? Mainly because it couldn't live with not being able to order countries about (like England does in the UK) and generally not getting its own way. Those damn foreigners should be kneeling down to the Brits not putting hurdles in their way and voting against the 'true' leaders of Europe. Those against the EU could not accept the fact that countries with smaller populations have the same say as the MIGHTY Britain. In the European Council and the Council of the EU all countries have an equal say. The former gives heads of state, in certain circumstances, a veto to stop proposals it does not like e.g., Hungary's stance on not giving aid to Ukraine, and possibly putting a stop to Ukraine's accession to the EU. Hmm to a certain extent I get your point, the upshot is though that all the way through the decisions were placed into the hands of the British people whether to accept membership on the renewed terms or not. If we accepted that decision we accepted all the decisions made in the Union. The UK did not accept that decision and democratically left through a referendum the first in 41 years. Scotland had the referednum and decided to stay in teh UK Union and accept all the decisions made in that Union but some want another referendum after less than ten years. As I said it is the nature of Unions. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 23, 2024 9:34:59 GMT
Getting your EU citizenship back certainly holds back a sizeable rump of those who would prefer an independent Scotland. The key plank was not a devolved matter and by the time of the Scottish referendum Cameron had already declared an in out EU referendum. Scotland voted to remain in the Union and that also meant accepting union decisions, just as you would have to accept EU decisions after you 'rejoined', you could not flounce off and say it is not fair once bagpipes could only be made in Turkey through EU regs. Cameron, as a remainer, was dancing to Farage's tune in saying that an EU referendum would be held. The crux of the matter was that there was nothing clear about his ability to put such a plebiscite into action. In the week leading up to 7th May, 6 polls had Labour in front, 9 suggested a tie, and 6 had the Tories in the lead by 1%. Polling in 2015, up to election day had Remain in the lead 17 times. All, bar two or three, by substantial margins. So, the Tories were not guaranteed a win in 2015 election. And, there was no discernible majority in favour of leaving. Cameron promised a referendum to try and stem the flow of Tory support to UKIP. If you had read the "White Paper" you would know that the possibility an EU referendum was acknowledged. As was the situation that Scotland would find itself in if we voted Remain and England didn't. We would not be forced out against our will was the call. Of course, as it happened, we were forced out. I believe that Sturgeon let us down, badly, in the days after the results were announced. She had supporters ready for action, but demoralised the lot of us as she backtracked because positive Poll results were not sustained. If AS had still been leader, I think things would have been different. The campaign for Independence would have been placed first and foremost on the agenda. But things were not different it is the historical record what happened, why and how remain opinion of course. The Tories no doubt wanted to release their party from the Eurosceptics once and for all and hoped the British people would support that view. They were wrong. We progress from there. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 23, 2024 12:09:27 GMT
I thought you might be above the level of afterbirths posting sandy. If you have a valid point to make , or something of interest to say , I will debate you. Interest always lies in the subjective eye. You expressed pride, that expression interested me as to why one should have pride in a nation/country, it is still not clear why that pride exists and if you forgive me you have danced around the houses to avoid saying exactly why that pride exists. I have clearly stated why I have pride in Britain and being British but for some reason you dodge the clear thought that you have pride in something because you believe it is in some way something to be proud of, what is that some way? With all due respect calling my questions gibberish is really not becoming. Its as if im posting words , but you aren't either really understanding them , or ignoring what im saying and then continue to ask the same question over and over again and again. You the tried to turn our exchange into some my pride is better than yours childish debate. Im still not sure what you are asking , or what you dont understand , what you want me to say , or what point you are trying to make , so lets start again. Im proud of Scotland native language. You British have no language , so how can you be proud of that? im proud of Scotland iconic emblems of culture.......whiskey , tartan , haggis , bagpipes. You British have no iconic emblems of culture , because there is no British culture. nothing. Im proud of Scotlands long and glorious history. One of the oldest nations in the world , and our people have been mentioned as far back as scholastic research can penetrate into the roman era. You British at best have a tiny history stretching back to 1707 , a mere footnote in history. so many things , that can be hard to pin down and define , because being Scottish and taking pride in your country and people isn't something you need to think about , it comes naturally without any effort. A mindset , that's installed from birth , family and the environment you grow up in . now you might yet again reject that , but that's your problem not mine. Ive repeatedly tried to put into words my thoughts and feelings. I can write it for you , but I can't understand it for you. to turn things around , what exactly is it you British are proud of? There is no British nation , merely an island with the geographical name. the very basic things countries take for granted , birth certificates , football teams , general culture and language you lack. As far as I can see sandy , you are proud there was once long ago a British empire , but it's now long gone. In every aspect I can think of you are in massive decline. Indeed , every day , the British are on these forums complaining about that decline. I dont see pride .Only defeatism and anger , resentment and navel gazing about a world long gone. militarily , economically , in every aspect I can think of you are receding and declining. so what is it you are actually proud about? To go back to the long gone empire , I fully agree what the English historian Frank Ridley famously said. There is no such thing as a British empire. What existed was an English empire , of which Ireland , Wales , then Scotland , were the first colonies , in that order. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 23, 2024 12:13:27 GMT
I thought you might be above the level of afterbirths posting sandy. If you have a valid point to make , or something of interest to say , I will debate you. Interest always lies in the subjective eye. You expressed pride, that expression interested me as to why one should have pride in a nation/country, it is still not clear why that pride exists and if you forgive me you have danced around the houses to avoid saying exactly why that pride exists. I have clearly stated why I have pride in Britain and being British but for some reason you dodge the clear thought that you have pride in something because you believe it is in some way something to be proud of, what is that some way? With all due respect calling my questions gibberish is really not becoming. you do have a tendency to make long winded posts without any significant point. There are many reason many different people support Scottish nationalism. Being proud of your country , and who you are is merely a small part of that . There are things im not proud of , and if no pride existed , I would still support Scotland being an independent country as it the natural order of nations , and a complete no brainer. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 23, 2024 12:18:24 GMT
You don't see the irony in those statements? Didn't the UK just "flounce off", "leaving in a huff", from the EU? Mainly because it couldn't live with not being able to order countries about (like England does in the UK) and generally not getting its own way. Those damn foreigners should be kneeling down to the Brits not putting hurdles in their way and voting against the 'true' leaders of Europe. Those against the EU could not accept the fact that countries with smaller populations have the same say as the MIGHTY Britain. In the European Council and the Council of the EU all countries have an equal say. The former gives heads of state, in certain circumstances, a veto to stop proposals it does not like e.g., Hungary's stance on not giving aid to Ukraine, and possibly putting a stop to Ukraine's accession to the EU. Hmm to a certain extent I get your point, the upshot is though that all the way through the decisions were placed into the hands of the British people whether to accept membership on the renewed terms or not. If we accepted that decision we accepted all the decisions made in the Union. The UK did not accept that decision and democratically left through a referendum the first in 41 years. Scotland had the referednum and decided to stay in teh UK Union and accept all the decisions made in that Union but some want another referendum after less than ten years. As I said it is the nature of Unions. Gibraltar , which isn't part of Britain , also voted I the referendum , and Northern Ireland which is part of the uk , but not part of Britain voted , and got to remain. So the idea this was a UK democratic referendum , and Scotland just had to shut up and do what it's told is fucking laughable. Especially when two British prime ministers agreed one part of the uk , could remain , but the part that voted highest remain Scotland couldnt. Your argument is so out of date , considering the events in northern ireland , it's full of more holes than a teabag. The uk did not leave , only the British island part fully left. One part got to remain de facto , so so should Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 23, 2024 12:21:40 GMT
Cameron, as a remainer, was dancing to Farage's tune in saying that an EU referendum would be held. The crux of the matter was that there was nothing clear about his ability to put such a plebiscite into action. In the week leading up to 7th May, 6 polls had Labour in front, 9 suggested a tie, and 6 had the Tories in the lead by 1%. Polling in 2015, up to election day had Remain in the lead 17 times. All, bar two or three, by substantial margins. So, the Tories were not guaranteed a win in 2015 election. And, there was no discernible majority in favour of leaving. Cameron promised a referendum to try and stem the flow of Tory support to UKIP. If you had read the "White Paper" you would know that the possibility an EU referendum was acknowledged. As was the situation that Scotland would find itself in if we voted Remain and England didn't. We would not be forced out against our will was the call. Of course, as it happened, we were forced out. I believe that Sturgeon let us down, badly, in the days after the results were announced. She had supporters ready for action, but demoralised the lot of us as she backtracked because positive Poll results were not sustained. If AS had still been leader, I think things would have been different. The campaign for Independence would have been placed first and foremost on the agenda. But things were not different it is the historical record what happened, why and how remain opinion of course. The Tories no doubt wanted to release their party from the Eurosceptics once and for all and hoped the British people would support that view. They were wrong. We progress from there. Immediately on the horizon , I keep pointing out , you have a party , labour , and a prospective prime minster , keir starmer , an out and out europhile , who is polling on average 19 points ahead , and has been since rishi resigned and back stabbed Johnson. you say we progress , so bear that in mind when starmer takes you back into the EU under BRINO terms , `to make Brexit work`. No previous parliament can bind a future parliament. Starmer can do as he pleases....... |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 23, 2024 12:23:52 GMT
Hmm to a certain extent I get your point, the upshot is though that all the way through the decisions were placed into the hands of the British people whether to accept membership on the renewed terms or not. If we accepted that decision we accepted all the decisions made in the Union. The UK did not accept that decision and democratically left through a referendum the first in 41 years. Scotland had the referednum and decided to stay in teh UK Union and accept all the decisions made in that Union but some want another referendum after less than ten years. As I said it is the nature of Unions. Gibraltar , which isn't part of Britain , also voted I the referendum , and Northern Ireland which is part of the uk , but not part of Britain voted , and got to remain. So the idea this was a UK democratic referendum , and Scotland just had to shut up and do what it's told is fucking laughable. Especially when two British prime ministers agreed one part of the uk , could remain , but the part that voted highest remain Scotland couldnt. Your argument is so out of date , considering the events in northern ireland , it's full of more holes than a teabag. The uk did not leave , only the British island part fully left. One part got to remain de facto , so so should Scotland. Gibraltar is also still effectively in the EU. In fact, it is classed as part of Schengen. If you are sailing in the Med' time spent in Gib' doesn't count against your 90 days in a 180 that you are allowed in the EU. |
|
No wonder you are a dying breed.........
