|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 15, 2024 5:19:04 GMT
What happened to the SNP's 'de-facto' referendum? They lost again. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jul 15, 2024 21:57:19 GMT
They love to trot out that 'once in a generation' remark to justify denying Scotland another referendum. " ...how long is a political generation? This becomes a bit like speculating on the length of a piece of string. Scotland Office minister Douglas Ross took the scattergun approach of saying it should be "30, 40, or 50 years" in an interview with the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme on Wednesday. His boss Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, had earlier suggested a vote shouldn't take place during Ms Sturgeon's lifetime - which based on the average life expectancy for women of her age would be at least another couple of decades yet." www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175"Boris Johnson has reiterated his position that a Scottish independence referendum should be a "once-in-a-generation" vote. Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme, the prime minister said the gap between referendums on Europe - the first in 1975 and the second in 2016 - was "a good sort of gap"." www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55521732I am not quite sure who the “they” are that you refer to at the top of your post but there is no need for anyone to trot out that “once in a generation” remark (as you rather disparagingly put it) because there has not been anywhere close to the strong and sustained level of demand for independence since 2014 necessary to warrant another referendum. As for the “ once in a generation” remark,I am going to presume that you were not here during the referendum campaign and have not been sufficiently interested to do much research into what went on then, so you have just bought into the Indy line that this was just a throwaway remark made by Mr Salmond to Andrew Marr in the run up to referendum day. That is so far from the truth of the matter as to make those who peddle that line appear embarrassingly ill-informed at best, and much closer to outright liars, in my opinion. First of all, the “once in a Generation” line was one of 3 pieces of rhetoric of similar sentiment utilised during the referendum campaign by the YES movement. The others were “ Once in a Lifetime” and “One Opportunity”. Once in a Generation actually first featured quite some time before the referendum campaign proper I.e. when it appeared in a number of places in the 2013 White Paper, including, most strikingly, in the then FM’s preface. It was then employed, along with the Once in a Lifetime alternative, throughout the referendum campaign itself by those pushing the case for a YES vote. There is (or was) a clip available online that captured Nicola Sturgeon using one or other of these phrases on the stumps on numerous occasions that helps illustrate this. Then there was the “One Opportunity” version of the message. This featured very heavily in the final week or so of the campaign, with a seemingly endless supply of “One Opportunity “ banners, placards and other paraphernalia hitting our streets and, through the media coverage of the campaigners, through our tv and newspapers and, almost certainly, through the online campaigning of the Yes movement back then too. If you do a little bit of a search you should quickly find plenty of pics of Mr Salmond and/or Ms Sturgeon, amongst other senior Yes supporting figures, posing with or alongside overpowering One Opportunity messages. So not only was “Once in a Generation” and its variants a strong and recurring message throughout the referendum campaign, but out of the 3 variants, the “Once in a Generation” was the least onerous in terms of the timeframe that the YES campaign, including the then FM and deputy FM, were pushing at us. So forget trying to nit-pick over what a generation might be and think about what the 3 variants as a whole amounted to instead, and that is that there would be no second chance for decades at least, if ever. One Opportunity, in this particular context at least, means never again, after all. BTW - it was only the YES campaign that spoke and messaged in such a manner. The NO campaign said nothing to suggest that there would ever be another referendum, mirroring instead the UK Gov’s position by saying that the issue would be settled and the result implemented in accordance with the referendum decision, whatever that turned out to be. So, as things stand, the NO side has adhered to its rhetoric whilst the YES side has failed to respect the people’s decision and failed to honour its own rhetoric, yet it is the side that has acted honourably by keeping its word that you and many other Indy types choose to criticise. How bizarre! The once in a generation quip did indeed appear in the White Paper. But, so what? It was one man's remark. It was not binding on the Yes movement. Just where, when, and by whom, were "once in a lifetime", and "one opportunity" used during the campaign? When was Once in a generation even repeated. As for what a generation is, is not nit picking. Why has NI the right, every 7 years to seek a referendum on unity? Yes, the Government could refuse to hold such a plebiscite, but consider the turmoil such a refusal would bring. Your use of "settled" shows that the UK Government was of the opinion that no further referendum would be allowed. No, the YES side respected te result. The change came when the parties on the YES side were inundated with YES supporting people. Your revisionist history is a wee bit skewed as, if you bothered to check, Sturgeon proclaimed in 2015, 2016, aqnd 2017 that the elections were not about Independence. We believe in independence but that is not what this election is about. A vote for the SNP is a vote to rebalance the economic and political priorities of the UK. It is a vote for new, better and more progressive politicsfor everyone. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2015/localpdf/SNP.pdfWe believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the
right to hold another referendum if there is clear and
sustained evidence that independence has become the
preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people
– or if there is a significant and material change in the
circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland
being taken out of the EU against our willThe wishy washy outpouring of the SNP in 2016 blog.stevenkellow.com/manifestos/snp-2016.pdfAND, Before asking people to vote in an independence referendum,
we will set out the process by which our membership of the
EU will be secured in the circumstances that prevail at that
time – such as whether or not Scotland has already left
the EU as part of the UK.ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2017/localpdf/SNP.pdfUnder Sturgeon, the SNP were not honest with the YES movement on Independence. By 2017 many YESers had had enough and did not bother voting, resulting in a loss of many seats. In 2019, the party did learn, a bit, from their mistakes and support in the GE went back up. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 16, 2024 15:08:45 GMT
They may as well disband, it's over.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jul 19, 2024 5:11:18 GMT
They may as well disband, it's over. Do you remember your ecstatic reaction to the 2017 results? The SNP bounced back in 2019. I hope we see a similar reversal of fortune, from the 4th July result, in May 2026, with a clawing back of lost seats in the Central Belt in 2029. Or whenever Starmer decides to go to the country |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 19, 2024 6:35:53 GMT
That was before the absurd gender recognition bill, fraud scandals and the monumental rejection of Anglophobia, SNAT.
You are in a racist cult. You do not understand politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 18, 2024 6:25:29 GMT
I am not quite sure who the “they” are that you refer to at the top of your post but there is no need for anyone to trot out that “once in a generation” remark (as you rather disparagingly put it) because there has not been anywhere close to the strong and sustained level of demand for independence since 2014 necessary to warrant another referendum. As for the “ once in a generation” remark,I am going to presume that you were not here during the referendum campaign and have not been sufficiently interested to do much research into what went on then, so you have just bought into the Indy line that this was just a throwaway remark made by Mr Salmond to Andrew Marr in the run up to referendum day. That is so far from the truth of the matter as to make those who peddle that line appear embarrassingly ill-informed at best, and much closer to outright liars, in my opinion. First of all, the “once in a Generation” line was one of 3 pieces of rhetoric of similar sentiment utilised during the referendum campaign by the YES movement. The others were “ Once in a Lifetime” and “One Opportunity”. Once in a Generation actually first featured quite some time before the referendum campaign proper I.e. when it appeared in a number of places in the 2013 White Paper, including, most strikingly, in the then FM’s preface. It was then employed, along with the Once in a Lifetime alternative, throughout the referendum campaign itself by those pushing the case for a YES vote. There is (or was) a clip available online that captured Nicola Sturgeon using one or other of these phrases on the stumps on numerous occasions that helps illustrate this. Then there was the “One Opportunity” version of the message. This featured very heavily in the final week or so of the campaign, with a seemingly endless supply of “One Opportunity “ banners, placards and other paraphernalia hitting our streets and, through the media coverage of the campaigners, through our tv and newspapers and, almost certainly, through the online campaigning of the Yes movement back then too. If you do a little bit of a search you should quickly find plenty of pics of Mr Salmond and/or Ms Sturgeon, amongst other senior Yes supporting figures, posing with or alongside overpowering One Opportunity messages. So not only was “Once in a Generation” and its variants a strong and recurring message throughout the referendum campaign, but out of the 3 variants, the “Once in a Generation” was the least onerous in terms of the timeframe that the YES campaign, including the then FM and deputy FM, were pushing at us. So forget trying to nit-pick over what a generation might be and think about what the 3 variants as a whole amounted to instead, and that is that there would be no second chance for decades at least, if ever. One Opportunity, in this particular context at least, means never again, after all. BTW - it was only the YES campaign that spoke and messaged in such a manner. The NO campaign said nothing to suggest that there would ever be another referendum, mirroring instead the UK Gov’s position by saying that the issue would be settled and the result implemented in accordance with the referendum decision, whatever that turned out to be. So, as things stand, the NO side has adhered to its rhetoric whilst the YES side has failed to respect the people’s decision and failed to honour its own rhetoric, yet it is the side that has acted honourably by keeping its word that you and many other Indy types choose to criticise. How bizarre! The once in a generation quip did indeed appear in the White Paper. But, so what? It was one man's remark. It was not binding on the Yes movement. Just where, when, and by whom, were "once in a lifetime", and "one opportunity" used during the campaign? When was Once in a generation even repeated. As for what a generation is, is not nit picking. Why has NI the right, every 7 years to seek a referendum on unity? Yes, the Government could refuse to hold such a plebiscite, but consider the turmoil such a refusal would bring. Your use of "settled" shows that the UK Government was of the opinion that no further referendum would be allowed. No, the YES side respected te result. The change came when the parties on the YES side were inundated with YES supporting people. Your revisionist history is a wee bit skewed as, if you bothered to check, Sturgeon proclaimed in 2015, 2016, aqnd 2017 that the elections were not about Independence. We believe in independence but that is not what this election is about. A vote for the SNP is a vote to rebalance the economic and political priorities of the UK. It is a vote for new, better and more progressive politicsfor everyone. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2015/localpdf/SNP.pdfWe believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the
right to hold another referendum if there is clear and
sustained evidence that independence has become the
preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people
– or if there is a significant and material change in the
circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland
being taken out of the EU against our willThe wishy washy outpouring of the SNP in 2016 blog.stevenkellow.com/manifestos/snp-2016.pdfAND, Before asking people to vote in an independence referendum,
we will set out the process by which our membership of the
EU will be secured in the circumstances that prevail at that
time – such as whether or not Scotland has already left
the EU as part of the UK.ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2017/localpdf/SNP.pdfUnder Sturgeon, the SNP were not honest with the YES movement on Independence. By 2017 many YESers had had enough and did not bother voting, resulting in a loss of many seats. In 2019, the party did learn, a bit, from their mistakes and support in the GE went back up. You are, once again, displaying your inability to read, process and understand. Have another read of my post, try your best to concentrate hard, ask your mummy or daddy for help with any of the big words that you don’t understand, and hopefully you will see that the answers to most of your questions are sitting there. You will also see why your attempt to downplay and dismiss the various references in the 2013 White Paper as a personal opinion and a quip bears no relation to the truth of the matter. You obviously haven’t bothered spending the 2 minutes it would take on Google to search for the examples that I referred to above otherwise you would not be embarrassing yourself here by asking these questions. The Nicola Sturgeon video is still available so just type “Nicola Sturgeon and the Once in a Generation Game” into your search engine and, provided you can access Facebook, it will take you straight there. Similarly, type “One Opportunity Scottish Referendum” into your search engine and you will immediately discover plenty of images and photos from the indyref campaign of Mr “Sleepy Cuddles” Salmond and Ms. “No Recollection” Sturgeon cosying up with One Opportunity placards etc at Indy ref campaign events along the lines that I pointed at above. As for your comments on NIs referenda entitlements, you are so far off the mark with your undestanding of what this 7 year stipulation is all about that I almost pity you. Here’s what I posted a couple of hours ago on another thread in response to you when you made the same badly mistaken claim about NI’s entitlement I.e. “ It is not automatically ok for NI to have a re-unification referendum every 7 years nor, for that matter, is there any obligation to hold such a referendum every 7 years or at any other interval. That should be pretty obvious even to you given that whilst 25 years have elapsed since the signing of the GFA there has not been a single re-unification referendum. NI can only have a re-unification referendum if and when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considers that prevailing circumstances are such as to warrant one, following which a minimum of 7 years must elapse before the question can be put to the people of NI again. This is much more restrictive than Scotland’s situation where there is no stipulated minimum period between independence referenda which means, in theory, and unlike the situation in NI, we could hold an Indyref every 7 weeks or even every 7 days, nevermind every 7 years”. Are you really taking the position that if Ms Sturgeon proclaimed something then that must be true because we all know just how honourable and honest she was at all times and that her integrity as FM was above reproach? Well, forgive me if I live in the real world. The YES side and the SNP ScotGov never did and, shamefully, still do not respect the 2014 referendum result nor honour their one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation rhetoric, much to the detriment of the Scottish people and Scottish politics over the last decade. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Aug 18, 2024 12:24:44 GMT
The once in a generation quip did indeed appear in the White Paper. But, so what? It was one man's remark. It was not binding on the Yes movement. Just where, when, and by whom, were "once in a lifetime", and "one opportunity" used during the campaign? When was Once in a generation even repeated. As for what a generation is, is not nit picking. Why has NI the right, every 7 years to seek a referendum on unity? Yes, the Government could refuse to hold such a plebiscite, but consider the turmoil such a refusal would bring. Your use of "settled" shows that the UK Government was of the opinion that no further referendum would be allowed. No, the YES side respected te result. The change came when the parties on the YES side were inundated with YES supporting people. Your revisionist history is a wee bit skewed as, if you bothered to check, Sturgeon proclaimed in 2015, 2016, aqnd 2017 that the elections were not about Independence. We believe in independence but that is not what this election is about. A vote for the SNP is a vote to rebalance the economic and political priorities of the UK. It is a vote for new, better and more progressive politicsfor everyone. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2015/localpdf/SNP.pdfWe believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the
right to hold another referendum if there is clear and
sustained evidence that independence has become the
preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people
– or if there is a significant and material change in the
circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland
being taken out of the EU against our willThe wishy washy outpouring of the SNP in 2016 blog.stevenkellow.com/manifestos/snp-2016.pdfAND, Before asking people to vote in an independence referendum,
we will set out the process by which our membership of the
EU will be secured in the circumstances that prevail at that
time – such as whether or not Scotland has already left
the EU as part of the UK.ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2017/localpdf/SNP.pdfUnder Sturgeon, the SNP were not honest with the YES movement on Independence. By 2017 many YESers had had enough and did not bother voting, resulting in a loss of many seats. In 2019, the party did learn, a bit, from their mistakes and support in the GE went back up. You are, once again, displaying your inability to read, process and understand. Have another read of my post, try your best to concentrate hard, ask your mummy or daddy for help with any of the big words that you don’t understand, and hopefully you will see that the answers to most of your questions are sitting there. You will also see why your attempt to downplay and dismiss the various references in the 2013 White Paper as a personal opinion and a quip bears no relation to the truth of the matter. You obviously haven’t bothered spending the 2 minutes it would take on Google to search for the examples that I referred to above otherwise you would not be embarrassing yourself here by asking these questions. The Nicola Sturgeon video is still available so just type “Nicola Sturgeon and the Once in a Generation Game” into your search engine and, provided you can access Facebook, it will take you straight there. Similarly, type “One Opportunity Scottish Referendum” into your search engine and you will immediately discover plenty of images and photos from the indyref campaign of Mr “Sleepy Cuddles” Salmond and Ms. “No Recollection” Sturgeon cosying up with One Opportunity placards etc at Indy ref campaign events along the lines that I pointed at above. As for your comments on NIs referenda entitlements, you are so far off the mark with your undestanding of what this 7 year stipulation is all about that I almost pity you. Here’s what I posted a couple of hours ago on another thread in response to you when you made the same badly mistaken claim about NI’s entitlement I.e. “ It is not automatically ok for NI to have a re-unification referendum every 7 years nor, for that matter, is there any obligation to hold such a referendum every 7 years or at any other interval. That should be pretty obvious even to you given that whilst 25 years have elapsed since the signing of the GFA there has not been a single re-unification referendum. NI can only have a re-unification referendum if and when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considers that prevailing circumstances are such as to warrant one, following which a minimum of 7 years must elapse before the question can be put to the people of NI again. This is much more restrictive than Scotland’s situation where there is no stipulated minimum period between independence referenda which means, in theory, and unlike the situation in NI, we could hold an Indyref every 7 weeks or even every 7 days, nevermind every 7 years”. Are you really taking the position that if Ms Sturgeon proclaimed something then that must be true because we all know just how honourable and honest she was at all times and that her integrity as FM was above reproach? Well, forgive me if I live in the real world. The YES side and the SNP ScotGov never did and, shamefully, still do not respect the 2014 referendum result nor honour their one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation rhetoric, much to the detriment of the Scottish people and Scottish politics over the last decade. Ah, so the man from England, the man who claims to be "persuadable" on Independence returns! Yet again showing he is an out and out rabid Unionist who would aways find something to moan about and use it as an excuse for not being "persuaded" As for the personal attacks ... grow up!!! And yet again you are talking bullshit. Whatever Salmond wrote in "Scotland's Future" was one man's view. Also, so what if Nicola Sturgeon repeated it? As far as I am aware it was not SNP policy. The quip was not repeated by anyone in the YES camp. Neither Dennis Canavan nor Blair Jenkins made any such remark ... unless, of course, your google hunting comes up with anything that says different.. I know exactly what the NI agreement says. The fact remains that a referendum could be held every seven years. Yet such an arrangement is not open to Scotland. Oh, and I did not use the word "automatic" in relation to NI and referenda. The SNP accepted the result. I will repeat, and perhaps it will sink in to your petulant, pompous, ill mannered, brain this time: the change in direction came with the massive increase in membership. Most of the new members were active during the campaign and wanted a rerun. As I have already pointed out Sturgeon dampened that enthusiasm by proclaiming that the 2015 & 16 elections were not about Independence. In 2019 the SNP went out of their way not to talk about Independence, and that ill conceived policy lost the Party a lot of seats. In 2019 they did talk up Independence & won back seats, but they have done nothing to further the cause. Similarly in 2021. By 2024 thousands of activists had left the party because of inaction by the leadership. Many of those did not vote in the recent election thus helping swell Labour's victory. Are you really suggesting that we should have packed our bags and left the idea of an Independent Scotland behind? Why should we give up on our aspirations. We continue and no idiotic, head in the sand point of view will change that! As for NS, it is all there in the manifestos for the various elections. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 18, 2024 12:49:37 GMT
“ As for the personal attacks ... grow up!!!”
Do you really have so little self-awareness that you can’t see the glaring irony in you posting this? You need to take a look at the content of your posts to me and others and sort yourself out before you resort to making such hypocritical comments again.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 18, 2024 13:01:00 GMT
You are right that an arrangement such as that in NI is not open to Scotland. If only it were then we would perhaps have avoided the constant and societally damaging neverendum debate over most of the last decade because democracy disrespecting Indy types would not have been able to call for another referendum until late 2021 at the earliest, that being the minimum period of 7 years after the 2014 referendum. Instead, potential Scottish Indy referenda are not impeded by any minimum timeframe so, in theory, we could have an indyref every day of every week until such time as you and your fellow Indy zealots get the result that you so crave - after which, no doubt, you would hypocritically insist that the matter is settled for all time and that no further referenda would be tolerated.
Can you explain why putting a 7 year minimum timeframe (not a fixed timeframe btw) on intervals between referenda rather than having no restriction upon how soon one referendum can follow on from another is preferable to you and your fellow indy zealots? I ask this because the logic of your position is beyond me. Surely you would prefer to have a follow up referendum as soon as possible, rather than having to wait for at least 7 years for the next one to come along, particularly if there were to be a spike in support for Scexit in the interim during which time that spike in support might subside and the prospect of a YES majority subside with it while you wait for the 7 year interval to expire?
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 18, 2024 13:25:14 GMT
The White Paper of 2013 was an SNP Scottish Government publication and Mr Sleepy Cuddles was the head of that SNP Scottish Government and head of the SNP. It was in that former capacity and on behalf of the SNP Scottish Government that he wrote his doubtless carefully selected words, presented them as a preface (which, as I am sure you understand, is a key and dominant part of such publications) and signed and placed his preface full front and centre of the White Paper to stress its consequence. Whilst this was the most high profile and significant mention of “ once in a generation” contained within that White Paper it was not the only usage of the term. There are at least 2 other places where it was used by the then SNP Scottish Government in addition to it taking pride of place in the then FM’s preface.
Of course what he and NS (as his successor as FM and as head of the SNP) said about one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation was important. That it was needs no explanation.
The SNP never, at any stage, accepted the 2014 result. Sure, they may have postured a little along those lines from time to time with some hollow words but, as history shows, their actions were those of a party and a leadership that had no intention or respecting the will of the Scottish people or of honouring their one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation rhetoric.
I am not suggesting that you should have given up your aspirations for ever but you should have respected the views of the majority of your fellow citizens and the integrity of the referendum outcome and accepted the result as a mid- to long- term resolution of the issue. Had YES won the referendum then the result would have been implemented as a permanent solution, after all, with no or little chance of being reversed thereafter (unlike with a NO vote) so a serious show of respect for your fellow citizens, for the momentous importance of the indyref process to Scotland, and for the actual outcome would have been appropriate and becoming.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Aug 20, 2024 20:07:14 GMT
“ As for the personal attacks ... grow up!!!” Do you really have so little self-awareness that you can’t see the glaring irony in you posting this? You need to take a look at the content of your posts to me and others and sort yourself out before you resort to making such hypocritical comments again. Whatever I have said to you was in response to your attacks on me, and indeed, other posters who support Independence. It leaves a lot to be desired. Your m.o. is personal attacks. As I said in my last post ... "Grow up" |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Aug 20, 2024 20:47:19 GMT
You are right that an arrangement such as that in NI is not open to Scotland. If only it were then we would perhaps have avoided the constant and societally damaging neverendum debate over most of the last decade because democracy disrespecting Indy types would not have been able to call for another referendum until late 2021 at the earliest, that being the minimum period of 7 years after the 2014 referendum. Instead, potential Scottish Indy referenda are not impeded by any minimum timeframe so, in theory, we could have an indyref every day of every week until such time as you and your fellow Indy zealots get the result that you so crave - after which, no doubt, you would hypocritically insist that the matter is settled for all time and that no further referenda would be tolerated. Can you explain why putting a 7 year minimum timeframe (not a fixed timeframe btw) on intervals between referenda rather than having no restriction upon how soon one referendum can follow on from another is preferable to you and your fellow indy zealots? I ask this because the logic of your position is beyond me. Surely you would prefer to have a follow up referendum as soon as possible, rather than having to wait for at least 7 years for the next one to come along, particularly if there were to be a spike in support for Scexit in the interim during which time that spike in support might subside and the prospect of a YES majority subside with it while you wait for the 7 year interval to expire? Except that the SNP played it by the book. Section 30 Orders were requested time and again and were rejected on each occasion. This begging, repeated ad nauseum, offended many members, who then left the party because of the failure to produce a back up plan! The SNP, in part, lost the election because so many supporters stayed at home rather than vote, while others voted for unionist parties. Quite why a self-respecting Independista would stoop so low is unfathomable. If, after Independence, Unionists showed that they wanted a referendum, why would the Scottish Government reject it? How many countries, having gained Independence, wanted to return to the toxic union? Ireland certainly didn't. How many want to return to Brit Rule? There is a long list of countries gaining Independence from Brit rule. So how many want a return to the "good old days". Answer? Not one!!! The fact that there is a 7 year NI option is annoying mainly because no such rule applies to Scotland. Of course, we want a referendum to be held when we want it! But, we have to ask for the right to hold one and the requests have been dismissed out of hand. Now, even if a 7 year rule was applied, the UK Govt would, in all probability, say NO! And, for this reason, another, back-up plan is required. The ideal time was when the Brexit result was known. Sturgeon bottled it. There was no chance that the UK Government would agree to a Section 30, so other methods should have been assessed, and set in motion That no such means was even considered, led to disillusion in the ranks. That led to a massive loss of support in 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Aug 20, 2024 21:24:56 GMT
The White Paper of 2013 was an SNP Scottish Government publication and Mr Sleepy Cuddles was the head of that SNP Scottish Government and head of the SNP. It was in that former capacity and on behalf of the SNP Scottish Government that he wrote his doubtless carefully selected words, presented them as a preface (which, as I am sure you understand, is a key and dominant part of such publications) and signed and placed his preface full front and centre of the White Paper to stress its consequence. Whilst this was the most high profile and significant mention of “ once in a generation” contained within that White Paper it was not the only usage of the term. There are at least 2 other places where it was used by the then SNP Scottish Government in addition to it taking pride of place in the then FM’s preface. Of course what he and NS (as his successor as FM and as head of the SNP) said about one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation was important. That it was needs no explanation. The SNP never, at any stage, accepted the 2014 result. Sure, they may have postured a little along those lines from time to time with some hollow words but, as history shows, their actions were those of a party and a leadership that had no intention or respecting the will of the Scottish people or of honouring their one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation rhetoric. I am not suggesting that you should have given up your aspirations for ever but you should have respected the views of the majority of your fellow citizens and the integrity of the referendum outcome and accepted the result as a mid- to long- term resolution of the issue. Had YES won the referendum then the result would have been implemented as a permanent solution, after all, with no or little chance of being reversed thereafter (unlike with a NO vote) so a serious show of respect for your fellow citizens, for the momentous importance of the indyref process to Scotland, and for the actual outcome would have been appropriate and becoming. It was, as far as I recollect, not SNP policy. It was used by one man, and repeated by one woman. They were personal views. Apart from NOT being SNP Policy, it held no truck wuith the YES movement, and its leaders. Anyway, what AS wrote in 2013, does not mean that his view had not changed by September 2014. As for 'not accepting the result, I refer you to this article from the Guardian, www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/alex-salmond-accepts-scotland-independence-defeat-holyrood-powers. AS said "I accept that verdict of the people. And I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland."Now you have the right to hold a revisionist view of the aftermath of the referendum, but the reality is that it was accepted. Your problem is that you cannot accept a response which differs from the view you hold. I have given you the actual history. You so obviously can't accept reality. For your benefit, I will repeat, the NS regime actually discouraged Independence talk in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Even in 2019, there was only a haklf-hearted nod towards the party's main aim. Perhaps you should do a bit of digging into SNP history rather than rely on the Ultra Unionist rags you are basing your opinion on. Had YES won there would, no doubt, have been legal cases introduced to try and prevent it happening - there was anecgotal stories of some rich unionists readyto back such action. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 20, 2024 22:48:11 GMT
“ As for the personal attacks ... grow up!!!” Do you really have so little self-awareness that you can’t see the glaring irony in you posting this? You need to take a look at the content of your posts to me and others and sort yourself out before you resort to making such hypocritical comments again. Whatever I have said to you was in response to your attacks on me, and indeed, other posters who support Independence. It leaves a lot to be desired. Your m.o. is personal attacks. As I said in my last post ... "Grow up" You are deluding yourself big time on this - something which you have demonstrated expertise in time and again, of course, so no surprises here. . i started receiving what fairly quickly became a barrage of abusive language and unwarranted aggression on a routine basis, first from you and then, when he returned from a sojourn, from Jaydee, almost from the start of my time on the old forum simply because of my perfectly reasonable scepticism about the merits of the Indy proposition and because of your inability to come close to winning arguments against me and then, during my the last few months on there, when he finally stuck his head up above the parapet and didn’t like getting bested by me either, from Balmaha aka Thomas. This behaviour quickly resumed when I started posting on here I.e. as soon as you realised who I was. On one lengthy thread on the old site, one of the many where I was turning you inside out, pinning you down completely, and leaving you with no wiggle room whatsoever, you resorted to a level of abuse that was quantitatively and qualitatively excessive, even by your disgraceful standards. I, on the other hand, chose not to respond in kind because that is my normal MO and because I was enjoying seeing you unravel so much. Then, incredibly, you had the gall to accuse me of doing to you exactly what you had been doing to me throughout that thread and when I explained what was actually happening you refused to accept it and challenged me to show where you had been abusive and offensive towards me. I think that you were surprised when I took up that challenge and gave you a list of just how many abusive words you had used without reciprocation from me, and just how many times you had used each of those words: it amounted to between 40 and 50 instances of foul and abusive language from you towards me on that thread alone. As is your M.O. you simply refused to accept what I was telling you even though the evidence of your excessive abusiveness was right there staring you in the face for you to check. These were all words that seldom, if ever, emanate from me on here (although I am human so occasionally when I get yet another salvo of such abuse from you I concede that I let myself down a little and respond in kind out of pure contempt) - nor do I use them in my life in general because I have too much self respect to employ them and because I have a decent enough grasp of the English language not to need to do so to make my point or to communicate my feelings. That said, I certainly do call you things that you no doubt dislike being called, and I have stopped trying to be diplomatic and stopped employing euphemisms with you, because you forfeited the right to the normal courtesies long ago. Nonetheless, when I have called you what I believe you to be, such as a closed minded Indy zealot, an extremist, anti-English etc etc or when I point out your behavioural inadequacies and your intellectual limitations, then I am simply telling you what not just I but what most reasonable people would deduce you to be from your contributions to this place and to the old forum too - and I have not just done so as you do to me I.e. shoot off from the mouth without substantiation to back up what you say but, instead, have given you plenty of evidence in support of my conclusions about what it is that you are. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 20, 2024 23:25:36 GMT
The White Paper of 2013 was an SNP Scottish Government publication and Mr Sleepy Cuddles was the head of that SNP Scottish Government and head of the SNP. It was in that former capacity and on behalf of the SNP Scottish Government that he wrote his doubtless carefully selected words, presented them as a preface (which, as I am sure you understand, is a key and dominant part of such publications) and signed and placed his preface full front and centre of the White Paper to stress its consequence. Whilst this was the most high profile and significant mention of “ once in a generation” contained within that White Paper it was not the only usage of the term. There are at least 2 other places where it was used by the then SNP Scottish Government in addition to it taking pride of place in the then FM’s preface. Of course what he and NS (as his successor as FM and as head of the SNP) said about one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation was important. That it was needs no explanation. The SNP never, at any stage, accepted the 2014 result. Sure, they may have postured a little along those lines from time to time with some hollow words but, as history shows, their actions were those of a party and a leadership that had no intention or respecting the will of the Scottish people or of honouring their one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation rhetoric. I am not suggesting that you should have given up your aspirations for ever but you should have respected the views of the majority of your fellow citizens and the integrity of the referendum outcome and accepted the result as a mid- to long- term resolution of the issue. Had YES won the referendum then the result would have been implemented as a permanent solution, after all, with no or little chance of being reversed thereafter (unlike with a NO vote) so a serious show of respect for your fellow citizens, for the momentous importance of the indyref process to Scotland, and for the actual outcome would have been appropriate and becoming. It was, as far as I recollect, not SNP policy. It was used by one man, and repeated by one woman. They were personal views. Apart from NOT being SNP Policy, it held no truck wuith the YES movement, and its leaders. Anyway, what AS wrote in 2013, does not mean that his view had not changed by September 2014. As for 'not accepting the result, I refer you to this article from the Guardian, www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/alex-salmond-accepts-scotland-independence-defeat-holyrood-powers. AS said "I accept that verdict of the people. And I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland."Now you have the right to hold a revisionist view of the aftermath of the referendum, but the reality is that it was accepted. Your problem is that you cannot accept a response which differs from the view you hold. I have given you the actual history. You so obviously can't accept reality. For your benefit, I will repeat, the NS regime actually discouraged Independence talk in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Even in 2019, there was only a haklf-hearted nod towards the party's main aim. Perhaps you should do a bit of digging into SNP history rather than rely on the Ultra Unionist rags you are basing your opinion on. Had YES won there would, no doubt, have been legal cases introduced to try and prevent it happening - there was anecgotal stories of some rich unionists readyto back such action. Have you ever paused to consider just how inconsistent, to the point of being at opposite extremes, your responses are to what people should and should not be held accountable for, what you consider should be dismissed as a trivial flippancy of zero consequence or, alternatively, what should be uncompromisingly and unyieldingly held up against someone as condemnation of the highest order, and wondered what dictates your differing attitude? Well, as with every zealot and extremist out there, the answer in your case is very simple I.e. if it is Indy related then merit, consequence and culpability have nothing to do with it in your book; not a jot. The whole nature of your attitude to the individual and to the issue simply and exclusively depends upon which side of the Indy debate the individual under discussion supports and nothing else - yet you don’t believe that you are an Indy zealot … aye, right! Try to wriggle out of it as much as you want, and try to downplay and dismiss as irrelevant their behaviours and the evidence of your own eyes and ears, but no leader or deputy leader of a government or of a political party issues personal opinions on political matters from lecterns in public meetings and political rallies, especially during or in the run up to a hotly contested referendum campaign nor in the preface to a government White Paper. Prefaces are produced exclusively by the author of documents, which in this case was the Scottish Government, laying out the basis for producing and the circumstances surrounding the production of that document, so it indubitably follows that Sleepy Cuddles produced his preface in his capacity as First Minister (it even introduces him as such), the leader and on behalf of ScotGov. For you to try to argue anything else simply demonstrates your lack of understanding of what a preface is. You embarrass, if not yourself, then the Indy movement in general, by saying what you say above. What I describe and what I substantiated above is the truth of the matter and the SNPScotGov, the SNP itself, the current Alba Party leader and the sycophants who follow him, and the general YES movement itself are all guilty of disrespecting the Scottish people and of dishonouring the one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation rhetoric that they sold to the Scottish people before and during the referendum campaign. |
|
