Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8

[Silverbullet767]

Uppity said:

Nope. Just in favour of Scotland being in charge of its own austerity.

EFA

[gofasterrosssco]

Uppity said:

r11co said:

Silverbullet767 said:

Christ, the nats are crawling out of the woodwork, aren't they?

That's the thing though, they aren't really arguing Nat. Read the subtext of their recent posts and you can see its more to do with anti-Conservative sentiment. That's what seems to bring them out.

Nope. Just in favour of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny.

It is. Remember that event we had in 2014.? Is that not being in charge of your own destiny?

Or are you meaning 'destiny' from an ideological rather than democratic perspective?

[Troubleatmill]

Uppity said:

Nope. Just in favour of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny.

Have you perhaps considered maybe the country holds a once in a lifetime referendum to decide the matter?

[technodup]

Strocky said:

Say in a trade deal the UK Gov faces the decision, rule in direct conflict with the Scottish Parliament's wishes on a specific law or scupper a trade deal?
What option would you take as an Unionist?

The Scottish Parliament is a parochial wee collection of tartan tts intent on banning everything in front of them. As you've seen very recently Westminster (rightly) is supreme.

The problem here is not that Westminster rules in conflict, it's that there is a conflict in the first place. Shut it down.

[Strocky]

r11co said:

Silverbullet767 said:

Christ, the nats are crawling out of the woodwork, aren't they?

That's the thing though, they aren't really arguing Nat. Read the subtext of their recent posts and you can see its more to do with anti-Conservative sentiment. That's what seems to bring them out.

As I said - nationalism is just the proxy and the SNP are playing this faction of their support for fools every time Nicola spits 'HARD TOAREE BREXIT'' (not happening, BTW) and 'TOAREE AUSTERITY' (non-existent - see earlier). I am reminded of referendum day 2014 when SNats hung a banner over the M8 carrying the words 'Thatcher No More'. Point.....missed.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 12:19

Or maybe it's driven by Scotland getting the party the democratic majority voted for and not the South of England deciding which one of the two party hegemony we end up with

[DocJock]

Strocky said:

r11co said:

Silverbullet767 said:

Christ, the nats are crawling out of the woodwork, aren't they?

That's the thing though, they aren't really arguing Nat. Read the subtext of their recent posts and you can see its more to do with anti-Conservative sentiment. That's what seems to bring them out.

As I said - nationalism is just the proxy and the SNP are playing this faction of their support for fools every time Nicola spits 'HARD TOAREE BREXIT'' (not happening, BTW) and 'TOAREE AUSTERITY' (non-existent - see earlier). I am reminded of referendum day 2014 when SNats hung a banner over the M8 carrying the words 'Thatcher No More'. Point.....missed.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 12:19

Or maybe it's driven by Scotland getting the party the democratic majority voted for and not the South of England deciding which one of the two party hegemony we end up with

46% of a 55% turnout can in no way be described as a 'democratic majority' no matter what definition you are using.
63 seats out of 129 can in no way be described as a majority.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you spout such utter ste?

[Strocky]

DocJock said:

46% of a 55% turnout can in no way be described as a 'democratic majority' no matter what definition you are using.
63 seats out of 129 can in no way be described as a majority.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you spout such utter ste?

Calm down dear, I'm talking about a future General Election in an Indy Scotland not the current Holyrood setup

Who knows maybe the Tories could break the glass ceiling of 25% support in Ecosse

And look up D'Hont there's a good lad

[r11co]

Strocky said:

Or maybe it's driven by Scotland getting the party the democratic majority voted for and not the South of England deciding which one of the two party hegemony we end up with

Re-treading old arguments here. Notwithstanding that the SNP are by the latest measure a minority party in Scotland both in representation and vote share, the so called 'democratic deficit' only seems to become a problem when it works against the SNats. Way back in 2015 when they were sitting with 94% of the Scottish representation at Westminster on the back of less than 50% of the vote we heard nae a peep about it.

New developments, but still the same old st from the pseudo Nats.

Strocky said:

And look up D'Hont there's a good lad

If it weren't for the list system Nicola would still be trying to scratch a living as a lawyer. See techno's post earlier.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 14:12

[Strocky]

r11co said:

Re-treading old arguments here. Notwithstanding that the SNP are by the latest measure a minority party in Scotland both in representation and vote share, the so called 'democratic deficit' only seems to become a problem when it works against the SNats. Way back in 2015 when they were sitting with 94% of the Scottish representation at Westminster on the back of less than 50% of the vote we heard nae a peep about it.

New developments, but still the same old st from the pseudo Nats.

Funny how their WM Manifesto that year argued for PR

[Strocky]

Nanook said:

Sure you were.

When you said "It's driven by" you were referring to a future general election, in an independent Scotland. Obviously, that's what you meant.

Stop embarrasing yourself.

That's what I meant and that's what I've clarified so you don't need to do the angry wee boy routine

[Uppity]

r11co said:

That's the thing though, they aren't really arguing Nat. Read the subtext of their recent posts and you can see its more to do with anti-Conservative sentiment. That's what seems to bring them out.

Nope. Just in favour of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny.

gofasterrosssco said:

It is. Remember that event we had in 2014.? Is that not being in charge of your own destiny?

Yes, it was. And the voters chose to remain in the UK on the basis of a number of arguments. Remember these?



The reason the independence voice isn't going away is because people remember the anti-independence promises and are comparing them against Westminster's actions. As David Mundell reminded us last week during his statement on the Sewel Convention; "Scotland is not a partner of the United Kingdom; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom,"

And, because of the representation issue (59 MPs out of 650), Scotland has no comeback to this. There are no consequences for Mundell or any of his ilk.

So the question of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny is both democratic and ideological - democratically, we need a voice and ideologically, we should be able to form and implement our own policies. Under the current system, both goals can be ignored at will by Westminster if they don't align with their agenda - and there are no consequences.

Edited by Uppity on Tuesday 19th June 14:33

[Strocky]

Nanook said:

And yet, it's so see-through, that no-one will believe you. A recurring theme with Nats.

Angry? Not at all angry. Why would I be? I'm a Scot, living in the UK. In the context of the thread, I'm winning

Ri11co said:

As I said - nationalism is just the proxy

Strocky said:

Or maybe it's driven by Scotland getting the party the democratic majority voted for and not the South of England deciding which one of the two party hegemony we end up with

Now explain to me why the SOE would have any impact on Labour or the Tories winning a Holyrood election?

No need for an apology

[Strocky]

Uppity said:

Yes, it was. And the voters chose to remain in the UK on the basis of a number of arguments. Remember these?



The reason the independence voice isn't going away is because people remember the anti-independence promises and are comparing them against Westminster's actions. As David Mundell reminded us last week during his statement on the Sewel Convention; "Scotland is not a partner of the United Kingdom; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom,"

And, because of the representation issue (59 MPs out of 650), Scotland has no comeback to this. There are no consequences for Mundell or any of his ilk.

So the question of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny is both democratic and ideological - democratically, we need a voice and ideologically, we should be able to form and implement our own policies. Under the current system, both goals can be ignored at will by Westminster if they don't align with their agenda - and there are no consequences.

Secretary of State for Scotland said:

Organisations:

Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland
Current role holder:
The Rt Hon David Mundell MP

Responsibilities

The main role of the Scottish Secretary is to promote and protect the devolution settlement.

Other responsibilities include promoting partnership between the UK government and the Scottish government, and relations between the 2 Parliaments.

I wonder how he'll get on at his next appraisal?

[neelyp]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-44532985

The announcement that unconventional gas extraction was banned in Scotland "was a mistake"

The conniving fkers even waited on the judgement to change the text on their website.
Some real quality politicians we're lumbered with.

[gofasterrosssco]

Strocky said:

Uppity said:

Yes, it was. And the voters chose to remain in the UK on the basis of a number of arguments. Remember these?



The reason the independence voice isn't going away is because people remember the anti-independence promises and are comparing them against Westminster's actions. As David Mundell reminded us last week during his statement on the Sewel Convention; "Scotland is not a partner of the United Kingdom; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom,"

And, because of the representation issue (59 MPs out of 650), Scotland has no comeback to this. There are no consequences for Mundell or any of his ilk.

So the question of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny is both democratic and ideological - democratically, we need a voice and ideologically, we should be able to form and implement our own policies. Under the current system, both goals can be ignored at will by Westminster if they don't align with their agenda - and there are no consequences.

Secretary of State for Scotland said:

Organisations:

Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland
Current role holder:
The Rt Hon David Mundell MP

Responsibilities

The main role of the Scottish Secretary is to promote and protect the devolution settlement.

Other responsibilities include promoting partnership between the UK government and the Scottish government, and relations between the 2 Parliaments.

I wonder how he'll get on at his next appraisal?

So, I'm getting this right, that you feel the statements are invalid, not through action, but because the SoSS didn't use the word 'partner'..? You guys really are the gift that keep on giving.. I don't know if you're both as thick as both ends of a Mother Pride, or just so far into your beliefs, but anyway, you don't seem to comprehend basic logic. I guess this is the output of trying to use reason to counter idealogical arguments!

Not really a fan of David Mundell (we've had much better SOSS in the past), but taking out that you don't agree with the 'power grab', did he not facilitate the negotiations which lead 129 additional devolved 'powers'.? His job is to up hold the devolution agreement. The agreement (under-written by the Sewel Convention) that the Scottish Gov. broke when they had a vote out with the convention that exceeded their devolved power, hence why the presiding officer said it was beyond their competence...

So which part has he comprehensively failed in?

[r11co]

Strocky said:

Ri11co said:

As I said - nationalism is just the proxy

Strocky said:

Or maybe it's driven by Scotland getting the party the democratic majority voted for and not the South of England deciding which one of the two party hegemony we end up with

Now explain to me why the SOE would have any impact on Labour or the Tories winning a Holyrood election?

No need for an apology

I am sure that post made sense in your head.

I suspect though that you are going on about that self-determination thing again, which was well addressed earlier in the thread. What if someone in Ferguslie Park who voted Conservative is unhappy about a string of Labour/Green coalitions in Holyrood voted in by champagne socialists from the big cities and the dolemongers of Dundee? Independence for Renfrewshire? Where do you draw the line?

It's true though. Same old arguments from the seps that failed to convince the majority previously being endlessly trotted out to the extent that it has just become noise.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 14:51

[DocJock]

Strocky said:

Nanook said:

Sure you were.

When you said "It's driven by" you were referring to a future general election, in an independent Scotland. Obviously, that's what you meant.

Stop embarrasing yourself.

That's what I meant and that's what I've clarified so you don't need to do the angry wee boy routine

So, not only is your arithmetic ste, your written English is as well...

By the way, D'Hont is an irrelevant, total deflection, as you well knew when you posted it. The SNP have never achieved anywhere near a majority of either the constituency vote or the regional vote since the diddy parliament was set up.

[r11co]

Uppity said:

As David Mundell reminded us last week during his statement on the Sewel Convention; "Scotland is not a partner of the United Kingdom; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom,"

An accurate statement!

Strocky said:

Secretary of State for Scotland said:

Organisations:

Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland
Current role holder:
The Rt Hon David Mundell MP

Responsibilities

The main role of the Scottish Secretary is to promote and protect the devolution settlement.

Other responsibilities include promoting partnership between the UK government and the Scottish government, and relations between the 2 Parliaments.

I wonder how he'll get on at his next appraisal?

I wondered what the motivation for this random post attacking Mundell was, until I read this.

So, it seems that having lost the argument Blackford has resorted to type and opted to sling personal insults, and of course where he leads the sheep follow.

[Strocky]

r11co said:

I am sure that post made sense in your head.

I suspect though that you are going on about that self-determination thing again, which was well addressed earlier in the thread. What if someone in Ferguslie Park who voted Conservative is unhappy about a string of Labour/Green coalitions in Holyrood voted in by champagne socialists from the big cities and the dolemongers of Dundee? Independence for Renfrewshire? Where do you draw the line?

It's true though. Same old arguments from the seps that failed to convince the majority previously being endlessly trotted out to the extent that it has just become noise.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 14:51

It's fairly simple point I'm making as you "suspect"

You draw the line at a country, which Scotland as you're well aware is

[randlemarcus]

Strocky said:

It's fairly simple point I'm making as you "suspect"

You draw the line at a country, which Scotland as you're well aware is

Country, vassal state, meh, it's just semantics