Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Response to CLAPTON


@Leanne - for your sake I recommend you don't carry that through. Such an action can put you in a position of giving up your ability to challenge a post which you really don't like, even one which damages your own standing... Better to retract now from the absolute nature of what you wrote than make it more difficult later.

Surely you can see and understand how difficult itis sometimes to have a rational discussion with Clapton.

What should I retract? The discussion started because I mentioned something I heard on the radio. I thought I was answering questions Clapton had asked. Before I knew it I was once again a complete zoomer :rotfl:

.string.

@Leanne - my remark has nothing to do with the words that were exchanged, it was just meant as some friendly advice. You can always avoid responding if you wish, but don't limit your options.

I say the same to myself sometimes.

elantan

Obviously string your experience will be different from mine, I remember as a young 17 year old on her honeymoon trying to exchange sterling for pesatas ( sp) and the person replying in Spanish. .. I know no Spanish and try as I might to I couldn't understand what was being said ... I remember distinctly turning to this seemingly lovely old lady and saying " excuse me, sorry to bother you but I'm afraid I don't understand Spanish at all are you able to understand this person"

This lovely seeming wee lady turns to me and says " no I don't and I wouldn't tell you even if I did your Scottish "


So to say there is no anti Scottish feeling is I'm sad to tell you an illusion
So you can pretend as much as you like it's all or mainly one way ... but I know and have experienced it from the other side ...

Ps this was over 25 years ago now ... and I know things havnt improved ... but this experience always stuck with me ... I think mainly because I expected a sweet old lady

.string.

I did not say that there was no anti-Scottish feeling but that there was no "tradition of anti-Scottish feeling" meaning that it was not endemic in the English psyche.

IMHO of course.

elantan

.string. wrote: »

I did not say that there was no anti-Scottish feeling but that there was no "tradition of anti-Scottish feeling" meaning that it was not endemic in the English psyche.

IMHO of course.

I think that's the important bit ... it's in your opinion ... I know many people here that have experienced it suggesting it's as endemic on both sides

However I do find it interesting to note whilst many people here will accept that it's an issue on both sides ... a lot of people from England refuse to see what's clearly obvious behaviour from their own side ... if we're to choose sides obviously

Tromking

mardatha wrote: »

If we really did cost England money - then why the whole "Better Together" garbage? Why would Cameron hang onto us? The only thing that interests a Tory is MONEY. So we must bring the stuff in if they want to hang onto us.

You do understand there's such a thing as a unionist don't you? Cameron believes in the Union and is happy to fund the poorer areas with money from the rest, and in Scotland's case they get more again on top.
The only reason the Barnett subsidy is ever mentioned is in riposte to those who try and propagate the myth that Scotland is being held back by the rUK when in fact the opposite is true.

.string.

elantan wrote: »

I think that's the important bit ... it's in your opinion ... I know many people here that have experienced it suggesting it's as endemic on both sides

However I do find it interesting to note whilst many people here will accept that it's an issue on both sides ... a lot of people from England refuse to see what's clearly obvious behaviour from their own side ... if we're to choose sides obviously

Clearly you argue for a different take.

But I stick with viewpoint, as per my post #6365

.string.

Tromking wrote: »

You do understand there's such a thing as a unionist don't you? Cameron believes in the Union and is happy to fund the poorer areas with money from the rest, and in Scotland's case they get more again on top.
The only reason the Barnett subsidy is ever mentioned is in riposte to those who try and propagate the myth that Scotland is being held back by the rUK when in fact the opposite is true.

You make a very good point.

Leanne1812

skintmacflint wrote: »

Leanne, SNP's constitution has to my knowledge always had Independence as its first and primary stated aim. The furtherance of all Scottish interests comes second.

SNP MPs are now not allowed to state anything in public, which doesn't fit with the central party line. Which I think would certainly include the constitution of the party and its primary aim.

So what different answer do you think this MP could have given in the circumstances? And survived politically?

Could have said something like Independence is the goal when the time is right. If and when support shows the Scottish people want it then it will be on the agenda. I really find it quite incredible that this conversation occurred. The fact that a high profile unionist said it makes it even more unbelievable. Name him/her and let them defend this and it might just be credible.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

The SNP are playing a dangerous game.

What, by having a wide range of policies people vote for ? Please, less drama. Putting a political party in power/an X next to them in the ballot box, because you by and large agree with them is how democracy works. The SNP are no different in that regard and play by exactly the same rules everyone else does.

There's a tendency among some to forget that the SNP are there because real (49.97% of Scots ) people voted for them. Just like every other political party in power <

---

Then when that sinks in or is pointed out duly resort to the 'deluded, cult, acolyte, liars, nat minds and deceit' lines. Is getting tedious.