Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Happygreen

Generali wrote: »

Presumably you have some kind of source for this data which you would be happy to share with the rest of us. A link to an authoritative website is traditional.

Otherwise, the more cynical among us might think you have simply made something up that supports your wild and outlandish claims.

Violence in Glasgow[edit]

Violence was committed in Glasgow's George Square by unionists celebrating the referendum's result.
On the night of 19 September, hundreds of unionists arrived to celebrate the 'No' vote and reportedly attacked independence supporters who had been gathered in George Square.[433] Many of the unionists waved Union Jacks or loyalist flags and chanted "Rule, Britannia!".[433] Some appeared to make Nazi salutes and shouted racist abuse.[433] About 150 police officers were drafted in to separate the groups but some unionists broke through police lines.[433] A number of people were reportedly beaten and bottles were thrown.[434] A press photographer told The Scotsman he saw people being "kicked about" and was forced to flee after being threatened.[434] The electricity generator of the Sunday Herald, the only newspaper to support independence, was set on fire by two men.[435] Police made eleven arrests and set up an 'incident room'.[434] The violence was condemned by politicians from both the 'Yes' and 'No' camps.[434]

quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

If you want more , let me know.

elantan

.string. wrote: »

It seems to be impossible to post things that cannot be twisted by the terminally paranoid. They can't recognise the truth anymore.

Ronnie is one Ronnie, two Ronnies are two of them.

elantan is one elantan, two elantans are two of them.

S is one S, two Ss are two of them.

No subliminal message intended, but then if the reader is in whinge mode, then any interpretation to create division will do!

Please please keep it up ... blame us and our misunderstanding of your jokes ... don't ever feel the need to apologise for your behaviour ... or indeed ever feel the need to accept that any unionist could ever be abusive ... it's always the indy side that's to blame ... in fact keep adding the word Whinge in ... the new power word of the unionists ... they all cut us like knives in the heart and don't become white noise at all ...

I've made my point you've made yours ... anyone reading this will make their own minds up so I will no longer engage you on this particular subject

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I followed the link to the article I posted, directly from twitter to the article. Not the Herald website front page itself. If I had seen the Lord Smith article up, I may well have posted it, but I didn't. I apologise that I forgot about your linking difficulties. However, in turn when jumping on my posts re balance, do take time to note that I may not have read a newspaper or media source in it's entirety when posting up a link ( though I will have read the article I post in full ).

The comments, like most Herald politics articles theses days,.. under the Lord Smith piece make for far more interesting ( because he would say that wouldn't he ) reading.

Crown Estates, and the Sewell Convention are just two areas which haven't been delivered in full as agreed. The cross party Devolution Committee also points this out among other things. In short, just because Lord Smith says it.. doesn't make it so. And after all, Smith Commission participants all agreed on the below also...yet won't devolve referendum control.

"It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose."

That quote says nothing about the process Shakey, if what the SNP claim were true it would have said so. You're grasping at straws there.

I don't know what the issue is with Crown estates, although I remember there was an issue about the need for the Union to have full control over areas where Reserved activities were conducted, for example the Trident base. That was a concern that Health and Safety / SNP / Green zealots would use their jurisdiction to declare it a nuclear free zone. Or maybe its about the Queen ---maybe you could explain, in a balanced way of course, what the issue is

In any case these things are hardly about ore and more magical fiscal powers and the charge remains that it is the SNP who have failed to honour their side of the Smith Agreement.

Speaking of which, the reported slur on Smith is underhand, he is acting like a neutral referee; his judgement is important.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

It seems to be impossible to post things that cannot be twisted by the terminally paranoid. They can't recognise the truth anymore.

Ronnie is one Ronnie, two Ronnies are two of them.

elantan is one elantan, two elantans are two of them.

S is one S, two Ss are two of them.

No subliminal message intended, but then if the reader is in whinge mode, then any interpretation to create division will do!

If you hadn't quite a track record for hate or spite when it comes to the SNP there might be some credibility in your reply.

Go on, have a good whinge now about your little faux pas and our, of course, paranoia.

Tromking

elantan wrote: »

Please please keep it up ... blame us and our misunderstanding of your jokes ... don't ever feel the need to apologise for your behaviour ... or indeed ever feel the need to accept that any unionist could ever be abusive ... it's always the indy side that's to blame ... in fact keep adding the word Whinge in ... the new power word of the unionists ... they all cut us like knives in the heart and don't become white noise at all ...

I've made my point you've made yours ... anyone reading this will make their own minds up so I will no longer engage you on this particular subject

Lol!
.string, take from me to be no longer engaged in any subject by elantan is a blessed relief. ��

Tromking

elantan wrote: »

Please please keep it up ... blame us and our misunderstanding of your jokes ... don't ever feel the need to apologise for your behaviour ... or indeed ever feel the need to accept that any unionist could ever be abusive ... it's always the indy side that's to blame ... in fact keep adding the word Whinge in ... the new power word of the unionists ... they all cut us like knives in the heart and don't become white noise at all ...

I've made my point you've made yours ... anyone reading this will make their own minds up so I will no longer engage you on this particular subject

Lol!
.string, take from me to be no longer engaged in any subject by elantan is a blessed relief. 😀

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

That quote says nothing about the process Shakey, if what the SNP claim were true it would have said so. You're grasping at straws there.

The SNP defer to the Devolution Committee who were tasked to look at and monitor the Scotland Bill. It's a cross party committee overseeing the 'process' from Holyrood's side.

I don't know what the issue is with Crown estates, although I remember there was an issue about the need for the Union to have full control over areas where Reserved activities were conducted, for example the Trident base. That was a concern that Health and Safety / SNP / Green zealots would use their jurisdiction to declare it a nuclear free zone. Or maybe its about the Queen ---maybe you could explain, in a balanced way of course, what the issue is

Try this :-

Revenues from the Crown Estate are set to be devolved under the Scotland Bill which is currently going through the UK Parliament.But an exception to the bill means the Fort Kinnaird retail park in Edinburgh, which the Crown Estate has a 50% stake in, will not be devolved. The Scottish government has called for the retail park to be handed over to Holyrood along with the rest of the Crown Estate's assets in Scotland.
But the UK government has said it has no intention of doing so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34698630

There are other issues with Crown Estates but I don't have the time to re-post them now ( as I have before ). The Sewell convention was also not legislated for despite agreement in Smith. As well as other things that were agreed to by ALL parties.

We also note that, at this stage, no amendments
have been made to the
employment provisions, the clause on disability or placing all three strands of the
Legislative Consent Convention into statute. The first is a clear breach of the cross
-party agreement in Smith.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/2015.12.11_Letter_to_the_Secretary_of_State_on_the_Scotland_Bill_and_Report_Stage.pdf

In any case these things are hardly about ore and more magical fiscal powers and the charge remains that it is the SNP who have failed to honour their side of the Smith Agreement.

Speaking of which, the reported slur on Smith is underhand, he is acting like a neutral referee; his judgement is important.

Read the letter for yourself. I can't be spoon feeding you everything. The Devolution Committee says Smith hasn't been delivered in full as agreed, and have put forward their concerns. Mundell, Murray and now Smith do. Who to believe...

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I followed the link to the article I posted, directly from twitter to the article. Not the Herald website front page itself. If I had seen the Lord Smith article up, I may well have posted it, but I didn't. I apologise that I forgot about your linking difficulties. However, in turn when jumping on my posts re balance, do take time to note that I may not have read a newspaper or media source in it's entirety when posting up a link ( though I will have read the article I post in full ).

The comments, like most Herald politics articles theses days,.. under the Lord Smith piece make for far more interesting ( because he would say that wouldn't he ) reading.
l.

Precisely my point on balance. As usual you linked to an article which suited your purpose here, having first read it to make sure it suited your purpose, without looking elsewhere to see if there was something more balanced.

Which there was in both the article I asked you to link to in the Herald and most importantly in the Daily Record article. Which promoted positive co-operation between parties and with Westminster.

Due to linking difficulties I typed the 4 key areas which Smith highlighted needed to be worked on mentioned in the DR , for the new powers to be effective for Scotland, not tribal politics. First and foremost improved relations between the SG and UK government. This implied everyone needs to make an effort and improvement.

And that would never suit your agenda on here , for the benefit of passing readers.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You blame Nicola Sturgeon personally for a police call out that went tragically wrong ? Dear me.. we are getting a little carried away with the blame game aren't we.. Police Scotland may well be having troubles with merging.

I think you're confusing Labour campaigning, with well, facts.

jpg[/IMG]

No , stop being silly . You made that up. I highlighted Sturgeon had to resort to polling figures to get herself out of difficulties of her own making during FMQ's. On a process totally under her party's control and oversight. I think you're confusing SNP party line with facts.

You can stop your nasty habit of selectively twisting what someone said into something different. So you can conveniently knock down your own projection while posting more SNP party spin, which inevitably involves a further dig at Labour. It fools no one on here, and hopefully not even the passing viewer your slanted posts are aimed at.

Labour hasn't been in power in Scotland for 8 years, but has voters you still desperately need to convince to switch over to enable a huge Pro Yes majority of MSPS next year. How is your SNP/Yes alliance campaign going for the List votes. Hear rumblings of a wee bit of discontent in the ranks.

Happygreen

Tromking wrote: »

Lol!
.string, take from me to be no longer engaged in any subject by elantan is a blessed relief. 😀

You are obviously under the impression that your reply is so valuable that you had to post it twice? Once with an edit to the emoticon would have done sufficiently to bless us with your qualified expression of opinion.