Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

the sad truth is that she was selected BECAUSE she was willing to lie for the cause.

She was elected because people felt she was the best person for the job, despite her honest mistake. Unlike me, you didn't have to live with the old dinosaur Labour MP she replaced... never seen until there was an election in the offing. And the first thing he did on being voted out was blab to the local papers 'Good.. now I can tell all those constituents to f off'.

She's been excellent so far. Often seen out and about at weekends supporting good causes and meeting constituents. Unlike her predecessor. If she stood again tomorrow, she'd win again by a landslide. However, like most SNP MP's she's happy to make clear that she won't be getting too cosy down in Westminster, and is very much looking forward to the day she leaves there. As are half her constituents.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Many Scots voted on the basis that they felt Scotland would be better run from Holyrood. Like most countries are with their own parliaments. There's not many about these days happy to be run from the country next door. I'm not quite sure why you don't get that.. but hey ho.

You'll be hearing it all again shortly via the EU referendum.

There are small many regions of about 5 million that fully embrace the idea they are better off sharing a sovereign state with their neighbours, as they feel that collectively, they are stronger and have more resilience in the event of untowold future events. I accept that this arrangement works better if there is not a 300 year old history of anger and inferiority complex.
I believe, in the event, the majority thought it better together.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

No, we are discussing your faux outrage about the SNP not getting the 'right' verdict in a court of law. (I'm sure the SNP will sort that out after independence)

Also we are discussing the relative seriousness of the offence of Carmichael and Whitford and the SNP's moral values (or lack of them).

Carmichael was taken to court for possibly breaking electoral law as a sitting MP and Scottish Secretary of State. He leaked confidential information that 'wasn't correct' ( his words) to a newspaper which could've caused great damage to an election campaign. His constituents weren't aware of the full facts when they went to the polls.

Whitford wasn't even an MP. Her now constituents were aware of the full facts when they went to the polls.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

There are small many regions of about 5 million that fully embrace the idea they are better off sharing a sovereign state with their neighbours, as they feel that collectively, they are stronger and have more resilience in the event of untowold future events. I accept that this arrangement works better if there is not a 300 year old history of anger and inferiority complex.

I believe, in the event, the majority thought it better together.

At the time. Yes. A few years of unfettered Conservative majority rule in Westminster should soon sort that one out though. There are not many countries happy to be in a union where only a small number support the policies of ruling party in power next door. Nor will be happy to accept them forever.

In case you hadn't noticed, Scotland is in a process of divesting itself of unionist politicians. Both at Holyrood, and in Westminster. IMO it won't be long before Scottish Labour start turning either.. they've already voted against Trident renewal. Their deputy leader is a Home Rule advocate. And are currently making noises about allowing members to openly support independence. They know which way the wind is blowing.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

At the time. Yes. A few years of unfettered Conservative majority rule in Westminster should soon sort that one out though. There are not many countries happy to be in a union where only a small number support the policies of ruling party in power next door. Nor will be happy to accept them forever.

In case you hadn't noticed, Scotland is in a process of divesting itself of unionist politicians. Both at Holyrood, and in Westminster. IMO it won't be long before Scottish Labour start turning either.. they've already voted against Trident renewal. Their deputy leader is a Home Rule advocate. And are currently making noises about allowing members to openly support independence. They know which way the wind is blowing.

we are both united in believing that by May 16 Scotland will be a one party state and almost 100% of the people there, will be demanding a new referendum.
We may well disagree on why we both support Scottish independence but then it will all be about tactics.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It was the first electoral trial of it's kind where an MP was on trial for electoral conduct. Not for smearing an opponent during an election campaign. But for lying about his own conduct in order to affect an election result.

Hope that answers things for you in terms of what makes it unique. The rest of your last post was just full of, well, missing the point completely. Like Clapton who's gone off on a tangent.
.

First does not equate to unique, inspiring nor interesting. The fact you can't even contemplate that , says a lot about what is happening in Scotland for the worse these days. But don't let that get in the way of another of your postings on here.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

She was elected because people felt she was the best person for the job, despite her honest mistake.

Nonsense.

The woman lied over and over again. There wasn't the slightest bit of truth in her very detailed story. It was completely made up.

You cannot exalt an NHS consultant for knowing what's really going on in the NHS and then excuse her complete lack of knowledge of what's really going on in the NHS as an 'honest mistake'...

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Many Scots voted on the basis that they felt Scotland would be better run from Holyrood. Like most countries are with their own parliaments. There's not many about these days happy to be run from the country next door. I'm not quite sure why you don't get that.. but hey ho.

You'll be hearing it all again shortly via the EU referendum.

I see that yet again, you ignore the fully justified criticism of SNP policy being based on lies.

I fully understand that, and why it is so. (Hear no Evil, see ......... etc.)

You will be hearing this again no doubt.

Regarding your comment on the EU, it clearly shows the only thing on myopic SNP minds. Strange how you think you can square that whinge with the fact that if Scotland was separated they would be out of the EU.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

At the time. Yes. A few years of unfettered Conservative majority rule in Westminster should soon sort that one out though. There are not many countries happy to be in a union where only a small number support the policies of ruling party in power next door. Nor will be happy to accept them forever.

The crux of that argument is whether simply not being "happy" is ever going to be enough for a majority of Scots to go nuclear and vote for independence. You extrapolate too much from current voting trends in my view. Who's to say that a majority of Scots will be happy to vote SNP ad infinitum but never feel the need to vote independence?

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nonsense.

The woman lied over and over again. There wasn't the slightest bit of truth in her very detailed story. It was completely made up.

You cannot exalt an NHS consultant for knowing what's really going on in the NHS and then excuse her complete lack of knowledge of what's really going on in the NHS as an 'honest mistake'...

You can in the through-the-looking-glass world of Natland. A place that remains solvent regardless of the tax base. A place where freedom of expression is maintained by banning dissenting voices. A place where the lies of supporters are honest mistakes but the opinions of opponents are dangerous lies to be suppressed.