Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Mistermeaner

The border of Scotland England is a pretty arbitrary concept for me.

Where is the logic that says Yorkshire or Cumbria can't join them if the people of said region democratically elect to do so.?

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

The border of Scotland England is a pretty arbitrary concept for me.

Where is the logic that says Yorkshire or Cumbria can't join them if the people of said region democratically elect to do so.?

why stop there
why not the whole of england
we could call it a union of two kingdoms

.string.

Maybe the SNP Empire could subsidise us, the blueberry crop was not so good this year.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I doubt anyone outside of Twitter saw much of that. Interesting as it was to follow. Also interesting that Bella Caledonia has lost so much support over the issue which is a shame.. ( always a bit too studenty/airy fairy for me but horses for courses )... RISE has probably lost a lot of goodwill over it.
:

But you are forever declaring the majority of SNP/Yes voters have abandoned MSM , instead following ProIndy sites like Newsnet, Commonspace, Bella, Wingsy etc. All of which have had articles, blogs, arguments and comments.

If what you infer has any truth , it therefore seems reasonable to conclude a good size majority have read the articles and are well aware of the 'split'.

You can't be right about both surely?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/section/I

Hmmmm.

Would you care to drag up a few more 300 year old Treaties and insist they say exactly as they were forever more ?

Shakey will now explain in spun detail why it is democratic not to keep faith with a binding agreement.

If that even were to be true, then why did the 2014 referendum go ahead ? I think it was pretty obvious to all, that it was a vote on dissolving that Treaty. Or did we all imagine it ? You're tying yourself up in knots here a little bit string. Hmmmm... <--- just realised that was a bit of an unintended pun. Sorry.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

But you are forever declaring the majority of SNP/Yes voters have abandoned MSM , instead following ProIndy sites like Newsnet, Commonspace, Bella, Wingsy etc. All of which have had articles, blogs, arguments and comments.

Yes that's right. And pretty obvious to everyone. Wings and other pro-indy sites have bigger readerships these days than some MSM. I see 'Scotland on Sunday' is next for the chop.

If what you infer has any truth , it therefore seems reasonable to conclude a good size majority have read the articles and are well aware of the 'split'.

You can't be right about both surely?

I doubt it. And even if so *shrugs*, they're all still pro independence. So any 'split' isn't along that particular line. They'll ALL still vote Yes if there was another referendum. They won't be running whooping to the ballot box voting Tory or Labour any time soon. Sorry to disappoint.

The 'split' between those that want independence because they feel Scotland should be self-governing, and those who see independence as just the means to an end in building a more 'radical' or 'socially just' society. Has always been there. However, most of us are a bit of both imo.

No one was questioning anyone's right to vote how they wish anyway. It's when articles start appearing saying 'votes are wasted' and that other brand new policy free pro-indy parties ( promote/promote/promote ) should be considered ? Solely on the basis of some dodgy maths on the D'Hondt system and the fact that they've already taken it as 100% that the polls are 100% correct ?

Oaft no. Was a gamble too far for a lot of people at this stage of the electoral cycle. Mike Small/Bella Caledonia has taken himself offline for a bit. Now's not the time to be spinning roulette wheels on voting systems. Other, more especially the newer parties, can earn their votes the old fashioned way like everyone else. On actual policies. Not on the back of dodgy tactical voting in a system that's never designed for it. Bella over reached themselves in trying to change James Kelly's article on the voting system to suit. It backfired and rightly so given from what I saw from the email exchange.

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

The border of Scotland England is a pretty arbitrary concept for me.

Where is the logic that says Yorkshire or Cumbria can't join them if the people of said region democratically elect to do so.?

Nothing.

https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-government-allow-the-north-of-england-to-secede-from-the-uk-and-join-scotland

But seriously. Scotland and England have parliaments. Yorkshire and Cumbria don't. I guess it's as simple as that.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Personally I don't think now is the time to be divvying up votes for Holyrood between 'pro-indy' parties, especially not under dubious 'tactical voting' methods. The slightest sniff of a 'socialist' govt at Westminster and parties like RISE/Solidarity and mabye Greens would abandon independence like a shot ( unlike the SNP ).. Nor long articles agonising over how 'radical' or what a post independent Scotland should look like politically. Bella/Mike Small has just learnt to his cost, that it's far too soon to be getting bogged down with this stuff.. we're not independent yet. And one should never take one's eye off the main prize. :cool:

Strikes me as a pretty narrow, rose tinted naive viewpoint, which hasn't looked much further than the dream of a 'freedom party night ' with balloons, fireworks and lots of flag waving etc.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Strikes me as a pretty narrow, rose tinted naive viewpoint, which hasn't looked much further than the dream of a 'freedom party night ' with balloons, fireworks and lots of flag waving etc.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

It's just sensible logic. The SNP need a majority in order to even consider calling another referendum in the next 5 years if things change ( a Brexit for example)... This isn't the time for p****ng about with 'radical' parties just for the sake of it. There's going to be enough mud thrown at the SNP over the next few months trying to stop that occurring... without other pro-indy sites/party's getting in on the act for the sake of a bit of media coverage ( that's the only way frankly these days they can be sure of getting it sadly ).

And to be completely honest, most of these parties are small for a reason. They're far too left leaning for your 'average' Scottish voter... who in the main are much further to the left than the Conservative, and Labour ( until Corbyn).

Bella made a mistake in thinking it's readership would be far more sympathetic than they actually are to parties like RISE. Also that people would be persuaded to vote tactically for them. Far worse though, was trying to paint themselves as being 'open to all views'.. then trying to censor an article from a well known poll number cruncher, who knows the system inside out... putting forward technically and factually what's behind the SNP x 2 reasoning.

Bella Caledonia ‏@bellacaledonia 13 hrs13 hours ago Drowning under the sea of negativity against Bella. Going to take some time off social media to consider best options.

I hope they come back. But an SNP majority can't be taken for granted. And there's not that many willing to take a punt risking that for RISE. Greens have a good shout at a few more MSP's this time round though I think.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Other, more especially the newer parties, can earn their votes the old fashioned way like everyone else. On actual policies. Not on the back of dodgy tactical voting in a system that's never designed for it. .

Yet it seemed to work out rather well for SNP in 2011 Holyrood Elections.

SNP weren't backward in asking people to lend them their vote in 2015 either. And I'm well aware of the difference between FPTP and our weighted list votes, before you get into Tasmina-any-party-will-do lecture mode on the difference.