Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Sorry* to riff on your pain.

It seems to me that the referendum was the single most important event in the history of Scottish independence in the last century so forgive me for mentioning it now and again. Just as the oil price is the single most important metric impacting both the Scottish economy and the finances of a potential independent Scottish Government.

Sorry* if you don't like those things but it's kinda too bad really. For all your bluster about the popularity of the SNP and the eagerness of the Scottish population to embrace an independence that seems to be neither sought nor offered at present, the finances of a putative Scottish state look horrible and the Scottish people, when given the chance, rejected independence wholeheartedly.



*I'm not sorry.

So ? What is it you want to discuss on a debate thead on a discussion forum, the last referendum forever ? Or the politics and economics that are happening now, that may possibly lead to a second one ?

*Sorry.. But yours is only one opinion in a myriad of others on some discussion forum on some website. And to be perfectly frank I think you get all your info from afar and have absolutely no clue really what's going on. And sadly never really have done for all your own bluster. That's why you rely so much on other's here piling in to back you up, as well as Hamish. Who am sorry to say, just isn't representative of Scotland and it's perspectives constitutionally, nor in general voting terms either.

Like it, or lump it. It's the way it is and perhaps time that you accepted the fact. The SNP IS popular, and I don't recall ever stating that a second independence referendum would be held anytime before at least 2020/21.

As for I don't like these things. I obviously do like discussing these things. Or haven't you noticed ? Loads and loads of people do. Check out any Scottish article in any newspaper, media, online or social media outlet and you'll find people are just as keen to discuss these things as I am. No,Yes voters and others alike. It's total click bait. It's why we all do it. We enjoy it.

The Labour party is the only political glue this political union has holding it together anymore. And it's not holding well at the moment. That's an interesting and very sudden development. As is the Scotland Act, as is a possible Brexit, as are the Holyrood elections, as are oil price drops ( even if they have no effect on voter intentions) ...

Oh and get a grip eh. It's nothing personal against you. You're just someone to 'forum joust' with. And it happens on every single contentious thread here in all of the discussion areas. In fact it happens in every forum. I'm very happy to keep reliving 2014 if indeed that's what you want to keep discussing on a debate thread. Delighted in fact. There's no pain there for me. I just thought we'd already discussed all there was to say at the time. Perhaps not. Carry on then.

* I'm not sorry either.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

No you wouldn't.

Yes I would. But I know full well that you won't. Because you can't, there are none. And you know it too.

I stopped reading at blood and soil for the rest. I personally won't be responding to any further posts of that nature. That's just nasty stuff that doesn't belong in any respectful debate, and I have no wish to waste further pixels on.

Generali

So STD, you don't want to discuss the oil price and you don't want anyone to mention that Scottish people were asked if they want to be independent and said No!

You don't want to discuss anything that's in the newspapers (unless it's pro-SNP in which case you're all over it) and you don't want to discuss GERS figures as they are tainted by Westminster civil servants having touched them.

You don't believe anything on the BBC.

Perhaps at this point it would be helpful to provide a list of things you are happy to discuss. It shouldn't take long to type.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I stopped reading at blood and soil for the rest. I personally won't be responding to any further posts of that nature. That's just nasty stuff that doesn't belong in any respectful debate, and I have no wish to waste further pixels on.

Somehow I don't think you did. But sounds good for dramatic effect.

Nothing wrong in calling a response for what it sounds like. If you want to take or interpret it , as actually being personally called one, then flounce off in faux indignation fine with me. Perhaps it hit closer to home than I had previously thought?

As recently some of content of your recent posts to my surprise have leaned towards giving that very impression.

And let's not forget you personally have a history of throwing 'nasty' aspersions and assumptions at various posters like confetti on this thread when it suits you.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

So STD, you don't want to discuss the oil price and you don't want anyone to mention that Scottish people were asked if they want to be independent and said No!

You don't want to discuss anything that's in the newspapers (unless it's pro-SNP in which case you're all over it) and you don't want to discuss GERS figures as they are tainted by Westminster civil servants having touched them.

You don't believe anything on the BBC.

Perhaps at this point it would be helpful to provide a list of things you are happy to discuss. It shouldn't take long to type.

This thread is 461 pages long. I've been happy to discuss every single issue, newspaper story and absolutely anything and everything that comes up in it. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm not happy to discuss it. I think it's been pretty blindly and ( probably boringly for some ) obvious to everyone, that I'm up for the debate here.

I just don't agree with anything much you have to say. Because I don't think you really know much about what you're talking about. Throwing oil prices, London, subsidies and 'you blew it'. Seems to be the sum parts of most of your posts. You're certainly by no stretch of the imagination any credible authority on Scottish politics nor iScotland economics come to that ( no one is on the iScotland part) . Imo you simply rely far too much on hyped up tabloid stories and Hamish for info, then parrot it all out repeatedly as if that makes it all true. It makes things repetitive here. Which apparently I'm to blame for.

Oh and I've typed plenty. I know you post a lot on this forum and 'cliques' form. And I also know people like me are certainly well in the minority in terms of the debate here. But that doesn't make you right. Scotland and independence is far more nuanced that 'wot Hamish said' or dependent on the price of a barrel of oil I'm afraid.

You're just getting all personal and huffy now anyway. This has nothing to do with the topic. I've tried to move on from 'me' several times now today with you and several others. I really can't be bothered when you start this personal slagging off stuff l and sneery 'look at me' sniggering about my education today. It bores. Everyone reading.

I'm not the SNP. I'm not Scottish politics nor economics or the independence movement. I just don't agree with you on many of the issues at hand. If you really do want to discuss me, or any perceived flaws in my posting style, posts, spelling mistakes or indeed any more of my achievements while at school, my marital status or love life. Drop me a PM anytime and I'll be happy to engage with you.

But it has nothing to do with the topic.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Somehow I don't think you did. But sounds good for dramatic effect.

Nothing wrong in calling a response for what it sounds like. If you want to take or interpret it , as actually being personally called one, then flounce off in faux indignation fine with me. Perhaps it hit closer to home than I had previously thought?

As recently some of content of your recent posts to my surprise have leaned towards giving that very impression.

And let's not forget you personally have a history of throwing 'nasty' aspersions and assumptions at various posters like confetti on this thread when it suits you.

If you have an issue with me personally. Then private message me and we'll talk there. Otherwise. Why don't you get back to letting us all know what the Scottish Conservatives are going to do about free prescriptions, council taxes and tuition fees ?

Nothing hit home skinmacflint. I deal with posters getting lost in personal grievances when they don't agree on forums all day, every day. You and Generali being prime examples today. It just bores me that's all. I can't be bothered getting into slagging matches. Blood and soil is beyond the pale though. I won't engage with that sort of crap aimed at me. Sorry.

HornetSaver

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Well, I'm feeling pretty disheartened reading these last couple of pages. I thought this thread was better than what it has stooped to.....

Since shakes is the only regular pro Indy/SNP poster here I can only presume you all enjoy reading and responding. If she really was thick you'd all have given up long ago. I think what fascinates is she (& I ) are representative of a large number of scots. But it's oh so easy just to dismiss us as a bunch of thickos. Poor show folks.:(

For those who haven't seen me post on these pages I'm more or less neutral on Scottish Independence, on the assumption that any separation would be as clean as it looked like it would have been had Yes won the 2014 referendum.

I debated with Shaky quite regularly at the start of the year, and to be honest the main difference in our opinions of how referendum 2 will occur were semantics (and a three year time difference between when I and Shaky think the referendum will happen). Yes, there was some rhetoric and a few disingenous remarks thrown in. Some which slightly weakened her argument, given that it starkly differs from how both Salmond and Sturgeon have set about trying to achieve a clean break, but hardly stuff that made her seem unintelligent. If anything the capacity to disagree with someone who shares your overall aims is a sign of intelligence.

In my experience pro-independence and pro-union posters (generally, not just on this site) are equally capable of spin, exaggeration and ignoring what they don't like. Same goes for pro-choice vs pro-life, In vs Out, Pound vs Euro, and any other emotive issue you can shake a stick at. The only real difference between this debate and others is that there are more Scots who are strongly pro-indy than strongly pro-union (though on the evidence of the last referendum, more who are pro-union overall), but more non-Scottish unionists than Scots on these forums, which can create a lopsided debate. It's much easier to be disingenuous when you're in the majority, and much more obvious that you're doing it when you're in the minority. As can be seen on a weekly basis at Prime Ministers' and First Ministers' questions from each and every part of the UK.

.string.

@Shakey - a few points

generali can and no doubt will, speak for himself but somehow I doubt if he lives on a diet of UK Tabloids in Australia. But there are other sources of information available, thanks to the www. He's an economist dealing with economic realities and information is available for him to give valued input wherever he might be. Opinion from British people is important as well you know, not just those of the "Yes" persuasion.

You talk about being fed up with revisiting the Referendum: well it was an important event and it showed a couple of things to me, apart from the result itself. First it showed there was more support for independence than I thought. Secondly it showed that the SNP did not fight fair, making use of a false economic prospective to persuade the electorate. Arguments to the contrary at the time were dismissed as "Project Fear" but luckily for all won through.

Since that time the SNP has clearly learnt that it cannot make a factual economic case for a separated Scotland enjoying the same amount of prosperity which includes the goodies of free this and that (*). Time and again us Unionists have challenged Indy supporters to give a forecast for what the economy would look like, income and spending, but it never happens and I doubt it ever will.

In that context it is rather legitimate to remind ourselves and everyone of the deceitful tactics of the SNP.

So the discussion we have been having is bouncing between the economic background and emotional judgement. Obviously both are important and both need exposure to have a sensible discussion.

By the way I think you should show your fellow Scot, Skintmacflint, more respect, in his long life he has seen a lot and learnt a lot and the latter shows.

(*) If I'm wrong on that you are more than welcome to give some figures.

.string.

HornetSaver wrote: »

For those who haven't seen me post on these pages I'm more or less neutral on Scottish Independence, on the assumption that any separation would be as clean as it looked like it would have been had Yes won the 2014 referendum.

....

Depends what you mean by "clean" of course, but there's little doubt in my mind that Scotland separating would have done enormous damage both to the UK and Scotland, more so for the latter.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey - a few points

generali can and no doubt will, speak for himself but somehow I doubt if he lives on a diet of UK Tabloids in Australia. But there are other sources of information available, thanks to the www. He's an economist dealing with economic realities and information is available for him to give valued input wherever he might be. Opinion from British people is important as well you know, not just those of the "Yes" persuasion.

String, a few points in reply. I'm sure he can speak for himself. But the direction this thread took wasn't down to me. And as I've said. If you have a problem with me personally, then either message me, or take it up with the moderators. Otherwise, it's probably best all round just stick to the topic. Because that's how forum pile in's start happening. They can get nasty, real quick.

I had dinner with some Scottish people tonight. They think that in general anyone who supports independence is thick.

That has been my experience of Scots in Australia too.

LOL. Calm down STD! HAMISH has written plenty about how the supporters of independence tend to be the bludgers rather than the grafters.

Still, if your support is mostly as dumb as a box of rocks then perhaps you have to wonder if you're treading the right path. Oh heck, I did it again didn't I. Sorry.

Oh I wouldn't deny that some are thick!

<--- this was yourself.

How did your educational career go out of interest STD?

Oh dear. That bad.

Oh well.

STD has been suckered in to believing,...It's an easy link used to draw in the simple minded

The real STD has long since been replaced by a computer program

There is room here for a bit of forum jousting.

Up until the 'thick' point we had been discussing the current Scotland Bill.

You talk about being fed up with revisiting the Referendum: well it was an important event and it showed a couple of things to me, apart from the result itself. First it showed there was more support for independence than I thought. Secondly it showed that the SNP did not fight fair, making use of a false economic prospective to persuade the electorate. Arguments to the contrary at the time were dismissed as "Project Fear" but luckily for all won through.

Since that time the SNP has clearly learnt that it cannot make a factual economic case for a separated Scotland enjoying the same amount of prosperity which includes the goodies of free this and that (*). Time and again us Unionists have challenged Indy supporters to give a forecast for what the economy would look like, income and spending, but it never happens and I doubt it ever will.

In that context it is rather legitimate to remind ourselves and everyone of the deceitful tactics of the SNP.

So the discussion we have been having is bouncing between the economic background and emotional judgement. Obviously both are important and both need exposure to have a sensible discussion.

By the way I think you should show your fellow Scot, Skintmacflint, more respect, in his long life he has seen a lot and learnt a lot and the latter shows.

(*) If I'm wrong on that you are more than welcome to give some figures.

I don't engage with people who show myself so little respect that they would have to stoop to references to blood and soil in order to evoke a response. Respect cuts both ways. You're hard enough going as it is with the constant 'vile' and Natland comments. But I do normally enjoy debating with him.

I have no problem revisiting the referendum should that be what comes up. My problem is that with people that cannot see that the situation is changing and hasn't remained the same. Insisting on applying the same rigid set of political and economic parameters that existed in Sept 2014 over and over again to Jan 2016. They don't fit anymore.