The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

.string.

cogito wrote: »

Told you not to hold your breath.

3rd strike? 😂

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I know you will not agree with me Shakey, but I would like to know the SNP line on this.

Why would the SNP line apply to Green voters string ? I don't know what you're asking me to answer to be honest.

Green voters vote Green. SNP voters vote knowing they're voting for a pro-indy party. So do Green voters. Between them they form a majority in Holyrood. The SNP put the motion for a referendum forward for a referendum, the Greens also voted for it. While I was happy that the Greens voted for it, I am not a Green voter so cannot answer as to how their voters feel. Though I'd hazard a guess that since 2011 Patrick Harvie and most of his party are out and proud about being pro independence, most of them were quite happy with the way Greens voted too.

I'm sure I don't need to give you chapter and verse about how parliamentary processes work ? Party sets out motion or bill, other parties vote on it, if most in parliament vote for it the motion or bill is passed ? A second referendum is now the official wish of the Scottish Parliament following the same democratic processes which both Westminster and Holyrood follow. Do you have some kind of problem with that at all string ? How strange !

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Such desperation from pro-indy types.
How unusual.
How original.
:whistle:

This pretty much sums up a normalised opinion of this supposed "car crash" interview:

"Now, you can be forgiven for wondering what all the hype is about. In common with most experienced politicians, Ruth Davidson did not lose her cool, and did not get tangled up in mumbled responses. She restated questions in her own terms, she deflected and she simply avoided answering some of the trickier questions. So it wasn’t a Car Crash interview, but it was notable nonetheless; the reason being that it was one of the only times any BBC interviewer, or any journalist at all, had actually challenged Ruth Davidson with some searching questions."

That from Rab Bruce's Spider, no less.
What a day, when these accept it but some here can't.


There's no need to go further; the deflection and misinterpretation discussed in Rab Bruce's Spider are no more and no less than most politicians practise as we all know.
No matter what their persuasion.


http://rbs.postach.io/post/a-minor-bump

She was terrible. No answers and flibbered and flabbered all over the place talking really, really, quickly and over the top of the interviewer in order to avoid what she was asked. She'll have to do MUCH better than that.. especially when she's asked questions about Brexit, immigration, rape clauses and child poverty (<-- welfare not devolved ).. not just in the next few weeks, but for the next few years in the lead up to a possible independence vote.

We all KNOW what Davidson has to say on an independence referendum. What we want to know now is what she's got to say on things like child poverty, immigration and Brexit consequences.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Why would the SNP line apply to Green voters string ? I don't know what you're asking me to answer to be honest.

Green voters vote Green. SNP voters vote knowing they're voting for a pro-indy party. So do Green voters. Between them they form a majority in Holyrood. The SNP put the motion for a referendum forward for a referendum, the Greens also voted for it. While I was happy that the Greens voted for it, I am not a Green voter so cannot answer as to how their voters feel. Though I'd hazard a guess that since 2011 Patrick Harvie and most of his party are out and proud about being pro independence, most of them were quite happy with the way Greens voted too.

I'm sure I don't need to give you chapter and verse about how parliamentary processes work ? Party sets out motion or bill, other parties vote on it, if most in parliament vote for it the motion or bill is passed ? A second referendum is now the official wish of the Scottish Parliament following the same democratic processes which both Westminster and Holyrood follow. Do you have some kind of problem with that at all string ? How strange !

Thanks for the reply.

No need for the last two words Shakey. Naturally I know about Parliamentary majorities.

It is the over-egging of the mandate issue that I take objection to. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that it does not equate to a mandate for the SNP minority Government.

The SNP case is certainly arguable, but it is the mandate of the Greens that I am questioning here at this time and, by extension, that of the Mandate of the Parliamentary Decision .

So, elanten, you being a Green voter (dredged out of my memory) how do you justify the Green's turn-about in voting for a referendum when they had explitly stated that they would not?

Strike 1

Shaka_Zulu

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's what I told you would happen when folks finally realised the Tories were making gains up here as evidenced with the council elections. They've gotten a wake up call.

You mean that because a another political party makes gains you feel it is time to mobilise your the nationalist storm troopers to disrupt debate with their jeering, booing and heckling.

Next you will be call calling for your own nat kristallnacht to wipe the Tories from Scotland.

Fortunately at this time we still live in slightly more enlightened times.

indyref2 is dead, you can point to the odd poll in your favour but at the end of the day it will be the X on the ballot paper that decides your fate.

You think people tell you the truth (polls), no they will just quietly vote the way their conscience tells them and you will be receiving significantly less than 40% of the vote.

It is all over.

We have had enough.

Shakethedisease

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

You mean that because a another political party makes gains you feel it is time to mobilise your the nationalist storm troopers to disrupt debate with their jeering, booing and heckling.

Next you will be call calling for your own nat kristallnacht to wipe the Tories from Scotland.

Fortunately at this time we still live in slightly more enlightened times.

indyref2 is dead, you can point to the odd poll in your favour but at the end of the day it will be the X on the ballot paper that decides your fate.

You think people tell you the truth (polls), no they will just quietly vote the way their conscience tells them and you will be receiving significantly less than 40% of the vote.

It is all over.

We have had enough.

While I'm sure you really want to believe the above is true. In actual fact you're completely and utterly wasting your time ranting at people like me who are already convinced of the merits of independence and have been for quite some time.

It's Labour voters who are neither convinced yet about independence but extremely wary of another five/ten years of Conservative UK Governments you want to be talking to Shaka. Those are the voters that will swing the next indy ref/or vote one way or the other. And while Sturgeon and the SNP still have a lot of convincing to do, so does Ruth Davidson and May.

Davidson isn't doing so well on the next five/ten years of Conservative Govt's front so far. Sure she can talk about indy ref's, and indy refs and indy refs till the cows come home. But she's preaching to the already converted like you. That's only half the story though, she also needs to sell her party in power and their policies for the next 5 or 10 years along with a Hard Brexit. I don't personally think she can over the next two years. She's been hiding behind the Scottish Labour party, avoiding talking Tory policies and courting a sympathetic press for far too long.

Well Scottish Labour along with UK Labour might be in for new leaders soon. The next Scottish one might be well advised to drop the 'union at any cost' message because lets face it, it just isn't working for them. They're only serving to emphasise Davidson's message and send votes her way instead of theirs by sticking to it. Once Scottish Labour go soft on the union, and they probably will with a new leader IF they want to save their party. Then it's all over. Labour voters are the key to Scottish independence and always were.

zagubov

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Next you will be call calling for your own nat kristallnacht to wipe the Tories from Scotland.
.

Why on earth didn't Mike Godwin pass a law about posts like this one? :mad:

What's that you say?

He did!?

What's it called?

Shaka_Zulu

zagubov wrote: »

Why on earth didn't Mike Godwin pass a law about posts like this one? :mad:

Let me be clear about this, if you don't want comparisons to be made then rein in your boorish hecklers and argue your position in a civilised way. We saw these tactics in 2014 and I for one do not want to see them again.

You Nats do NOT speak for the majority and the sooner you remember that the better.

Go out and achieve 50%+ of the popular vote in the GE then you can argue you have a mandate until then behave yourselves, you are an embarrassment to Scotland!

(What do you care anyway? You are a home counties Nat benefiting hugely from the Union. You exemplify what is great about the Union yet you argue against it, your just a hypocrite)

Shaka_Zulu

An example of Nationalist intimidation from yesterday

Dear Inspector,

On Saturday 13th May we held our Street stall as usual in Jarnac Square, Dalkeith, in connection with the upcoming General Election.

Unfortunately the occasion was marred by threats and intimidation from a minority of SNP activists, which caused considerable fear amongst members of the public and my activists.

All this took place in the direct sight of the local MP and MSP, who did nothing to calm them down. In total, we had to put up with;

1. Videoing of us and the public from up to two feet away in an attempt to discourage engagement and intimidate our activists. Despite being asked repeatedly to stop they continued. This is entirely disrespectful and aggressive behaviour.

2. Standing in our tent and in front of our stall with a banner. Again, this was provocative and prevented voters reaching us. This went on for three hours.

3. Shoulder barging my activists and threatening a Member of the Scottish Parliament (Gordon Lindhurst) when they attempted to access our gazebo.

4. Verbally abusing our activists and “eyeballing” them.

5. Circling our gazebo videoing our activists for over two hours. This was done by a teenager aged around 14 on the direct instructions of a man with an SNP rosette.

The effect of standing in front of our stall is to prevent any voters from making contact with us, as several members of the public reported that they were scared to do so as a result of their behaviour. This negates the point of engaging with voters and effectively prevents us from exercising ours, and their, freedom of speech. It is childish behaviour which I have never seen before.

To be blunt, several of my activists were in immediate fear of their safety. It is unacceptable to attempt to prevent our right to engage with the public on public property.

The activists in question videoed the entire exercise as they goaded and intimidated my activists, despite being asked to stop more than once. This was clearly an attempt to start a fight on the street and record the consequences for political gain. Encouraging violence through such means is wholly unacceptable and I am concerned that with over one month to go until Election Day, this behaviour will escalate and that these activists will assault one of mine or the other parties.

At one stage a policewoman came to try to defuse the situation but they continued to video and cause an obstruction despite her efforts.

I have taken part in over 20 elections and been a candidate four times. I have never had cause to contact the police before as there has never been any problem with other activists. It is an unwritten rule that you do not interfere or prevent voters from approaching other stands and the behaviour this morning was entirely unacceptable. There has always been good humour and mutual respect between the parties and I wish this to continue.

I would request that this behaviour stops immediately from this minority of Midlothian SNP activists concerned and that there is a police presence in the square on a Saturday morning to ensure that their behaviour and intimidation of opponents ceases. The situation has gone too far and is not how politics should be conducted in this country. I have instructed all my activists to walk away from any aggressive or intimidating behaviour and should any occur it will be reported. We will locate our stall elsewhere next week in an attempt to defuse the situation but will return during the campaign to what I hope is a safe environment.

I appreciate that this kind of playground nonsense is not what the police need when resources are stretched, but my activists have the right to engage with voters without interference and the behaviour of these “activists” on Saturday morning presented a clear threat to members of the public, my activists, an MSP and the public.

I appreciate your time and help

Kind regards

Chris Donnelly

cogito

No, no. This is a scurrilous lie put about by people who refuse to believe that Scotland's future lies outside the Union and will stop at nothing to discredit the SNP. The 'activists' were clearly Toary plants pretending to be nationalists.

Edited by shakey.