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

IveSeenTheLight

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

No, how about letting Scots decide if they want Indyref2 instead of forcing it on a peoples that don't want it?

And how about stopping the Barnett Formula extra now? Let the Scottish Parliament and government show itself capable, which they haven't so far.

It's amazing how many posters show similar posting styles.

Yes, let's Scots decide if they want IndyRef2?

They voted for a party with pro-independence in it manifesto should there be a significant change.

The elected MP's then voted for section 30 request to be approved.

How about there being a bit of respect for democracy?

elantan

mollycat wrote: »

Modern day Scotland.

Know when to keep your trap shut, (even if you have something noble to say)...

....or the Nats propaganda machine will get you.

It's always one sided eh

Yah_Boo_Sux

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's amazing how many posters show similar posting styles.

How about there being a bit of respect for democracy?

What are you trying to say? If you want to accuse, try it. Or can you just not stand disagreing with you? Coz thats what it looks like.

As for democracy. When Scots are saying they don't want another Indyref it is you having no respect for democracy. As you keep showing in your posts.

You are one deceitful and disrespectful poster. Are all pro SNP like you? Or are you the good example?

IveSeenTheLight

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

What are you trying to say? If you want to accuse, try it. Or can you just not stand disagreing with you? Coz thats what it looks like.

I'm not accusing you of anything, it's just an observation Im seeing with many posters in here.

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

As for democracy. When Scots are saying they don't want another Indyref it is you having no respect for democracy. As you keep showing in your posts.

As for democracy, I've outlayed why it's democratically the right to sanction section 30 (in an agreeable and acceptable time).

I'm a Scot and want the question asked again, not because I did not respect the outcome of 2014, but because of the significant change Brexit will bring to Scotland.

There's also a well known poster in here (another Scot) who was anti SNP and was anti independence, but now willing to vote for the most pro dependence party because of Brexit.

Respecting the will of the people and the will of the parliament would not change the outcome if the better togethers was so confident an IndyRef2 would return a No result.

You have to wonder how afraid they are that they can no longer use the EU to scaremonger support.

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

.

You are one deceitful and disrespectful poster. Are all pro SNP like you? Or are you the good example?

Settle, I aim to deceive no-one. I just offer my opinion.
I aim to disrespect no-one as well.
Maybe you should reflect on your accusation.

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

Quite the charmer, aren't you?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

That hate message you posted and any others like it are disgraceful, the perpetrator should face charges and punished to the full extent of the law. It brings shame on those he purports to support who should distance themselves from his views.

There --- It's quite easy when you try. One does not have to go off on a ranty ramble, leaving nasty comments and lies hanging in the air, deflecting the discussion to some other subject.

Yes, but you'd never have known about it if I hadn't pointed it out FOR you. However, when it's in the other direction it's front page news and this lady hasn't received death threats or anything of that nature. That's my point. Double standards in media reporting means only one sided news.

TrickyTree83

elantan wrote: »

So people will help her pay to traipse round the world and eat steak dinners and sip champagne .. but wouldn't feed her so she needed to attend a food Bank

Aye ah believe her so ah dae

Peoples circumstances change do they not?

One minute you're being taken to a weekend in NY for a birthday treat, or to help raise that persons spirits, there are a multitude of possible reasons, the coming Monday you're back trying to make ends meet. It can happen.

Quite frankly you all look quite bad for assuming guilt based on nothing but your own preconceived ideas. As if you're prejudice against anyone who doesn't toe the SNP/indy line.

You may protest and say you're not but to me and possibly others that's how it's coming across.

Shakethedisease

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

What are you trying to say? If you want to accuse, try it. Or can you just not stand disagreing with you? Coz thats what it looks like.

As for democracy. When Scots are saying they don't want another Indyref it is you having no respect for democracy. As you keep showing in your posts.

You are one deceitful and disrespectful poster. Are all pro SNP like you? Or are you the good example?

It starts getting dangerous when people start using transient and changeable opinion polling rather than real votes in real democratic elections in order to decide 'what the people want'. And it's getting so bad, normally intelligent people don't even realise they're doing it. They just parrot a line.

We aren't governed via opinion polls. We choose what we want via elections and people like me and ISTL have plenty of respect for democracy. We're just more than a bit taken aback that people like you really believe and would put YouGov and Panelbase above real voters in real elections... because it's SO laughably silly.

Is this what you are saying when you say 'the people don't want it' ? Feel free to clarify ?

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Peoples circumstances change do they not?

One minute you're being taken to a weekend in NY for a birthday treat, or to help raise that persons spirits, there are a multitude of possible reasons, the coming Monday you're back trying to make ends meet. It can happen.

Quite frankly you all look quite bad for assuming guilt based on nothing but your own preconceived ideas. As if you're prejudice against anyone who doesn't toe the SNP/indy line.

You may protest and say you're not but to me and possibly others that's how it's coming across.

The lady is backtracking. Now saying she's been 'referred' twice in 'the last 5 years'. yet saying she's on the salary of a very newly qualified nurse 22k.. but then saying she's been a nurse for 6 years which would mean nearer 30k. She's still not said if she's even ever used a foodbank.

She might not be guilty of anything. But her story is less than consistent. It does fit the overtly Scottish unionist media line, or at least it did last night which is why they all jumped on it ( rather than Sturgeon's death threats). Just a shame they didn't take into account the fact that social media accounts are easily looked up these days. Also, if she was talking about the injustice of having to use foodbanks, then Davidson should've all being fair been equally blasted by her and not just Sturgeon.. the media, and you too strangely enough, ( why ? ) seem to have bypassed that inconvenience too.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The lady is backtracking. Now saying she's been 'referred' twice in 'the last 5 years'. yet saying she's on the salary of a very newly qualified nurse 22k.. but then saying she's been a nurse for 6 years which would mean nearer 30k. She's still not said if she's even ever used a foodbank.

She might not be guilty of anything. But her story is less than consistent. It does fit the overtly Scottish unionist media line, or at least it did last night which is why they all jumped on it ( rather than Sturgeon's death threats). Just a shame they didn't take into account the fact that social media accounts are easily looked up these days. Also, if she was talking about the injustice of having to use foodbanks, then Davidson should've all being fair been equally blasted by her and not just Sturgeon.. the media, and you too strangely enough, ( why ? ) seem to have bypassed that inconvenience too.

I've said nothing about what the woman said, Sturgeon or Davidson regarding the incident.

I'm merely pointing out the rush to judgement of the woman and the ensuing witch hunt which appears to be alive and well here despite not knowing the woman's circumstances yourselves.

elantan

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Peoples circumstances change do they not?

One minute you're being taken to a weekend in NY for a birthday treat, or to help raise that persons spirits, there are a multitude of possible reasons, the coming Monday you're back trying to make ends meet. It can happen.

Quite frankly you all look quite bad for assuming guilt based on nothing but your own preconceived ideas. As if you're prejudice against anyone who doesn't toe the SNP/indy line.

You may protest and say you're not but to me and possibly others that's how it's coming across.

She is a charge nurse wages start at 32k for her ... she has also came out and said it was while she was a student ...so a lie

Now I accept nurses have to go to food banks . And I think it's terrible In this day and age that people have to go to food banks no matter what job/ no job they do

My issue is with the lie ... I watched the programme at a friends and thought nah something is up here

I personally do think nurses should get more wages and I do believe we should hold our government to account and I quite enjoy someone getting stuck into Sturgeon, she needs it ( education here totally needs sorted) I prefer it when it's a member of the public, Rape clause Ruth just shouts ... I would rather see people give REAL life situations,

Remember I'm more of a Green supporter though, Patrick was OK on the debate but didn't really speak up enough ... he couldn't get a word in with Ruth Shouting, Sturgeon interupting Fugdale screaching and Coburn being ... well Coburn really

I like to see how Willie Rennoe brings up the police ( although he has a cheek there) and the mental health issues . Sturgeon should answer more about the mental health issue's happening here

But whilst everyone is also going on about this we forget the guy that mentions the snooping and benefit cuts