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

NCC-1707

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So you're saying that the people of Scotland DO have the right to decide their own future ? ( Regardless of the answer ). Good to know antrobus cheers.


Onward with indy ref 2 then ! *no matter what May says*

When it's another 'No' vote do you promise not to start yet another pointless thread?

Shakethedisease

NCC-1707 wrote: »

When it's another 'No' vote do you promise not to start yet another pointless thread?

It can hardly be pointless if it's been going for over two years. A pointless thread is one no one posts in.
Moving on to today's news. Seems Scottish Tories have been buying Scottish elections among other mysterious things last few years.

Speaking on the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Duguid - who won the Banff and Buchan seat from the SNP in the 2017 election - said he "was more focused on winning the election than where any donation was coming from".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44711603


About time this story got some serious attention. All those deluges of (policy free) leaflets and 'targeted ads' ranting about second referendums had to be paid for somehow. The Scottish Media have been trying to ignore this story for days now but Blackford raising it at PMQ's seems to have brought a panic press release from SUAT. In a nutshell :-

..donations from a shady organisation calling itself the Scottish Unionist Association Trust, an organisation which has apparently been bankrolling the Conservatives in Scotland for years. The SUAT has not responded to requests to reveal the source of the donations,..

Over the course of the past few years, election spending by the Scottish Conservatives has soared from the £275,000 that they spent in the 2011 election, to the £978,921 that they spent in 2016.

Its not coincidental that the electoral gains made by Ruth Davidsons Scottish Conservatives came on the back of Scottish households being flooded by Tory propaganda which is being paid for by murky figures who have not been identified.

The former Vice-Chair of SUAT, a certain Richard Cook, was the same individual who in his capacity as chair of the equally murky Constitutional Research Council, donated £435,000 to the DUP before the EU referendum.

This money was used to take out a pro-Brexit advert in the Metro newspaper, a newspaper which isnt published in Northern Ireland. This came to light thanks to an investigation by BBC Northern Ireland. BBC Scotland, not so much.

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/07/04/dark-money-and-double-standards/

Davidson has some questions to answer. I think we're all very much looking forward to her doing just that.

GeorgeMonbiot
When you read yet another article explaining how absolutely fabulous @RuthDavidsonMSP is, ask yourself why there's no mention of the #DarkMoney behind her rising power:

westernpromise

antrobus wrote: »

P.S. I suppose that the cost of all those redundancies in Swansea would just form part of the Scexit divorce bill.:)

"Joxit", surely.

NCC-1707

It's a pointless thread because you had already created a previous thread on the exact same subject and because of your naivety started this second one. Starting multiple threads on the same topic is against forum rules.

In the intervening years since your ORIGINAL thread you appear to have learned nothing

Shakethedisease

NCC-1707 wrote: »

It's a pointless thread because you had already created a previous thread on the exact same subject and because of your naivety started this second one. Starting multiple threads on the same topic is against forum rules.

In the intervening years since your ORIGINAL thread you appear to have learned nothing

I didn't start the first thread you're talking about. So have no idea what your point is. You're wrong mate. Own it.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So you're saying that the people of Scotland DO have the right to decide their own future ? ( Regardless of the answer ). Good to know antrobus cheers.

No one has ever said that they did not.

Good to see that you are still trotting out the usual fallacies.:)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Onward with indy ref 2 then ! *no matter what May says*

There will be no indy ref 2.

What would be the point? You haven't taken taken any notice of the first one yet.:)

antrobus

NCC-1707 wrote: »

It's a pointless thread because you had already created a previous thread on the exact same subject and because of your naivety started this second one. Starting multiple threads on the same topic is against forum rules.

In the intervening years since your ORIGINAL thread you appear to have learned nothing

The point of this thread is to demonstrate that the OP has indeed learnt nothing.

I've said it before, and I'll said it again. I remain suspicious that the OP is a Scottish Unionist troll keen to bring the pro-indy into disrepute.:)

Enterprise_1701C

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So you're saying that the people of Scotland DO have the right to decide their own future ? ( Regardless of the answer ). Good to know antrobus cheers.


Onward with indy ref 2 then ! *no matter what May says*

Bit of a waste of a vote really. If it was a yes it would be unsanctioned and therefore unactionable, if it was a no you would say that it didn't count anyway.

foxtrotoscar_2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I didn't start the first thread you're talking about. So have no idea what your point is. You're wrong mate. Own it.

Right then, so you did know there was an existing thread and decided to start another on the same topic? What on earth possessed you to do that? Own that.

Shakethedisease

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Right then, so you did know there was an existing thread and decided to start another on the same topic? What on earth possessed you to do that? Own that.

There was a countdown to 10,000 posts and a widespread belief that the first thread would be automatically closed at the magic number.

So I stared a fresh one. Which you're currently posting on. To be honest it seems you're far more interested in ranting about about threads which are years old and who started them etc etc than any real debate or banter. Whatever floats your boat I suppose FO. But it's a little narrow in scope.