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

Shakethedisease

fun4everyone wrote: »

Never have I seen someone want something so badly as Salmond wanting leave to win during the 2016 referendum result BBC show. He had an ipad with the betfair odds on it and gleefully laughed and smiled and pointed it out when leave became the favourite around 3-4am.

Here's a wake up call to those who have thrown their toys out the pram due to Brexit. The SNP and Nationalists all wanted a vote to Leave simply because they thought it might get them indy ref 2. All the bleating and hand wringing afterwards was and is just for show. Inside they were delighted at the result. Single issue party without a care in the world for anything else. Thems the truths.

I disagree with you. The writing was on the wall for the UK once Holyrood was established. Support for independence has only ever grown since then... it's never fallen back. It doesn't matter who the SNP leader is or was. And indeed the SNP isn't moving quick enough for many in Scotland currently.

Scottish Labour is falling apart, talking of splitting from the UK party and with it opposition to another referendum ( See Monica Lennon and Scottish Union groups ). Some 40% of Labour members in Scotland also now openly support independence. Labour was the last bullwark of keeping the UK together. Corbyn blew it.

Taking a wider view there's no real way back for the UK now.

Aileen McHarg
This appears to be the (mis)calculation. It's a tactic that might work with a small minority/low salience issue; it doesn't work for an issue supported by close to half the electorate that dominates Scottish politics.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Corbyn blew it.

Like the SNP, Corbyn & Co are ambivalent to many things. Their only interest is their own agenda. Telling people what to do or think has never gone down well with the electorate in the UK.

fun4everyone

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Their only interest is their own agenda. Telling people what to do or think has never gone down well with the electorate in the UK.

Exactly, and what is even worse is the SNP think they can tell the UK what Scotland thinks when nothing could be further from the truth.

Herzlos

fun4everyone wrote: »

Exactly, and what is even worse is the SNP think they can tell the UK what Scotland thinks when nothing could be further from the truth.

Do you have any references confirming the claim that the major Scottish party in both parliaments isn't qualified to speak on behalf of the people who gave them the majority?

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Back to the subject then. Mike Russell seems to know something we don't. Whatever it is the SNP has planned I'm guessing it's going to be pretty immediate and radical. Nothing to lose now that all the 'gradual' options are out of play. Wonder if she'll dissolve Holyrood and call an election based on independence ? I suppose she'd better do it quick before Boris tries to shut it down.

And you say my posts are yawn inducing?

!!!!!!

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

And you say my posts are yawn inducing?

!!!!!!

They are for me. I can go to any forum and disagree massively with anyone but still have a good back and forth debate on the topic. Interesting and informative stuff.

Slag off that poster, then slag of this poster, slag off multiple posters....pass the Pro-plus to get through a page. Zzzzzzz

baldelectrician

Here's the 'once in a generation' in context

Note the unionists only quote the last part (conveniently)

https://youtu.be/rDPNvaX4zCg

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

At least I stick mainly to the subject at hand rather than simply snarking at other posters. I know Scottish independence scares you but it's no excuse really for the constant stream of jaw breaking yawn posts about fellow MSE posters. ..

I think inconsistent would be the word I would use to describe someone who claims to follow the bit I've bolded where the evidence available is countless posts that seek to divert, misguide, and smokescreen the whole debate.

Snark? Apologies if you read it as such, I'm not sure what approach or tone you think posters here should adopt when trying to address those who are actively trying to persuade less sophisticated thinkers to go down aroad that would be ruinous for them? Anyway, it's delivered back in spades by the pro indy brigade both online and in real life. Things will get worse IF any further referendum is arranged, (I think you have conveniently forgot what it was like living in Scotland in 2014).

Yawn posts? Seriously, have you re-read any of your lengthy "who said what, when on twitter" type posts?

You are the OP, I know it's your duty to post all this stuff, but the calling out of inaccuracies, propaganda etc requires to be done, and other posters will continue to do it, on an issue as important as this you must realise that it goes with the territory?

It's obvious you don't like it, but referring to others as in a derogatory way would surely only reduce you to their level.

Can I politely remind you there is an "ignore" function.

So, back to "sticking mainly to the subject at hand", because after all it's not about individual posters, it's about the welfare of the people of Scotland....Can you explain how any future Independent Scotland would raise the appropriate tax revenues to meet the needs of it's people without the support of the wider rUK economy.

Please

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

I think inconsistent would be the word I would use to describe someone who claims to follow the bit I've bolded where the evidence available is countless posts that seek to divert, misguide, and smokescreen the whole debate.

Snark? Apologies if you read it as such, I'm not sure what approach or tone you think posters here should adopt when trying to address those who are actively trying to persuade less sophisticated thinkers to go down aroad that would be ruinous for them? Anyway, it's delivered back in spades by the pro indy brigade both online and in real life. Things will get worse IF any further referendum is arranged, (I think you have conveniently forgot what it was like living in Scotland in 2014).

Yawn posts? Seriously, have you re-read any of your lengthy "who said what, when on twitter" type posts?

You are the OP, I know it's your duty to post all this stuff, but the calling out of inaccuracies, propaganda etc requires to be done, and other posters will continue to do it, on an issue as important as this you must realise that it goes with the territory?

It's obvious you don't like it, but referring to others as in a derogatory way would surely only reduce you to their level.

Can I politely remind you there is an "ignore" function.

So, back to "sticking mainly to the subject at hand", because after all it's not about individual posters, it's about the welfare of the people of Scotland....Can you explain how any future Independent Scotland would raise the appropriate tax revenues to meet the needs of it's people without the support of the wider rUK economy.

Please

Sorry, I'm not the posting police. I'm just being honest that I find your posts overly personal in nature and snarky. Very little on the topic. Your last paragraph above is the first in a while that actually addresses what we're all on this thread for.

Taxes. I suggest you read far more informed economic sources than me and not the Daily Mail/Express. But at the end of the day the point of independence is being able to make and vote for those decisions ourselves. What you're actually talking about above is party policy of indivudal scottish political parties after independence. I cannot predict those. No one can. The only thing we can say with confidence is that at least it won't be Boris Johnson deciding for us.

On a wider note the first court action was launched yesterday. The Scottish people v's Westminster. Completely crowdfunded. Very interesting indeed and predicated on whether the Scottish Government has the right to hold another ref without a sect 30. Here's the 'twitter quote' and link for anyone interested. Note that I use Twitter as this is where all the information relevant is accessible. Since that's where the legal beagles have put it. Sorry mollycat, it is 2020..

Aidan O'Neill QC's opinion in this crowdfunder has now been published. It should be noted that it is *not* an opinion on whether the UK Govt is obliged to make a s30 Order, but rather on whether Holyrood already has the power to legislate for indyref2.

He concludes that there is an arguable case for saying that it does (as I and others have been saying since 2012). Importantly, he also argues that there would be grounds for seeking an advisory opinion, using Wightman as a precedent to overcome objections of non-justiciability.

https://twitter.com/AileenMcHarg/status/1217733660037783553

Don_Two

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not the posting police.

Then it might be a good idea to stop acting like you think you are.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Calm down a bit.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

At least I stick mainly to the subject at hand rather than simply snarking at other posters.

(Said while snarking at another poster BTW.)

I think we all get that you don't like being proved wrong or having your ideas disagreed with but tough, this is a public forum and not either the SNP Party HQ or an SNP Propaganda tool.
People are quite capable of seeing the flaws in your arguments, even if you don't like that.

In this modern era people resort to Twitter & elsewhere to try and gain traction for ideas that are at odds with the norm, that's why you won't find it elsewhere.
It's not much more than a modern version of Chinese Whispers and it doesn't make the ideas contained there right or even plausible.

As for the "action", come back when it's either failed or been approved and I might pay it a little more attention.
Just "might".
But you carry on with your dreams, we're all entitled to them.
Even the posters you disagree with.