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

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

Careful, you're letting your xenophobia show

There is nothing xenophobic about allowing a country to decide its own future.
You're over-using the wrong terminology again.

Herzlos wrote: »

As far as I can tell everyone is welcome to comment and you don't know who has an interest in Scotland.

Comment yes.
Insist that yours is the only and definitive opinion, no.

Herzlos wrote: »

As a weegie, do I have less ability to judge the mood of my home city than she does?
What I see at work, in my social circle and around town largely contradicts her claims.
Does my foreigner status mean my opinion is worth less?

You do not have the right to insist that your opinion is representative of all weegies.
What I see contradicts your claims and furthermore statistics support that contradiction.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
You do not have the right to insist that yours is correct.
You do not have the right to presume that yours is worth more than a native when considering issues relating to country.

Herzlos wrote: »

How does independence deny native Scots their heritage, rights and opinions? A lot of real Scots want independence and you seek to deny them the opportunity.

Native Scots?
If that is what they decide then none.
Their right is not being denied, they were asked.
They chose to stay part of the union.

Herzlos wrote: »

How am I interfering? I am entitled to the same 1 vote as everyone else.

Are you?
You've said you could quit - so you're nothing more than a fair-weather friend then? "I will stay but only if I get my way!"
Just like EU voters couldn't vote in the UK referendum a vote from Scotland should be decided by native Scottish voters.
Or would the shipping-in of a few million more English just for say 6 months to swing the Unionist vote be equally fair?

Herzlos wrote: »

It's been a while, I'll admit. I've conceded where I've actually been proven wrong and accepted many points.

So that would be a "no" then, as I suspected?
:rotfl:

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

You mean like in some kind of national, official poll? Yes please!

Had one mate.
2014.
Result = remain in union.

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

Yup, I could be anyone, but you (and others) choose to treat me differently because you believe me to be a foreigner.

When it equates to deliberately interfering in a national debate you would deserve it if that were true.

Poor Hong Kong natives can't even protest in their own country without being beaten up, jailed, or even shot at.
And they have good reason.
With the best will in the world from repeated deception I see no good reasons to believe anything from some posters here.


Oh and you said you were not native British; it has nothing to do with my beliefs.
You get treated no differently to how I treat anybody who appears determined not to be honest.
Your skin, race or creed have no bearing on that.

Fran_Klee

Presumably now that the "xenophobic" card has been played and lost the "racist" card will follow?
:rotfl:

Just to remind those looking at earlier posts in trepidation, here is a quick summary:

A poster (me) dared to suggest that outside forces could be interfering in forums and trying to sway opinion.

I think it ruffled a few feathers.
It's only a forum.
Chill.

Herzlos

Nah, no accusations of racism as I dont think it's needed. Or do you feel I'm inferior due to race too?

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Had one mate.
2014.
Result = remain in union.

That was a long time ago. Like 3 prime ministers.
Scotland has also elected the SNP 4 times since then in one scottish and 3 UK elections with a mandate to hold a referendum.

ss55sss

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Had one mate.
2014.
Result = remain in union.

Promises have been broken and the political landscape has changed in a way that means the majority of Scots may prefer another vote.

If the leading party in Scotland has a mandate for another referendum then we know from your above posts that you think no one (from outside Scotland) should be able to stop it.

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

Nah, no accusations of racism as I dont think it's needed. Or do you feel I'm inferior due to race too?



That was a long time ago. Like 3 prime ministers.
Scotland has also elected the SNP 4 times since then in one scottish and 3 UK elections with a mandate to hold a referendum.

Since the SNP are the only Scottish party that is no surprise.
It's a shame they couldn't persuade as many voters as they did after your indyref though, eh?
I mean, if the Tory influence drifts a bit further north . . . .

No doubt Scots will get another opportunity in the future but that time is not now.

Herzlos

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Since the SNP are the only Scottish party that is no surprise.
It's a shame they couldn't persuade as many voters as they did after your indyref though, eh?
I mean, if the Tory influence drifts a bit further north . . . .

No doubt Scots will get another opportunity in the future but that time is not now.

Other parties stood in each of the elections. Sure most of them are puppet scottish parties but they stood nonetheless.

There are a horrifying number of tory voters north of the wall though.

mollycat

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Presumably now that the "xenophobic" card has been played and lost the "racist" card will follow?
:rotfl:

Just to remind those looking at earlier posts in trepidation, here is a quick summary:

A poster (me) dared to suggest that outside forces could be interfering in forums and trying to sway opinion.

I think it ruffled a few feathers.
It's only a forum.
Chill.

I think that the problem is that when someone posts a POV that sits outside the authorised narrative, that completely exposes the so called "tolerance" and "respect" for diverse opinion as something that is only granted to a very narrow narrative.

To respond completely disproportianately, by referring to your post as "creepy", (and presumably by implication, yourself), is a poor reflection on that poster and a decent indicator of a limited ability to understand the feelings of others.

Back out in the real world the point you made is considered totally valid. If you flip the circumstances I'm sure the average Londoner, (for example), would display a degree of antipathy towards someone several hundred miles away, with no "skin in the game", advocating constitutional change that would impact negatively on the services, opportunities and economy of London.

It's not something I would feel entitled to do, but somehow people on this thread posting from more affluent areas of the UK feel it is appropriate to try and promote an outcome for Scotland that would be detrimental to us.

Fair play to @Herzlos for at least adopting a more reasoned response. (post 14816)

Edit....as I type slowly the debate has moved on as I write.

Fair play to Herzlos for denying any intended racism in post 14816 was the extent of my meaning.

Arklight

Fran_Klee wrote: »

That little tirade is made even more ridiculous because you have no idea who I am, where I come from or my class/standing or voting history other than what I choose to reveal on here.
:rotfl:

What a Scotland thread needs is real ethnic Scots, not external rabble-rousers; not those just out to interfere; and not those with other agenda.

It's nice of you to tell Scots what they need but here's an idea for you: instead of telling them, try asking them what they want.

I forgot "middle aged' as well, didn't I?