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

Moto2

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Did you miss the above?
The supposed discussions were in 2014.

No,

I was typing as you were posting

Rinoa

Whatever next.

Reports of Edinburgh Woolen Mill moving to England.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-woollen-mill-sparks-concern-over-reports-of-english-move-1-4301829

Moto2

I would have thought it was just to move to somewhere a bit bigger than looking to get out of Scotland per se

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Moto2 wrote: »

I would have thought it was just to move to somewhere a bit bigger than looking to get out of Scotland per se

Perhaps.
Philip Day seems to be doing quite well - and is still expanding the business he runs.
Plans are afoot to open 50 new Austin Reed stores in the next 18 months for example, which is owned by EWM along with Jane Norman, Peacocks and others.

Edinburgh Woollen Mill plans to open 200 stores across its portfolio of brands over the next year and a half, generating more than 2,000 jobs. Last year, it opened 43 shops in the UK and Ireland, taking the total to 981.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/23/austin-reed-return-uk-high-street-months-collapse/
Whatever the reason(s), a very astute and very wealthy businessman.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Oh look, Sturgeon is doing nothing more than having a "jolly" whilst trying desperately to whip up support for whatever plan she thinks will work.

Regarding your first quote and link:

You seriously expect anyone (or at least, anyone not an SNP supporter) to take as impartial a point of view held by a senior SNP member? Nah. Unlikely at best.

Firstly I didn't say Robertson was impartial. Whatever gave you that idea ? I said it was unusual to see him commenting in newspaper columns in quite such a heated manner.

Sturgeon has been seeing a lot of people for someone who doesn't officially have any foreign policy powers.

And regarding your second quote and link:

Besides the article being almost six months old, trying to suggest that the contents are new when in fact this is based upon supposed occurrences of two years ago is at best disingenuous.

Roberston imo IS referring to this option which was floated and I quote myself just after the Brexit vote. Which is why the link is from that time. I didn't say the contents were new at all. You just didn't read the post properly in your haste to sneer at it. Sorry about that, but I did specify when the option was floated and provided a link from when it was.

I suggested people regarded the last paragraph to be of interest in particular.. because he's alluding to the fact that an rUK exit and a Scottish EU negotiation could take place in parallel. He's obviously talking about an option similar to the one I linked to which was floated just after the Brexit vote.

Manipulation yet again and yet another attempt to convince readers that these are facts when yet again they are nothing so definite.
More shameful tripe, in other words.
Still, we're getting used to that from the pro-SNP advocates in this thread - as the responses frequently show.

Nah, you're just seeing stuff in posts that aren't actually there and not reading them through properly.

So instead, and for something much more up-to-date try these:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/1096080/welsh-government-claims-separate-scottish-eu-deal-is-doomed-to-fail/


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/norwegian-minister-warns-scotland-cannot-pursue-nicola-sturgeon/


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14921366.Beyond_Brexit__More_than_two_out_of_five_Scots_ready_to_stick_with_EU_even_if_this_means_hard_border/


http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-sturgeon-spain-single-market-meps-scottish-deal-snp

That's a shame. Most of those are for a Scotland still in the UK. Am sure Nicola must be so disappointed to see those... might have to go for that second referendum after all.:(:(:(

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Firstly I didn't say Robertson was impartial. Whatever gave you that idea ? I said it was unusual to see him commenting in newspaper columns in quite such a heated manner.

Sturgeon has been seeing a lot of people for someone who doesn't officially have any foreign policy powers.

Roberston imo IS referring to this option which was floated and I quote myself just after the Brexit vote. Which is why the link is from that time. I didn't say the contents were new at all. You just didn't read the post properly in your haste to sneer at it. Sorry about that, but I did specify when the option was floated and provided a link from when it was.

I suggested people regarded the last paragraph to be of interest in particular.. because he's alluding to the fact that an rUK exit and a Scottish EU negotiation could take place in parallel. He's obviously talking about an option similar to the one I linked to which was floated just after the Brexit vote.

Nah, you're just seeing stuff in posts that aren't actually there and not reading them through properly.




That's a shame. Most of those are for a Scotland still in the UK. Am sure Nicola must be so disappointed to see those... might have to go for that second referendum after all.:(:(:(

I've refrained from posting because I'm tired of the lies.

But saying AMSJ doesn't read posts properly is a bit rich.

All of this EU posturing is pointless if you can't win the argument for independence in the first place. Which it's blindingly obvious that you can't. On jobs, on trade, on taxation, on debt, the pro indy arguments this time around are worse than 2014. Salmond may have told porkies about oil but at least it was a kind of solution if it was true.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Did you miss the above?
The supposed discussions were in 2014.

Oh that's fabulous news. So the EU were discussing transitional arrangements for Scotland even way back in 2014 during the first referendum ?

Well one can only assume that they are definitely doing so again. More positively this time round.

The_Last_Username

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I've refrained from posting because I'm tired of the lies.

But saying AMSJ doesn't read posts properly is a bit rich.

All of this EU posturing is pointless if you can't win the argument for independence in the first place. Which it's blindingly obvious that you can't. On jobs, on trade, on taxation, on debt, the pro indy arguments this time around are worse than 2014. Salmond may have told porkies about oil but at least it was a kind of solution if it was true.

You know, the more posts I read by Shakethedisease (an aptly descriptive username IMHO) the more those posts read like the equivalent of infantile dummy-spitting.

Whenever posts are debated and pointed out as being misleading or even downright incorrect, which happens frequently BTW, the responses become increasingly diverting and ignore reasoned debate or (more often) fact.

Someone in this thread said (& cba to look but it's here somewhere) that these tactics help to dispell not only pro-SNP comments in this thread but further are helping to inform Scots of just how devious SNP and their supporters really are.
A spot-on comment, in my opinion.

Now cue said poster again spluttering and distracting without substance; "waffle and bluster" as yet another poster described Shake's posting style.

The_Last_Username

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh that's fabulous news. So the EU were discussing transitional arrangements for Scotland even way back in 2014 during the first referendum ?

Well one can only assume that they are definitely doing so again. More positively this time round.

Evidence please?
Proof?
Because you seem to have missed the word "supposed".

Moto2 has also asked, just a few posts earlier.

TrickyTree83

The_Last_Username wrote: »

You know, the more posts I read by Shakethedisease (an aptly descriptive username IMHO) the more those posts read like the equivalent of infantile dummy-spitting.

Whenever posts are debated and pointed out as being misleading or even downright incorrect, which happens frequently BTW, the responses become increasingly diverting and ignore reasoned debate or (more often) fact.

Someone in this thread said (& cba to look but it's here somewhere) that these tactics help to dispell not only pro-SNP comments in this thread but further are helping to inform Scots of just how devious SNP and their supporters really are.
A spot-on comment, in my opinion.

Now cue said poster again spluttering and distracting without substance; "waffle and bluster" as yet another poster described Shake's posting style.

I watch a lot of philosophy vlogs, and recently there was one talking about why is irrationality ingrained in some people and not others. The proposed answer was to do with a need to not go against an established set of rules or dogma for fear of being ostracised and ending your chance to reproduce, a gene set survival mechanism. That these genes predisposed certain people to disregard evidence, logic and reasonable assumption in favour of being part of a crowd or group. These genes never leave us and so we end up with a schism in society. One that creates a lack of critical thinkers and an abundance of, well, sheep that have no idea they are sheep, they can't help it and you can't help them to realise it.

It's interesting stuff, hope it's not true though.