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

mollycat

elantan wrote: »

Wow ... you choose to pick on spelling ... you so clever ... can I get yer autograph ?

The idea of predictive text flies right over yer heid I take it ?

What's up; is it just you and your mates who can joke on this thread? :rotfl:

ps You sound angry. calm down.

mrginge

This obsession with control of fishing needs to stop shakey.

You're very clear that this is a devolved issue, yet it's almost like you're desperate for the UK govt to start making claims over it so you can score yet another massive victory for independence.

Do you have any evidence that the UK govt will act outside their remit and start clawing back powers?

Personally I'd be quite happy for Scotland to control Scottish fishing grounds. It's not really a big issue and would seem perfectly logical.
I'm certain that the Scottish govt would manage this in a balanced and fair way that was designed to support not only the Scottish fishermen, but also to help demonstrate to the rUK that Scotland was a full and active member of the union and wanted to play a serious part in its future.

Any suggestion that this control would be used in some amateurish attempted blackmail or coercion is most definitely not true because we all know that the SNP has the welfare of the Scottish people as it's number one priority.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, like you I don't worry about it. It only serves to highlight the sheer pointlessness of having Scottish MP's down there. All grist to the mill and they'll be called home soon enough all going well in the next few years.

Salmond was at his firebrand best though. Memories of a certain budget when he was removed from the house lol.:D

You're almost right, it's pointless having Scottish MP's from a regional party in Westminster, absolutely. If there were Scottish MP's as part of the Conservative party, the Labour party or even the Lib Dem's it would serve a purpose. Why? Because the Lib Dem's have set a precedent that they would enter into coalition, ergo a chance of governmental representation. Labour has the potential to win an election (yes, yes, not under JC) as do the Conservatives.

As I keep saying, the SNP do not, yet you bemoan the fact they are constantly in opposition and not listened to, truly amazing. If anyone bought into your story of the SNP being done down by Westminster because they're Scottish rather than because they're the SNP I'd like to say I'd be shocked but there seems to be a lot of make believe north of the border.

elantan

mollycat wrote: »

What's up; is it just you and your mates who can joke on this thread? :rotfl:

ps You sound angry. calm down.

Not angry just not surprised you have tried to distract the conversation away from the one the fact there is one Tory in Scotland and yet the Tories are dragging Scotland out of the EU ... only it's not working ...

27% of people ( approx) voted Tory and yet they rule the UK and so many are bleating on about the SNP not speaking for them when nearly half of Scotland voted for them ... and we have not to forget the 1 million that voted leave ... we have to respect that and Nicola isn't but the 1.6 million that voted Yes have to be ignored and the promises made forgotten

Nope yer distractions are not working ...

Dinner is calling then the study books

Try not to get agitated now whilst I sit here laughing

mollycat

elantan wrote: »

Not angry just not surprised you have tried to distract the conversation away from the one the fact there is one Tory in Scotland and yet the Tories are dragging Scotland out of the EU ... only it's not working ...

27% of people ( approx) voted Tory and yet they rule the UK and so many are bleating on about the SNP not speaking for them when nearly half of Scotland voted for them ... and we have not to forget the 1 million that voted leave ... we have to respect that and Nicola isn't but the 1.6 million that voted Yes have to be ignored and the promises made forgotten

Nope yer distractions are not working ...

Dinner is calling then the study books

Try not to get agitated now whilst I sit here laughing

Yes, stupid me.

Distracting the thread away from the "facts" with silly jokes and banter.

Especially since the argument for independence is riddled with holes, is illogical, it's proponents come across here as selfish zealots and deniers of democracy, and that the post of yours is illiterate poorly thought through spin and lies.

BTW, that's me back on the "facts" now: happy?

If the type of tripe you guys post is the best you can offer in the way of promoting Independence, I'm hardly likely to become agitated am I?

Enjoy your black bun, (yum yum).

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

27% of people ( approx) voted Tory and yet they rule the UK and so many are bleating on about the SNP not speaking for them when nearly half of Scotland voted for them ... and we have not to forget the 1 million that voted leave ... we have to respect that and Nicola isn't but the 1.6 million that voted Yes have to be ignored and the promises made forgotten

Nor forget that Scotland managed only a 67% turnout. Hardly a ringing endorsement. With Glasgow reaching the dizzy heights of 56%. A real sign of apathy amongst a certain group within the electorate if there was one.

Shakethedisease

mrginge wrote: »

This obsession with control of fishing needs to stop shakey.

You're very clear that this is a devolved issue, yet it's almost like you're desperate for the UK govt to start making claims over it so you can score yet another massive victory for independence.

Do you have any evidence that the UK govt will act outside their remit and start clawing back powers?

Personally I'd be quite happy for Scotland to control Scottish fishing grounds. It's not really a big issue and would seem perfectly logical.
I'm certain that the Scottish govt would manage this in a balanced and fair way that was designed to support not only the Scottish fishermen, but also to help demonstrate to the rUK that Scotland was a full and active member of the union and wanted to play a serious part in its future.

Any suggestion that this control would be used in some amateurish attempted blackmail or coercion is most definitely not true because we all know that the SNP has the welfare of the Scottish people as it's number one priority.

I don't have an obsession. However from posts here it's very clear that there are some who are completely unaware that control over fishing and agriculture are already devolved to Holyrood via the Scotland Act. Therefore on leaving the EU, control defaults to Holyrood not Westminster.

I'm simply pointing out that Westminster taking these powers away from Holyrood will be politically and constitutionally explosive. Since Holyrood won't pass the necessary legislation in order for control to pass back to Westminster. The same incidentally will also be true of the Great Repeal Bill and any changes over Human Rights/leaving ECJ. The same will apply there as to fishing and agriculture. Holyrood won't vote for the changes.

I do apologise if you don't like the obvious being spelt out for you. But for some posters like antrobus for example.. are sadly unaware of what's going on and need filled in before wasting screeds of posts and their own time going on about UK wide maritime borders. None of which are relevant to passing Scotland Acts nor current devolved powers.

I posted a page or so back about Ruth Davidson saying she is expecting an almighty political row over fishing/agriculture etc because she expects that Westminster will want to take them back in order to cover the UK as a single entity. She is expecting an almightly political row, in short, because she's absolutely going to get one.

May after all can't make grandiose promises to Spanish fishermen in recent speeches without the fish. Holyrood don't want to give her the fish. Unless it's a Sturgeon with a fish ( middle ) finger.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You're almost right, it's pointless having Scottish MP's from a regional party in Westminster, absolutely. If there were Scottish MP's as part of the Conservative party, the Labour party or even the Lib Dem's it would serve a purpose. Why? Because the Lib Dem's have set a precedent that they would enter into coalition, ergo a chance of governmental representation. Labour has the potential to win an election (yes, yes, not under JC) as do the Conservatives.

As I keep saying, the SNP do not, yet you bemoan the fact they are constantly in opposition and not listened to, truly amazing. If anyone bought into your story of the SNP being done down by Westminster because they're Scottish rather than because they're the SNP I'd like to say I'd be shocked but there seems to be a lot of make believe north of the border.

Not really. The SNP are doing a great job in proving an point beyond all doubt which started with the Feeble 50 ( Labour ) in the 1980s and paved the way ultimately for devolution due to the democratic defict which was already widely recognised.

When Jim Sillars won the Govan by-election for the SNP in 1988 and derided the Scottish Labour MPs as the ‘Feeble Fifty’ the name quickly stuck. These Labour MPs did little or nothing to prevent Margaret Thatcher decimating Scottish industry and guinea-pigging the Scots with the hated Poll Tax in 1989. Indeed, one Scottish Labour MP, !!!! Douglas, disgusted at his party’s inaction defected to the SNP in protest in 1990.

Scottish MP's = little point in being there when it comes to Scottish interests no matter which party they are in, as history shows. Labour MP's were just as pointless as SNP ones, the only difference being that they didn't like highlighting the fact too much. Something the SNP are never shy of doing fortunately. Ian Murray incidentally ( Labour ) was just as vocal about the sham of a debate last night as SNP MP's were. He was appalled by the whole thing.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Nor forget that Scotland managed only a 67% turnout. Hardly a ringing endorsement. With Glasgow reaching the dizzy heights of 56%. A real sign of apathy amongst a certain group within the electorate if there was one.

It wasn't a sign of apathy at all. It was a sign of consensus across the board straight off the back of a bruising and bitter Scottish General election. Everyone was punting the same line.

No need to try and rewrite recent history.

mrginge

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't have an obsession. However from posts here it's very clear that there are some who are completely unaware that control over fishing and agriculture are already devolved to Holyrood via the Scotland Act. Therefore on leaving the EU, control defaults to Holyrood not Westminster.

I'm simply pointing out that Westminster taking these powers away from Holyrood will be politically and constitutionally explosive. Since Holyrood won't pass the necessary legislation in order for control to pass back to Westminster. The same incidentally will also be true of the Great Repeal Bill and any changes over Human Rights/leaving ECJ. The same will apply there as to fishing and agriculture. Holyrood won't vote for the changes.

I do apologise if you don't like the obvious being spelt out for you. But for some posters like antrobus for example.. are sadly unaware of what's going on and need filled in before wasting screeds of posts and their own time going on about UK wide maritime borders. None of which are relevant to passing Scotland Acts nor current devolved powers.

I posted a page or so back about Ruth Davidson saying she is expecting an almighty political row over fishing/agriculture etc because she expects that Westminster will want to take them back in order to cover the UK as a single entity. She is expecting an almightly political row, in short, because she's absolutely going to get one.

May after all can't make grandiose promises to Spanish fishermen in recent speeches without the fish. Holyrood don't want to give her the fish. Unless it's a Sturgeon with a fish ( middle ) finger.

A whole five paragraphs wow.

Couldn't you have just said 'I have no evidence that the UK will try to claw back devolved powers'.

I know posting a lovely big response helps to push the awkward questions off the front page but it's a fairly standard tactic these days.

Next up you'll be showing us a delightful, yet pointless image as well.
Oh look you did.

So let's recap.

You have no evidence of any clawback of powers.
You want to use Scottish fishing waters as a bargaining tool rather than for the benefit of Scottish fishermen.
You want negotiations between the EU and UK to fail.
You think a 'plan' which is somewhere between widely discredited and impossible is a sure-fire vote winner.
You couldn't give a monkeys about Scottish domestic politics.
You still have no solutions for any of the economic points raised in 2014.
You believe the case for independence is strengthened by brexit despite there being zero actual evidence (outside of twitter of course) since the result was delivered.
You want to wait-and-see on indyref2 until the red line of SM is crossed, despite it already being crossed.

Keep up the good work.