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

Shaka_Zulu

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sturgeon promised one too.

So far failing to deliver on that promise.......... oh wait a minute she made a promise she can't keep because it is not in her power.

Aghh..... mevrou shame!

.string.

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

So far failing to deliver on that promise.......... oh wait a minute she made a promise she can't keep because it is not in her power.

Aghh..... mevrou shame!

Yes that's right, she also made a promise a couple of days before the Scottish Election, that a referendum depended on their being a clear majority of Scots wanting independence.
See here - watch the video and read what is below it.

http://chokkablog.blogspot.in/2017/03/the-snps-indyref2-mandate.html

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

Yes that's right, she also made a promise a couple of days before the Scottish Election, that a referendum depended on their being a clear majority of Scots wanting independence.
See here - watch the video and read what is below it.

http://chokkablog.blogspot.in/2017/03/the-snps-indyref2-mandate.html

Only part of the promise.

"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."

.string.

It was just before the election, explaining what the SNP's approach was to a referendum in a situation where Scots were deciding who to vote for and some did not want another referendum and were dithering about voting for the SNP on the basis of other policies and yet having one slipped in by the SNP.

You may be happy for Sturgeon to mislead No Voters like this I suppose. But I reckon that if Sturgeon really wants to have a legitimate mandate, she should have the courage, like May has, to call a Scottish Parliament election.

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

You may be happy for Sturgeon to mislead No Voters like this I suppose. But I reckon that if Sturgeon really wants to have a legitimate mandate, she should have the courage, like May has, to call a Scottish Parliament election.

Come now.

Nicola Sturgeon repeatedly stated that she would not call for another referendum unless there was a clear and sustained preference or if there was a significant and material change to the circumstances that prevailed in the 2014 referendum.
It was in their manifesto for the 2016 election.

The SNP have that legitimate mandate as per last years elections, they've voted for it in the Scottish parliament this year following the negotiation stance and failed promises by Theresa May.

It's clear which party leader is open to going against her word.

This General Election is pure and simple political maximisation in an attempt to benefit the Conservative party or in my growing consideration, an opportunity for May to resign if she fails to increase the majority and get a mandate shes desperate for.

I've said before, there should have been a snap election after Cameron resigned, not a year later and delaying article 50 by 9 months

Shaka_Zulu

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

This General Election is pure and simple political maximisation in an attempt to benefit the Conservative party or in my growing consideration, an opportunity for May to resign if she fails to increase the majority and get a mandate shes desperate for.

In that case the SNP had the right to vote against it. Did they?

No

So please stop whining!

Always whining you nats, the powers you have you don't use but just whine on about how unfair it is.

The Nats should play the hand they were dealt and get on with running the country instead of running Scotland in to the ground.

paparossco

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

"The Treaty of Union finally came into effect on 1 May 1707 after a year of negotiations and ratification by both goverments.

Explosive riots were a feature of daily life in the centre of the capital and in most other Scottish towns for the duration of the settlement. The sight of nationalist leader, the Duke of Hamilton, as he passed by carriage on the Royal Mile each day aroused passionate cheers from the throngs of Edinburgh locals. Meanwhile the leader of the unionist opposition, the Duke of Queensberry, required protection at all times as his consort was subjected to a volley of verbal insults and missiles ranging from rocks to manure.

When Robinson Crusoe author Daniel Defoe, a secret agent of the English government, arrived in Edinburgh in late 1706, he described the violent scene, ‘a Scots rabble is the worst of its kind’, while also stating, ‘for every Scot in favour of the union, there are 99 opposed’. The heated protests were of course in vain. The Act of Union was a deal between the ruling classes of Scotland and England, and the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Scottish populace would be wholly ignored. The bells of St Giles rang out to the tune ‘Why should I be sad on my wedding day?’ Edinburgh, and indeed, all of Scotland, was in a state of mourning – the country had just lost its status as a self-governing independent nation."

http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/lost-edinburgh-the-act-of-union-1-3461890

So should 'rabble' be the new collective noun for us now? :rotfl: ... 'A rabble of Scots' has a nice ring to it.

.string.

@ISTL - you did read, or ignored, what Hague wrote in his blog which I linked above,
where he wrote,

The response from the SNP would of course be that what technically matters is the Manifesto that the SNP stood on.

So I took a look at the "Easy Read" copy. It is indeed an easy read and makes only one reference to another referendum (my highlighting):
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if it is clear that more than half of the people in Scotland want independence."
At this point I would suggest that - given their rhetoric and their "easy read" manifesto - the SNP morally only have a mandate to propose a second referendum if it is clear that a majority of people in Scotland want independence.

The SNP rely on something which was hidden away in the full mamifesto, safe from the prying eyes of the electorate.

It is academic anyway because the UK has the right to deny a referendum. The Union does not exist for one part alone and it's disoution requires a consensus. At this time a Scottish referendum would not be in the National interest, and that includes the interests of the majority of Scots who voted No in the last Referendum and more than 10 times that number in the rest of the UK.

So the SNP can get back in their plotting corner and wait, not keep trying to scr*w things up for the rest of us.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Arklight wrote: »

Failing to understand many people voted for the Conservatives assuming that however the referendum went, single market access would be safe, appears to be yours.

Good job at sort of semi understanding the document that you'd never seen before and couldn't find until I linked to it for you, in such short time though.

You don't half know how to make yourself look like a real twit.
Sorry, wrong vowel there.

See the link in Pict's original referendum post? #9544 above?
It very clearly says that the in/out referendum is in the Conservative GE manifesto 2015.

I note also how you assume so much; perhaps you should be reminded why not to.

assume = to make an '!!!' out of 'u' and 'me'.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Assume

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@ISTL - you did read, or ignored, what Hague wrote in his blog which I linked above,
where he wrote,

The response from the SNP would of course be that what technically matters is the Manifesto that the SNP stood on.

So I took a look at the "Easy Read" copy. It is indeed an easy read and makes only one reference to another referendum (my highlighting):
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if it is clear that more than half of the people in Scotland want independence."
At this point I would suggest that - given their rhetoric and their "easy read" manifesto - the SNP morally only have a mandate to propose a second referendum if it is clear that a majority of people in Scotland want independence.

The SNP rely on something which was hidden away MB in the full mamifesto, safe from the prying eyes of the electorate.

Anyway, it is academic anyway because the UK has the right to deny a referendum. The Union does not exist for one part alone and it's dilution requires a consensus. At this time a Scottish referendum would not be in the National interest, and that includes the interests of the majority of Scots who voted No in the last Referendum and more than 10 times that number in the rest of the UK.

So the SNP can get back in their plotting corner and wait, not keep trying to scr*w things up for the rest of us.

Newsflash :- Folks who vote for the SNP in independence referendum shocker !!!

Forget about Hague, he's as big a numpty as his opposite number in the blogosphere stakes. The fact he has to go through a manifesto line by itsy bitsy line in order to justify his view.. when this is the SNP ( The SNP ! ) we're talking about says it all. Just daft semantics.

Sturgeon has her mandate and she'll solidify it in a few weeks time. And in any case, it's now constitutionally the Scottish Parliament who's official wishes May will have to block.

The Daily Record ( one of the biggest Scottish dailies ) have been absolutely vicious about Davidson over the last week or so, what turn around for them ! Panicking realising where all their kid gloves, wacky photo pics has got them. Not to mention actively encouraging their readers, mainly older Labour voters, to vote tactically for Tories in previous elections in order to keep the SNP out. Boy has all that come home to roost for Labour leaning media up here and about time too. They've a big choice to make soon.

Liked their splash a few days back also in tandem with Google. Almost as if they aren't that bothered anymore about printing good polls and surveys for independence. Another big turn around. This is the first time I've ever saw this question used as opposed to either an exclusive independence or Brexit question asked anywhere. Not BPC but interesting results nonetheless.

Most Scots would back an independent Scotland within Europe if faced with the straight choice of going it alone or living under another right-wing Tory government after Brexit, a new poll has revealed.

Independent Scotland in Europe - 56.7%
Tory Govt and out of Europe - 43.3%

...A hard-Brexit under a hard-right Tory government will inevitably further fuel the desire for independence among a huge swathe of voters in Scotland and the survey results shows this. When presented with a stark choice, a clear majority would opt for independence rather than be forced to endure living under a rampant right-wing Conservative regime.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/poll-shows-most-scots-would-10315662