|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 15 Sep 13:00
Humza will “trigger” Indy negotiations if SNP win more seats than any other party at the next GE…
Hee hee…Who with? A mirror?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 15 Sep 13:41
Quote:
Parboiled, Fri 15 Sep 13:00
Humza will “trigger” Indy negotiations if SNP win more seats than any other party at the next GE…
Hee hee…Who with? A mirror?
Really simple question for you Parboiled, and all Id like is an honest answer - why does Westminster want Scotland to remain in the Union, if they are such a financial burden on the UK as a whole?
Post Edited (Fri 15 Sep 14:35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 15 Sep 14:17
Same question I have been asking for years Dave 1885
Why are they so desperate to keep us .. If we are no use to them
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 15 Sep 14:19
Isn`t that the way the antiquated First Past the Post system works - a majority of seats gives a mandate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 15 Sep 16:06
What`s good for sum?🤔
Actually UK government policy in case of Independence for Dominica and Saint Lucia. “Given that a pro-independence Government won a majority in the Dominican Parliament, no further evidence of public opinion can reasonably be demanded” said British officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 15 Sep 16:48
Simple answer.. We had a gold plated Referendum, the date, question and franchise were as requested by Salmond, and you lot lost.
No part of the UK is a financial burden to the other parts. It is a unitary state. The only ones who blather about why would Westminster want to keep us are the sad losers. The decision to remain was ours not theirs.
And if anyone seriously thinks that utter waste of space of an FM is gonna deliver anything to further the Indy cause..oh dear!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 15 Sep 17:07
Quote:
Parboiled, Fri 15 Sept 16:48
Simple answer.. We had a gold plated Referendum, the date, question and franchise were as requested by Salmond, and you lot lost.
No part of the UK is a financial burden to the other parts. It is a unitary state. The only ones who blather about why would Westminster want to keep us are the sad losers. The decision to remain was ours not theirs.
And if anyone seriously thinks that utter waste of space of an FM is gonna deliver anything to further the Indy cause..oh dear!
Don`t forget the pack of lies!🤔😡
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 15 Sep 17:17
Looks like am a sad loser .. ach weel
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 15 Sep 17:24
Quote:
Parboiled, Fri 15 Sep 16:48
Simple answer.. We had a gold plated Referendum, the date, question and franchise were as requested by Salmond, and you lot lost.
No part of the UK is a financial burden to the other parts. It is a unitary state. The only ones who blather about why would Westminster want to keep us are the sad losers. The decision to remain was ours not theirs.
And if anyone seriously thinks that utter waste of space of an FM is gonna deliver anything to further the Indy cause..oh dear!
So your answer is you voted on it and lost? 🤔 but, if we aren’t needed to prop up the union, surely we wouldn’t need to have a vote on it and the UK Government would just allow us to go it alone? 🫢
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 15 Sep 20:58
Never forget Margaret Thatcher’s words
“All the SNP need to secure independence is to send a majority of MP’s to Westminster”
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 15 Sep 22:49
Even his own colleagues are rubbishing Scoot’s master plan now, and the musings of long deid Maggie T won’t help.
And now an accusation of misleading Parliament on another issue hovers over him.
Never mind Dave, get a petition of a couple of million to support your UDI plan and you’ll be the face on the Jock pound note!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sat 16 Sep 03:02
Honestly Parboiled, is this the Asperger`s getting the better of you? Do you have nothing better to do with your time? Or are you just oan the heavy?
The UK is a unitary state? Well...by definition that is simply wrong. The term "unitary state" would indicate that a uniform law applies over the entire territory of the UK and Scotland having it`s own independent judiciary (which is one of the fundamental decrees of the Treaty of Union) is one of a plethora of examples that easily proves that wrong. Try again...
Personally, I`m fascinated by why people think and view the world as they do. Your mentality genuinely reminds me of the same Imperialist mentality that Putin has displayed toward Ukraine recently. The brazen behaviour that is supplemented by the playing of the victim card with claims of "Ageism" and "Anglophobia" is very reminiscent of the classic school bully. It`s fascinating from the psychological perspective: Are you suffering from some sort of trauma? Is it that you feel disenfranchised because your view of the world is so openly rejected by the vast majority of people around you? So you have no sense of belonging? Or is it that you feel that all of those who disagree with you are somehow intellectually inferior? Usually that`s a sign of Narcissism. Kinda reminds me of many of the things I saw during my teacher training when we were taught "how to spot extremism".
Nae doubt though you are quite happy scrounging aff the Scottish state, despite your proud boasts of having "not a single drop of Scottish blood". And of course you no doubt "don`t care what others think", but are you not tired of being so hate-filled? While we do live in a democracy and you are entitled to your opinion, you genuinely need to just grow up a good bit. Or are you gonna read this and claim you didn`t as you`ve done before?
I say all of this as someone who has absolutely zero time for Humza Youssaf - I don`t rate the guy as a politician and don`t like idea of having a religious First Minister, regardless of which magic eejit in the sky is applicable. I agree that he won`t deliver Independence, but the FM after him likely will. Mocking the idea of Scottish statehood is just laughable when you consider that Scotland is older than England and that several modern states are centuries younger than Scotland.
Feel I need some heavy now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 16 Sep 08:24
My apologies Buspasspar, clumsy of me, no offence intended. No doubt you battle on, head held high
Could I ask a favour pl? If you have half a day to spare could you perhaps provide an intellible précis of the insane ravings above? I’m going to be a bit busy primping myself up..date night y’know..!
Post Edited (Sat 16 Sep 08:38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 16 Sep 08:35
No offence taken parboiled .. Date night .. Jings she must be some gal if your starting to primp yersel at 08.24 :-))
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 16 Sep 08:45
Well one starts at the bottom, toenails trim and manicure..that takes most of the morning. Cannae bend down and garden lopers are tricky to manoeuvre!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 16 Sep 11:38
I have ones that extend you can borrow :-)
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 16 Sep 11:59
I’d like to think if anyone on this forum had Asperger’s then the rest of us would show understanding and sympathy, rather than mock or bully because they were a little bit different.
As for Unitary States – I’d be interested in HJ’s definition thereof – his seems at odds with that of other sources, such as the OECD.
With regard to the original point, I think Humza was arguing that merely a plurality of seats would be enough to “start negotiations”. I’m not sure who he’ll be negotiating with – is he seriously saying that if the SNP lose seats and get 35% of the vote then Westminster will do anything other than laugh in his face? I assume he is merely trying to shore up his core vote rather than offer a coherent strategy. Unless he meant to say something else.
As for the old “why is the UK keen to hang on to us if we are a burden” question; this has been answered many times. I’ll have another go.
Security of the northern border.
Whilst cross-subsidies may go one way at the moment (dependent on where you draw a somewhat arbitrary line on a map), they may go in different directions in future. In particular there may be non-financial advantages in retaining the extra landmass and population.
Maintaining the integrity of the borders allows soft power to be retained.
Just because something is a burden doesn’t mean you don’t want to keep it. Would an independent Scotland decide the Outer Hebrides, Dundee and Glasgow were “a burden” and bin them? Or introduce compulsory euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 16 Sep 12:10
Something for HJ to chew on there…once he spits his dummy out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 17 Sep 10:56
Parboiled - The only one who spits the dummy is you when you scream Ageism and Anglophobia. Hilarious to see you post anything about "ravings" with all the Express and Mail snippets you post on here!
McCaig - Frankly, when it comes to Parboiled, after the guy`s conduct and hate-filled rantings on here I don`t think he deserves any respect or sympathy. The guy is most certainly a few pennies short of a pound sterling!
As for your points:
There are several schools of thought on whether the UK is unitary state or not - one argues that the UK is a unitary state because ultimate power still rests with the monarch. Another argues that it isn`t because the Treaty of Union is a constitutional contract that can ne removed. Another argues that it hasn`t been since the devolved administrations commenced in 99 and another interpretation is that as a union of 4 nations with their own judiciaries that it can`t be. For me, one of the fundamental things in a democracy is an Independent judiciary so I prefer this interpretation. It`s better to actually read the political science journals rather than simply Googleing a term and cherry picking.
The "security of the Nothern border" argument is frankly...guff. The Imperial hangover and Imperialist mentality in England is alive and kicking and having control of Scotland fits precisely within that category. It is very much akin to Putin`s "Russia`s sphere of influence" nonsense. Moreover, if Scotland leaves the UK this would put their seat on the UN permanent security council in jeopardy. Scotland will very likely be a NATO member (this is in fact currently SNP policy) and return to the EU, the former of which the UK is a member of and latter of which does not pose a threat to the UK. For Westminster, it`s very much an image thing.
Having worked down there, I can honestly say that my time there simply showed me that the mentality of Scotland and Scottish people is vastly different from that of England and English people. Scots are far more similar to Danes than they are to the English, despite what Labour activists like yourself want people to believe.
This type of "soft power" that you talk about is interesting. South Korea and Japan are arguably the best countries in the world with regard to their "soft power". Do you honestly believe that younger Scots hold a positive view of Westminster? Somehow I can`t see the Tories breaking thought barriers among young Scots in the same way that Japan and Korea do among mainland Chinese who are perpetually blasted with "anti-Western" CCP propaganda.
There is now more than a generation who have grown up with their main Government sitting in Edinburgh. Those who said devolution would kill the UK were right. The question is simply, how long will it take?
Post Edited (Sun 17 Sep 10:58)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sun 17 Sep 11:40
I would accuthe you of athpergerthithm but I’ve got a lithp
[/i
Post Edited (Sun 17 Sep 11:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 17 Sep 12:22
MCT and other Unionists imply that all the perceived benefits of being part of the UK come at no cost or that the financial gains exceed the financial losses but, even if that were true, I think there`s more to it than that. If you join a club you usually agree to go along with the view of the majority when it comes to big decisions but what happens if a distinct minority has a different ethos from the large majority which dominates the club and this influences the outcome of any votes on major issues? At what point does the minority decide the differences are too great to justify remaining in the club as they are always going to be outvoted on crucial decisions?
This is what happened with the referendum on the EU where there was a significant difference between how the Scottish and English electorates voted but the latter was decisive because of the relative size of the two. I haven`t seen any explanation of this disparity but it seems to me that Scottish voters saw through the lies of the Brexit campaign and voted accordingly but the majority of English voters didn`t and, by all accounts, many are now regretting it. Another example of this different culture is that the Tories have never gained a majority in any political election in Scotland at any level since the 1950s which is in stark comparison to the situation in England.
In short, what is the point of being in political union with another country which is going in a different direction and will always dominate decision-making because of its superior size?
Post Edited (Sun 17 Sep 15:38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 7 Oct 18:57
wee eck - before I reply to your post as promised, I`m going to respond to HJ`s points.
HJ
Firstly, “a few pennies short of a pound” and variants thereof seems another unfortunate phrase – do you use it often in your teaching career?
Regarding unitary states, we seem to have moved from Parboiled being “simply wrong” to now holding a view consistent with one of “several schools of thought” so I guess that’s progress. I’m sure the OECD will be relieved.
I think we are “all Jock Tamson’s bairns” – I don’t believe the suggestion that Scots (whoever they/we are) are materially different from the English.
As for being accused of being a “Labour activist” – if not genuinely hilarious, that is rather amusing (and wildly inaccurate).
You make a strange comparison between a political party on the one hand, and nations on the other; I don’t understand this.
Yes, the main government is in Edinburgh, which is why it is a little odd that people seem so obsessed with Westminster, but again this could be the result of a decade and a half of typically nationalist propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 7 Oct 19:00
wee eck
You make a point about financial gains and losses. This is an interesting development which I believe mirrors the evolution of the Indy movement in recent times.
Firstly Indy was going to make us better off, if not rich. We had “abundant natural resources”, which somehow could be monetised to our benefit (or the profits of which could be redirected). We had the pre-referendum white paper which based its economic case on Oil and Gas, with revenues at c £11bn p.a. based on what was it - $113 per barrel of oil? A crazy idea – the volatility of the price meant that you could pay for your Health Service one year, but not the next year. And in a climate crisis as well.
Then we had Andrew Wilson’s (and Kate Forbes’) Sustainable Growth Commission – promising sustained austerity (defining austerity as a real terms reduction in public spending), no control over monetary policy and magically becoming Hong Kong 2, IIRC. This wasn’t very popular, so had to be replaced.
Then the third version – what was it – “Building a New Scotland”? Essentially avoiding the difficult financial questions altogether.
This is basically Indy at any cost.
And so the argument now is the “democratic deficit” argument. I think this can be persuasive, but only superficially.
One argument goes that “we’d always get the government we wanted”. But don’t we already get that at Holyrood? Well, do we – this is the government the central belt voted for. The Highlands and Islands have to put up with whatever is decided there. So perhaps there should be a parliament in Inverness. But then the islanders would claim there they weren’t getting a fair say. Obviously, this is a reductio ad absurdum argument. And the same argument is essentially used by people in Cornwall or Yorkshire or whatever complaining about the London-centric nature of things.
Another argument seems to be that “England can always outvote Scotland”. But that’s only if you count that way. Here’s a thought-experiment for you. Imagine England was divided up into 12 new countries of roughly equal population of 5 million of so. You could even name them after former Kingdoms like Northumbria or Mercia or Wessex or whatever if that floats your boat. Wouldn’t that solve this perceived “dominance” problem?
People don’t normally vote on country lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 7 Oct 19:02
As for “we vote differently” argument. This is partially true. But not necessarily because we are materially different. I think voting behaviour has many complex factors.
Consider Europe. From memory, Scottish attitudes were never that different from those of the English. No-one particularly cared – they didn’t vote, they couldn’t name their MEP and never expressed any interest in working in Slovenia.
In particular, the SNP has flip-flopped – originally against Europe (and against NATO) they were still an anti-EEC party when Sturgeon and Swinney (remember them?) joined. They compromised on this principal for electoral success. And when push came to shove they didn’t campaign that hard – I think they spent more on that motorhome than on the referendum, as they could hedge their bets with the result. Years of being told you are different makes you think you are different. If England had remained largely pro-EU then I reckon the SNP would have reverted to their anti-EU line.
As for the “we don’t vote Tory” line – well, many do. And many more have very fiscally and socially conservative views. Kate Forbes nearly won the leadership. There was a good reason the SNP were known as “Tartan Tories”. But as I’ve argued above, it’s the central belt that dominates, in particular west central Scotland. The industrial heartlands as opposed to the shires. And because the bulk of Scotland’s population lives there, they can elect a huge mass of MPs of one particular party shade. It’s the same in the north of England and elsewhere. So we’re not particularly different.
In short, we are still seeing the effects of the global financial crisis. People all over the world have turned to populism and nationalism. This manifests itself in different ways – to the SNP’s benefit in Scotland and to quasi-UKIP Conservatism in England.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 8 Oct 08:08
I can`t believe it took you three weeks to come up with that answer. Your posts demonstrate absolute contempt for the independence movement and the people who support it and that`s the premise on which you base your analysis. As far as you are concerned the union is beyond criticism no matter how corrupt and incompetent it is.
We don`t need to pick over the bones of the 2014 referendum campaign. Nine years have passed since then and things have changed. One is that we are out of the EU; the other is that Westminster has just given permission to develop the Rosebank oilfield. According to the Unionists in 2014 neither of these things would happen so how much trust should we put in those running the UK?
You`ve come up with this nonsense about Scotland being no different from any region of the UK before. Maybe you should watch David Olusoga`s history of the UK to understand how the Union came about and what it comprises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sun 8 Oct 09:37
Eck you’ve been gnawing at the bones of the 2014 annihilation since the corpse was still warm…
Vow, MI5, Engish settlers, vote tampering, ballot boxes vanishing, lies etc. Give it up, it’s deid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 8 Oct 09:49
You`re confusing me with someone else. I haven`t raised any of these points on here, apart from the lies I mentioned above. But all independence supporters are the same to you, aren`t they? Numpties, sheep, any other insulting term you can come up with.
Post Edited (Sun 08 Oct 09:50)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sun 8 Oct 11:55
Well, we would have been out of the EU if you lot had won so what are you moaning about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Sun 8 Oct 14:59
Parboiled wrote:
> Well, we would have been out of the EU if you lot had won so
> what are you moaning about?
>
>
Also, the SNP campaigned to leave the Common Market in the 1975 referendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Mon 9 Oct 09:27
Quote:
Tad Allagash, Sun 8 Oct 14:59
Also, the SNP campaigned to leave the Common Market in the 1975 referendum.
In 1888 Keir Hardy campaigned for Home Rule for Scotland.
Party positions change, today`s Labour Party have a policy platform that sits to the right of where the Conservatives were under Thatcher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 9 Oct 10:08
I suspect that is hyperbole SIF. If it isn`t though it means that after the next election that Scotland will have shifted to the right of Thatcher then.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 9 Oct 10:48
Party positions change
True - the SNP used to be pro-independence. Boom boom.
(Before tenruh says it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Wed 11 Oct 01:27
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Mon 9 Oct 10:08
I suspect that is hyperbole SIF. If it isn`t though it means that after the next election that Scotland will have shifted to the right of Thatcher then.
It`s not hyperbole. Compare manifestos from Thatchers time to policy proposals from Starmers Labour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Wed 11 Oct 20:34
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Wed 11 Oct 01:27
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Mon 9 Oct 10:08
I suspect that is hyperbole SIF. If it isn`t though it means that after the next election that Scotland will have shifted to the right of Thatcher then.
It`s not hyperbole. Compare manifestos from Thatchers time to policy proposals from Starmers Labour.
Starmer might mean punting the Tories, but I`ll stand by the fact he wouldn`t look out of place as a Tory front bencher
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 8 Dec 21:35
wee eck
Apologies for not responding before now, but you will appreciate that I have had other priorities of late. The “bad request” issue has not helped.
I think you were unduly harsh with your response. In particular you seem keen to attribute views to me that I don’t hold. For example, I have never said that the union is beyond criticism.
One can make a comparison without inferring equivalence. Yes, I drew a comparison between Scotland and Yorkshire; yes I have attempted to make this point before and you chose not to answer then either. But it seems to me that so much of the nationalist argument is little more than “ah, but Scotland is/was a nation” with the corollary the only valid way of aggregating votes is on national lines.
Here`s another thought that you may like to address (or ignore) but would help clarify the nature of your nationalism.
People talk about “Scotland” but do they mean Scotland or do they mean “the Scots”? Because these are (or were) certainly, different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 8 Dec 22:01
Three weeks to answer my last question and two months to answer this one! You certainly like to take your time.
If you have reservations about the union I can`t say I remember you expressing them on here. It`s pretty obvious Scotland is party to the Treaty of Union and Yorkshire isn`t. In terms of that, Scotland is anyone who lives here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Sat 9 Dec 09:35
Quote:
wee eck, Fri 8 Dec 22:01
Three weeks to answer my last question and two months to answer this one! You certainly like to take your time.
If you have reservations about the union I can`t say I remember you expressing them on here. It`s pretty obvious Scotland is party to the Treaty of Union and Yorkshire isn`t. In terms of that, Scotland is anyone who lives here.
McCaig, how dare you!!!
It`s about time you stopped having a life outside of DAFC.net and make sure you reply in a more efficient manner.
Wee eck....unbelievable........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 9 Dec 09:58
Sorry but I`d forgotten I`d even asked a question. I`m sure he`s found the time to post to the Football Forum in the past two months. The disappointing thing is that MCT has added nothing we couldn`t have gathered from his previous postings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 9 Dec 12:02
Who the hell are you with all the questions ? The forum Bernard Poncenby?
Post Edited (Sat 09 Dec 13:09)
|
|
|
|
|
|
