Curiously, though, the article finishes with a quote from Malcolm Harvey, who back in the day was one of the leading pro-indy bloggers (he was one of the founding triumvirate at Better Nation, and before that had his own blog Malc in the Burgh).
"Turnout would be about 50% and the thing would be even less legitimate than holding an un-sanctioned referendum in the first place. It's a mad idea."
My jaw dropped to the floor when I realised he wasn't describing the boycott as mad, but the idea that we should hold a referendum that might be boycotted. Is anyone spotting the slight flaw here? There'd be nothing to stop the Tories boycotting absolutely any referendum, even one brought about by a Section 30. It's hard to think of a better definition of 'madness' than giving our opponents a veto on every move we make.
You know the bit at the end of Life of Brian when the Crack Suicide Squad turn up, stab themselves, and say with their dying breath "that showed 'em, huh?" If Malcolm and Pete Wishart had been in charge of the Roman troops that day, they'd have reacted to that seemingly futile gesture by saying "well, that's it then, we can't possibly go ahead with these crucifixions now..."
Totally agree. Plenty of people don't vote in elections/referendums all the time. If the Britnats decide not to show up then good. In fact it would be great if they didn't show up,for Mays election then all this argument about who to vote on the regional list would become irrelevant. But of course they will turn up for elections and referendums - Britnats will vote. It is all just bullshit smoke screens.
ReplyDeleteIn an alternative universe the boycott idea might have worked.
ReplyDeleteIf somehow there had been say a 2009 referendum a boycott could have worked as there was no precedent of an indy ref and the UK was in the EU and was held in relatively high regard on the world stage. The referendum could have be portrayed illegal by the UK Government and no country would of recognised it.
But we did have a referendum and Brexit has happened.
So the idea of an independence referendum is accepted and the UK is no longer an EU state. These are very important developments.
If the SNP win a majority on a manifesto of a referendum and that referendum is successful the international community will recognise it.
The worst case scenario is we have a temporary Kosovao situation where say Russia and Belarus don't recognise us but others do.
Europe is the Key and they are now very much on side.
Alastair
The fact we've got the precedent of a legal vote certainly helps us .
DeleteIt's the one advantage we have over the catalan case.
That and Catalonia isn't a country. If they e.g. had international football and rugby teams, competed as a country at international sporting fixtures across the world, they'd be in a better place. Global perception is important. If you go to Europe, people there see Scotland as a country and Catalonia as a region of Spain. It's unfortunate for catatonia, but true.
DeleteOf course we can partly thank unionists for this. For example, in the recent reporting of drug deaths, they openly insist Scotland is a European country, reaffirming this in the minds of Scots and the inhabitants of neighboring countries.
Scottish Skier: I know of at least two international sporting competitions that Catalonia takes part in as a country in its own right - the World Korfball Championships and the European Korfball Championships.
DeleteWell, you learn something new every day. Don't tell unionists that Scotland regularly fail to qualify for the Korfall championships; they'll say that's another reason we can't be independent.
DeleteForget Catalonia - they have a constitution which forbids secession. They need to fix that problem first before voting again.
DeleteIf we're going to vote without UK permission we're relying on the same principle as the catalans.
DeleteWell, Harvey's comment is correct in only one respect - a boycott meand a yes vote, and removes pressure from the populace to turn out and vote for what they'd see as a done deal.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why, boycott or no, the various Yes proponents, including the SNP, need to campaign just as hard if not harder. It helps if the Indy vot is near 50% in absolute terms, not just over 50% in terms of those who vote.
I see a Fox News reporter is now telling the truth about the US Election. There might be hope for the MSM yet, but I have my doubts.
ReplyDeletehttps://trendingpolitics.com/fox-s-maria-bartiromo-sounds-the-alarm-alleges-an-intel-source-told-me-president-trump-did-in-fact-win-the-election/
And in Colorado the manipulation is self evident from this clip. Remember US Elections are computerised.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/eTqiaGyDX58
In response to your post. I hope we don't even need a referendum, simply walk away as the UK Parliament has breached the Treaty of Union.
ReplyDeleteIf they don't vote then they cant bitch about it. I assume that if the Yoons boycott the Indy Referendum then the wont be rigging the Postal Vote again and there wont be anything close to 800,000 postal votes cast.
ReplyDelete45% of the electorate boycott Holyrood elections, and we are under the delusion that the election is legitimate.
ReplyDeleteI can't blame them - given my experience with my eight MSPs, I wouldn't vote for any of them. I get the feeling that they have all lost any grasp of reality - like Andy Wightman resigning from the Greens over pedantry about whether a tickbox on a form says 'gender' or 'sex'. When a parliament spends considerable time worrying about stuff like that, it's surprising that the entire electorate don't bother with them.
We're turning into Catalonia , all the signs are there. A boycott by the other side, if effective, will render the vote meaningless to the international community. It's not curious to state this. It's evidenced by what we've already seen.
ReplyDeleteEven the idea an unsanctioned vote (if boycotted) brings us closer to an actual vote is exactly how catalonia played out. Artur Mas held a vote in Nov 2014 to bring pressure. It was boycotted and didnt legitimise anything. It just gave the other side a rerun of how to boycott.
There's no other way round this than a materially large turnout to legitimise this. I would put it at least 70percent for any pressure to be brought to bear.
If we think we're getting independence because our parliament elecrions get 50 odd percent turnout , that's delusional. An indy vote is a different ball game as it relies on unambiguous result and recognition.
We need to hope a material amount of Scots consider the result legitimate and are willing to take part.
Nice name btw.
DeleteWe are not turning into Catalonia. The Spanish constitution outlaws secession.
DeleteWhy is an Indy vote barely above 50% different from a Brexit vote barely above 50%?
Youve misread. 70percent related to turnout , not yes votes.
DeleteI should preface the above by stating there are societal differences between Scotland and Catalonia . We are more homogeneous and have a more connected respect for our national identity regardless of our constitutional opinion on Independence...we're ALL Scots etc in a way the catalans are not . Which means we're more likely to consider the collective will of the Scottish people legitimate. There are more unionists in scotland that agree in self determination than their counterparts in Catalonia.
ReplyDeleteHowever the idea of a boycott breaks that tradition and is deeply worrying. We need a high turnout . There's no getting away from it.
History is repeated over and over e.g. The BritNats convinced India and Ireland to pause their claim during the Second World War. The BritNats did the same to Malasia etc.
ReplyDeleteWe are to pause Independence while the charge ahead with Brexit.
We should never pause. We should never take our foot off the pedal.
We should be pushing hard on our demands every day. The BritNats know they have lost but as with Ireland, The Middle East, Africa, The Far East etc.,. They will seek to poison the well. To drain resources. To reduce any competition.
Their biggest fear is not Independence, it is a successful Scotland on their doorstep. How will they justify Right Wing elitism in rUK if an alternative model is so clearly visible.
While Ghandi paused London devised East and West Pakistan.
While Ireland paused London created N/Ireland.
Playing to the London Gentlemens Club rules....is a mistake, a big mistake!
Well said Julia!
DeleteSpot on Julia. The worrying thing is that SNP voter's and middle of the road folk's will (wrongly) assume that the SNP have the May elections in the bag, and so they won't turn out in sufficient numbers. Meanwhile the unionists will quietly register their postal vote and play down their decision until after the count.
DeleteWell said Julia ...
DeleteThese past few days have shown what the slightest pause can cost. 4 Nations supposedly agreement on Christmas 2020. From her first announcement of that Nicola prevaricated. She didn'tlike it. It showed in her language. By the day the prevarication became more pronounced.
Today we have the backtrack forced upon us all by the numbers and by the new virus.
Every circumstance which seems to call for a seperate Scottish policy ought to be held fast as Scottish. Keep Scottish policy Scottish. Keep Scotland separate. Keep Scotland successful - or at least not so plainly subservient.
Julia, I understand what you're saying, but Ireland left the UK in the twenties, and if I remember correctly, Easter 1916 wasn't a good time in Dublin. So there was a small rebellion right in the middle of WW1 and Ireland was independent well before WW2. The question is how long NI can be sustained ...
DeleteIt's not the threat of boycott that's the effective veto. It's whether enough Scots listen to them and vote with their feet.
ReplyDeleteIt's up to the yes side to ensure enough Scots believe in the right to decide to render these threats empty.
That demonstrates whether you're a real country or not. You don't have a country if half the people don't agree in the right to decide, the games a bogey from the start of that's the case whether we like it or not. It's not where we are right now but that's why it's worrying
Theres a way to deal with that - make the election a clear mandate to proceed.
DeleteBased on the 2014, if every single person that voted Tory in 2019 boycotted, you'd still be looking at 68% turnout, i.e. similar to the EU referendum.
ReplyDeleteAnd we already have a good precedent in the form of the 1997 semi-independence referendum where at turnout of 60% with only 44.7% of the electorate voting for devo was considered 'the settled will of the people'.
Of course only 46.8% of the Scottish electorate voted for the union in 2014, and only 37.5% of brits voted leave. So clearly, getting a majority of the electorate to vote for something isn't required under great British law. Seems 37.5% of the electorate at least is all you need. The latest Yes polls are 44-52% of the electorate backing Yes, so we are looking good; way more than 37.5%.
Another way of looking at it is that if Yes gets e.g. 2,001,926 votes = 100% Yes on a 46.8% turnout, it has the same democratic mandate as No had in 2014.
Boycotting only works if a vote is not legitimate. If it's been rubber stamped, you just let your opponent win.
The Inquiry into the actions of the FM, Scottish gov and SPECIAL ADVISERS are only going to get to see part of the legal advice - a sanitised version no doubt - not the original copy - what will be left out?
ReplyDeleteMy guess is the bit that says "you are devising a procedure to try and discipline a FORMER minister, are you batshit crazy" and
The bit that says "you have devised a totally one sided process that denies Salmond any rights that not even Saudi Arabia would countenance and you think you might win a judicial review at the Court of Session are you batshit crazy".
Sorry, but I feel the future of our nation is just a bit more important than Holyrood committees on complaints handling procedures. Certainly, focusing on this will not win us independence.
DeleteThat aside, no, I imagine the Scottish cabinet did not write what you suggest.
https://www.gov.scot/about/who-runs-government/cabinet-and-ministers/
And committee MSPs get to see all the contents of the legal advice documents submitted. Hence the word 'unredacted'.
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55367439
A redacted copy of the report, which is dated 29 December 2018, will be published after the unredacted version has been seen by the committee.
What future under a woman who conspires to imprison her opponents?
DeleteWhat future under a woman who abuses the justice system to protect her favourites?
What future under a woman who won't even recognise the existence of Scotland as a country?
The junkie Skier knows fine well that the Committee is not getting to see all the evidence so once again the junkie Skier is lying. Like the Britnat media Junkie Skier tells part truths to hide the full story.
DeleteJust how long has the junkie Skier been lying on this forum. Marcia you seem to know him well - just how long has he been lying then.
The junkie Skier once again quotes the BBC as a reference source. What do the junkie Skier and the BBC have in common - they both lie all the time.
DeleteIf you want the truth of the matter you read the actual deal agreed on the Committee website - not listen to continual liars like Junkie Skier and the BBC.
https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/Minutes_(1).pdf
DeleteSays what the BBC site says.
And yes, yes, we know...'Scots are junkies' ((c) right wing Unionists).
DeleteAs for your question to Marcia IfS, a quick search and I find myself on Wings at least as far back as 2013.
Deletehttps://wingsoverscotland.com/breaking-insanity-news/#comment-444102
Before that I was on Brian's blog. As the years went by I ended up more on here.
You seem to have just appeared this May following Johnson's injection of cash into an internet No campaign?
Happy to be corrected. It's easy enough to do what I did and find yourself.
It would really put people's minds at ease.
Marica's been on the Scot politics blogsphere for just as long, .e.g.
Deletehttp://munguinsrepublic.blogspot.com/2012/09/alex-salmond-booed-and-princess.html
The junkie Skier just keeps on lying - lying like a Britnat. Never said Scots are junkies just you. I'll have to start calling you the lying Junkie Skier. I did ask you if you preferred to be referred to as the junkie or the ex junkie. No answer.
DeleteThe deal agreed does not release all the legal advice. Shameless liar and a junkie.
See when you were "highly qualified" as you modestly claimed but you couldn't get a job were you a junkie then? I can understand why it would be a problem for employers.
Ps I don't see you calling out Julia Gibbs as a Unionist for using the term Britnat. Remember you said only unionists use the term Britnat or are the drugs affecting your memory .
The amount of lies and utter pish you post on this site is truly incredible.
The lying junkie Skier is happy he has been lying a long time and posting pish for a long time - well done.
DeleteThe lying junkie Skier says "it would really put people's minds at ease" - who are these people your Unionist friends.
DeleteJunkie Skier who passes the time on this site "baiting people" - what a truly disgusting person.
Never did answer my question about the routes of the marches you claimed to attend - did you. Well come along to your first AUOB march when they resume and you can bait me in person.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to use insults like this. I'm assuming it's down to a deep internal sense of inadequacy. As I said before, I'm sure you wouldn't do this in the street as someone would hand you your erse on a plate. No, I imagine you just do it online while your mum watches TV downstairs.
DeleteIf you are trying to make me angry, you won't succeed. I don't really get angry; certainly not from little men like yourself throwing insults. People suffering injustices yes, but name calling no.
I note I am not and never have been any sort of drug addict, and I'm Scottish, so you are calling Scottish people junkies simply because you don't like them. It's factually correct to state that.
The word junkie used as an insult could really not be more British right-wing, especially when directed at Scots.
Following the discussions with the Scottish government, Committee Convener, Linda Fabiani MSP said-
Delete" The Committee has been consistently clear on its position on legal advice. The Committee believes that to fulfil the VITAL TASK that Parliament has set it, it needs to see the legal advice including from counsel. It continues to push to see this advice IN FULL and believes it has to be published.
In the meantime, the Committee has agreed to accept the terms of an offer negotiated with the Scottish government to read a report which includes SOME of the legal advice. A redacted copy of this report will publish after the Committee sees the full report on 22nd December ".
My bold in the text to highlight the fact that the Junkie Skier deliberately lies. You cannot have a worthwhile debate with someone like him.
The junkie Skier is a proven liar.
The lying junkie Skier thinks it is fun to bait people. Well take up my offer and try baiting me in person at the next AUOB march and it will do you good to see these marches for the first time.
Delete"It's factually correct to say that" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 what a tosser you are.
Skier who says his friend was a junkie and nearly died says he is not a junkie.
DeleteBut the problem with that is the lying junkie is a proven liar - so how can you believe anything a proven liar says. You can't of course. It may well be he made up the story about having a friend who was a junkie who nearly died to try and falsely claim some knowledge on the drugs death issue. Thats the problem with liars - how can you believe anything he posts.
On the other hand not one of the trolls (junkie Skier and his trollers) have ever pointed out anywhere I have lied. Just pathetic insults.
I don't recall saying a 'friend' was a junkie. I wasn't specific. You just lied as usual. I just said it was someone close to me / that I knew well.
DeleteAnd the person concerned was someone's child. Someone's sibling. A good person loved by others. Someone who has never harmed anyone else or committed a crime (other than possession of course, which was the political issue). Who never abuses people with insults like you do. Who was intelligent, worked and paid their way. But someone who had a (now diagnosed) mental illness that led them to addiction which ultimately made that illness much worse. So much so they tried to take their own life to free others from the burden they felt they had become.
But a revolting right winger like yourself who has no empathy for anyone could never understand that.
The trouble with that is as you are a proven liar why should I believe any of that. Lying Junkie Britnat Skier
DeleteRevolting people go around "baiting"people on independence sites - that is you
If you won't tell me your name, how exactly am I supposed to find you at an AUOB march? You know my name because I'm not a coward. And I'm totally sure you wouldn't call me names if you met me in the street. 100% sure. Not any doubt. Even though I present no danger to you, you'd still chicken out.
DeleteAnd if you did pluck up the courage, it would just make you look like a total prick. How could it not? Do you think it makes you look good? If so, you really need better self-awareness.
I've never called you names; just said your language and posts sound very unionist at times, such as when you call Scots 'junkies, woke, transfans, idiots, monkeys' etc.
And I've been on 3 marches as we've discussed. Lovely people that didn't call me a Scottish junkie idiot. It's only unionists that have ever called me that.
The trouble is that you are a proven liar and you keep on doing it.
DeleteWhat a compulsive liar Skier is:
Delete"I've never called you names" says the liar Skier.
" unpleasant little shite" says the liar Skier.
Is this liar for real. Junkie Skier is like Trump.
Erm, you will need to link to where I directly called you an unpleasant little shite.
DeleteI find this post where I use the language, fully quoted:
https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2020/12/an-average-of-all-twenty-three-polls.html?showComment=1608320069364#c8917304415528451538
If anyone wants to know what a right wing unionist concern troll looks like, here is a textbook example. They just can't help it; properly baited, the mask will slip and reveal the unpleasant little shite behind it.
My thanks go out to them for getting us to 55% Yes. Their constant chipping away at support for No has been invaluable in the fight for Scottish indy.
That links to a previous blog where a number of posts appear - none highlighted - and the reader must ostensibly guess which post I am talking about, as I don't quote any, but leave them to ultimately decide alone.
What made you think I was talking about you in particular? Are you a unionist concern troll or are you saying I can't have been talking about you, and there is some mistake?
But what if a council ie aberdeen,was to boycott,could they be made to hold the referendum
ReplyDeleteIf the referendum was legal, it would be illegal for a council to boycott. It is not up to a council to deny voters the right to vote; this isn't Belarus. The police could be sent in if needed to arrest anyone obstructing democracy.
DeleteThank you, that's reassuring
DeleteAs far as we know, the 15% that didn't vote in 2014 were boycotting it right, so does that means the 55% No isn't valid? I mean what if the 15% were all yes voters?
ReplyDeleteWTF is the point of clearing every legal hurdle and obtaining the blessing of the UK Supreme Court only to have a CONSULTATIVE referendum? If ever anything was the product of a colonised mind, it's this.
ReplyDelete2014 was consultative, as was EU2014 and devo 1997. All referendums are consultative.
DeleteYes but if we return a YES the UK gov will say --- ah but its consultative..
DeleteIn Scotland if you ask the people of Scotland how they want to be governed it is not consultative it is an instruction. The people of Scotland are sovereign but some people like the junkie Skier just do not seem to know that. Sad really they do not know their own heritage and legal rights. But junkies are not normally known for this type of knowledge. More interested in their next fix.
DeleteBased on OHCHR guidelines, since we'd not be voting for / against a specific piece of legislation in an indyref, then a consultative referendum is the better option. Independence would need to be clearly defined down to the last t for a legally binding referendum, otherwise, how could be known if it was implemented? Independence needs to be defined.
DeleteScotland could decide to e.g. share defense for a few years with the UK and people might start saying 'that's not independence!'.
There'd also need to be some date of implementation as to be legally bound to something requires this. Without a date, you are not bound. But then if you put a date, you are immediately on the back foot in negotiations, which is dangerous.
So if there was an independence bill all laid out with dates etc, then a legally binding referendum is the way forward; people can examine exactly what it is they are voting for, when and decide on that. This would work well if Scotland and the UK have both already agreed how things would be divided up on indy, and entry to the EU was agreed etc.
In a consultative referendum, you are asking the public a general question of principle, then will attempt to enact that based on what they tell you. Later votes, including elections and maybe even further referendums (e.g. on Scotland in the EU or EEA) will define the specifics if needed.
2014 was not legally binding because it was general. Same for the EU ref. In 2014, Westminster did sign up to saying it would accept the result. However, it was not legally bound to that; it could have attempted to challenge a Yes vote. Likewise, holyrood could have ignored the outcome. The Section 30 didn't make the vote binding; it just made sure that a grey area in the Scotland Act was black and white, lessening the chance of legal challenge.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/CompilationDemocracy/Pages/CoEGuidelines1.aspx
Referendums on specifically worded draft amendments will usually have a binding character and their implementation will not present particular problems.
Referendums on questions of principle* or other generally-worded proposals* should be consultative only. While some countries recognise that such referendums may bind parliament in principle, this leads to difficulties of implementation and entails a high risk of political conflicts.
Think 'Brexit means brexit' and what a fucking mess that's been because nobody knows what brexit means. 'But it means independence!' I hear you say...
---
*Should Scotland be an independent country?
The junkie Skier says - "all referendums are consultative" - Junkie Skier taking the English constitutional approach - is Junkie Skier listening to the BBC too much ( he likes to quote them) or is he just an ignorant Britnat.
DeleteAll the referendums in the UK we've had were consultative, including 1997 and 2014, which were under Scottish law. Which is what I meant.
DeleteWe could have a legally binding one, but then we need to precisely define independence and the date at which it will occur before people vote in a bill. Otherwise there's nothing to be bound to. You can't be bound to something unless you define that something clearly.
And bind to indy in six months, and Westminster could refuse to negotiate right up to the 11th hour to put huge pressure on Scotland. And what if we hadn't agreed a deal with the EU/EFTA by the binding date - that would mean we'd crash out before we even got in...
Nope, unless we have everything agreed beforehand with all those involved (UK, UN, EU), then it's best to have a consultative referendum and act upon this as required. If parties tried to backtrack, others could stand in future elections with mandate in hand to do what you wanted, e.g. just go for independence based on an election result.
Pishymacpishface posts his pish again.
DeleteThe people of Scotland are sovereign. You are trying to impose English constitutions on the people of Scotland. You must be a Britnat - that's what Britnats do.
I'll have to call you the lying junkie Britnat Skier.
Just how long have you been getting away with posting your lies and pish on this site?
Here is NHS advice for families of those with a substance addition illness:
Deletehttps://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/advice-for-the-families-of-drug-users/
I suggest you read it and reflect on your verbal abuse of such people and their family members.
Everyone of your posts contain lies - the only thing that varies is how many and how ridiculous they are. The only people getting abuse from me are people who abuse me on this site. Lying Skier and his trollers.
DeleteTBH I've never heard of Martin Harvey. But I agree with James anyway.
ReplyDeleteScotland can hold a referendum on any subject whenever it wants. If some people boycott them so be it, that's their right. DRoss has said he would boycott it even if Westminster "approved" one, presumably he'd tell other britnats to do the same. As James says britnats can call for a boycott on all future referendums, "legitimate" or not. If we accept [I don't] that a boycott would nullify any result britnats would then be advocating an end to democratic procedures. So we could argue that it is democratically necessary to go through with any referendum which has been boycotted.
Anyway, just hold the referendum regardless of Westminster or any britnat boycott. Keep the momentum going. Keep the pressure on.
Is Ross saying that if some scots boycott Westminster elections, that invalidates these?
DeleteThe S30 approach is first and foremost to ensure we get a Yes vote. It's a veritable Yes vote printing machine. Sturgeon asked for an S30 to ensure a Yes majority in the polls and the incompetent Johnson obliged, just as she predicted.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure she'll ask again in April, demanding the will of the Scottish people be respected. And with the electorate tuned in, Yes could easily hit 60% going into the election.
This is why we have so many unionists attacking her and trying to split the vote.
Will be 70%
DeleteThere was no Section 30 order in 2014 so why would we need one now?
DeleteGo back to sleep, PeeJay
DeleteThe junkie Skier punts the same political analysis he has punted before. What drug is he on.
DeleteSturgeon approached Theresa May for a sec 30 - remember - "this is not the time" junkie Skier conveniently forgets this because it does not fit his political analysis - or has his memory been affected by drugs - did it start printing printing yes votes then - of course it didn't - the SNP vote went done.
Now in this instance Junkie Skier is not lying - just forgetting stuff and posting pish.
He does post a lot of pish.
Pishymacpishface.
Firstly, Sturgeon doesn't ask for S30's and the PM doesn't give them.
DeleteHolyrood asks and Westminster gives. If the FM believes she can get a request through the parliament because she's agreed it with enough MSPs, she may approach the PM in the first instance to see if they believe they can pass one.
And no, Theresa May didn't just ignore the Section 30 request, she collapsed her own government so her party could avoid it. If she lost her majority, she would be off the hook. If she won a bigger majority, she could be in a position to make the choice.
An election was held in which the SNP lost seats and votes, and Yes fell to lower than 2014 in polls. Theresa May now led a minority government so had no way of passing a section 30 even if Holyrood asked for one. It would need the DUP to pass it. If May even wanted to pass it and tried to recruit Labour to vote for it, the DUP would withdraw support for her party and force a no confidence vote, collapsing the government.
So the S30 was not pursued because it couldn't happen and Scots didn't want it. Until 2019...when Scots said they were interested in pursuing it again via the ballot box while Johnson gained a majority capable of delivering it, or refusing to.
And Sturgeon asked, knowing it would be refused, and knowing this would boost the already rising Yes vote.
Then we had covid. Which has rather put a break on normal politics.
Pishymacpishface posts his pish.
DeleteFirst sentence "Sturgeon doesn't ask"
Second last sentence "And Sturgeon asked " 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
He contradicts himself in his pish.
How long did you say you were getting away with posting your pish and lies on SGP?
Sturgeon 'asks', but only at the request of Holyrood. It is not up to her or Johnson. Holyrood could overrule Sturgeon and Westminster could overrule Johnson on the matter.
DeleteIt's not difficult to understand. But maybe it's not that, and some want to lie to people.
The Britnat lying Junkie even lies when he is caught out contradicting himself in his own posts - so very Trump - got orange hair as well - some Britnats like the orange order hair thing.
DeletePishymacpishface
The whole point of a boycott is to muddy the waters by imposing a defacto minimum Yes vote as measured against the electorate. So echo's of 1979 straight away.
ReplyDeleteThe next point is that it they won't bother with any guess work about how accurate the current electoral roll is and will use any sign of scrutiny of it by the SNP/Scottish Government as an attempt to disenfranchise.
Even sensible things like only allowing a ballot paper to be delivered to the address registered for tax purposes will be shouted down.
The thing is that it's perfectly legal to register for a vote in multiple locations simultaneously. You just can't vote more than once. If there's a boycott you don't have to. But you might as well vote once just to be sure, assuming there will be enough people boycotting the game will be to count every duplicate registration that isn't used as an abstention. So a holiday home, your parents, your children, your previous address, a future move that hasn't transpired. As many registrations as you can get away with in the run up to a referendum. Vote once, don't vote as often as possible.
Probably not too big a worry but a scenario where people can stuff the electoral roll legally and have it count whilst staying within the letter of the law would be a dream/nightmare depending on which side you were on.
Even more so if you were a Yes supporter and for some reason were registered more than once.
A very interesting post from an independunce supporter.
DeleteGood point well made.
ReplyDeleteBack in 2010 I had 2 votes due to moving into a new house in October 2009. If I had a holiday home too then I would have had the possibility of 3 votes.
Off this topic, can anyone explain why someone who claims to be "pro-Scottish" like Andrew Wilson goes round stating that there would be 10 years of austerity following independence day? We had a £20,000,000,000 budget surplus last year so why would we be short of money?
Why give your opponents ammunition unless you really are a traitor?
Add in the newly dead (who only seem to be able to vote in the USA) who would all be counted as No votes, just as in 1979.
Every single politician in every election that I can remember has said the same thing. "If you don't vote then you don't count"
Couple of points can you provide the link to the £20 billion budget surplus that you mention - cant find any sign of that in the figures that the Scottish Government provided to the Scottish Parliament:
Deletehttps://www.gov.scot/publications/final-outturn-report-scottish-budget-year-ended-31-march-2019/
Also can you show were at any point the Growth Report says that we will need 10 years of austerity?
There is an arrogant and ignorant attitude on this blog that certain people seem to think they determine what is acceptable to post just because they have been posting a lot of lies and pish for years. It is not your site.
ReplyDeleteThe only person who determines that is the site host.
You are needing help :)
DeleteUnknown you need help you do not even know who you are. But I know you are a pathetic troll.
DeleteYou accuse a lot of people of being trolls going by your past comments. In that case, it's highly likely that you yourself are the troll.
DeleteSeek help.
Bruce give it a rest - people abuse me they get it back in spades. It's that simple.
DeleteIfS, you are doing an excellent job converting people to yes, and don't let anyone tell you differently.
DeleteI say this in complete honesty.
Note to the lying Britnat Junkie - As an independence supporter that is good to hear but since you are a proven liar I doubt you are telling the truth.
DeleteIndependence for Scotland... Is it not time you grew up Son ?
DeleteStewarty - I am not your son and I am fully grown up. Another troll pops up. Proud to be a troll are you? Very brave with your cheap shots.
Deletehttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1219/1185490-northern-ireland-covid-19/&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari
ReplyDeleteThat’s a garbage link. But it points to cross border ambulance and health services being deployed in Ireland. Change is all around.
Deletehttps://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1219/1185490-northern-ireland-covid-19/
ReplyDeleteI have watched the evolution of comments in this forum and others; or rather the opposite of evolution, back into the swamp. I wish Scottish Skier and Independence for Scotland would go away, because they make it more dificult to find grown-up comments.
ReplyDeleteDel G I am more than happy to make my comments in a reasonable fashion however I am not accepting abuse from anyone. I proposed to Skier that this ends but he decided to continue to call me a Unionist as do other trolls on this site.
DeleteI am a lifelong independence supporter and I am sick of these trolls. Who are these people to decide who is and who is not a supporter of independence. Just because I believe the current leadership of the SNP are not doing enough to get independence and there has been a disgraceful plot to get Salmond the trolls come out and throw about abuse. There are horrible people in the Scotgov/SNP and there are horrible trolls on this site.
I've just said you keep using unionist language, like calling Scots junkies and saying SNP members are evil.
DeleteThe proven liar lies again.
DeleteThe proven liar trolls again.
DeleteWow this is hard work
ReplyDeletehttps://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-politics/next-scottish-parliamentary-election-most-seats?selectionName=snp Everyone knows polling and bookies odds aren't the same other than occasional amusement factors.... so....enjoy the bookies having SNP 2021 victory at 1/50......I've NEVER seen the likes.....
ReplyDeleteCan we have that juvenile yoon twat 'Indepenence for Scotland' blocked please? Its very tiresome having to scroll past his inane twatter without reading it - just like we all used to do with 'Glasgow Working Class' and 'GWC'.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt he'll be back pretending to be some other yoon twat. but I'll scoll past him again just like before, to let him waste his time but not ours. Best ignored, then binned.
The right to free speech is often cited by these choobs, well there is a right not to listen to (or read) drivel too.
I don't know, he's helped confirm that SNP didn't set up Salmond, making sure I vote SNP 1 + 2.
DeleteBit by bit he totally destroyed any evidence of a plot within the party, which might have been plausible, if a little far fetched.
The proven liar Junkie Skier confirms he is a liar again.
DeleteAlan Laird - just another silly troll. Can't say I've ever seen any contribution from you other than the above offensive comment.
DeleteAlan Laird - next time you troll me try and spell independence properly it gives the impression you do not use it very often and some Unionist troll hunter may think you are a "YOON" to use your 2014 expression. Try Britnat it is so much this decade.
DeleteYour post of course does display a lack of logic - if you scroll past my comments how do they bother you so much that you feel the need to indulge in a bit of trolling.
Of course I don't expect a reply as you will obviously scroll past this comment.
I of course will look out to see if you post anything remotely interesting or intelligent but somehow I doubt that will happen.
It's independunce in your case isn't it?
DeleteIain Mc Cord - love it - the most intelligent piece of trolling yet on this site.
DeleteNarcissists always crave attention. Look at Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteI doubt if the Tories will boycott any referendum. The Yes side are too energised for their comfort and there should be a decent turnout. Out of sight, out of mind the Tories will take part as they need to be seen to be opposing.
The previous SNP NEC had not discussed independence for 18 months - 18 months. It needed to be changed. Hopefully the new NEC will get the SNP back on track towards independence and clear out the stables of the people involved in the plot against Salmond.
ReplyDeleteI've only seen unionists / unionist websites say there was a plot against Salmond by the SNP. The BBC springs to mind. Should I trust what they are saying?
DeleteThe proven liar trolls again.
DeleteYour assertion does not make sense in only one crucial part.
ReplyDeleteWe use the referendum to gain leverage for a referendum??
So it makes perfect sense for the unionists to ignore the referendum without the section 30. They get another bite at the cherry.
This approach utterly devalues the democratic will of the scottish people and gives credence to the unionist perception that they are the sovereign authority!
The people I'd Scotland are so reign and the section 30 is a referendum.
The weak SNP MPs who should be fighting for the scottish people rather than bleating about democ6to a tory government should hang their heads in shame.
Move over for a pro independence party who wont be bought by London wealth.
A referendum without a S30 is just as valid as the one in 2014. If Holyrood passes a referendum bill, it would be the law of the land.
DeleteIt's just it would be more open to potential legal challenge due to the grey area of the Scotland act on 'matters of the union'. There is no guarantee that would be successful, and even then, success might might the SC simply asking for minor revisions to the bill. And an indyref isn't actually about the union; it's about Scotland. Devo, federalism etc are about the union, but independence is a Scottish only constitutional matter, and it has always been accepted in the UK that Scots can choose indy freely.
It's only unionists that think an S30 is about asking 'permission'. It does look good though if London is seen to be saying no somehow; it's a vote printing machine.
" a vote printing machine" - more utter pish from the proven liar Skier.
DeleteDo you seriously think that English Tories trying to say 'no' to a Scottish referendum is not going to help the Yes side* IfS? If so, like Johnson, you don't know Scottish people very well.
Delete---
*Yes vote printing machine
Skier as I have said before it didn't work in 2017 when May said no - forgotten "now is not the time " have you - the vote went down. Nonsense of a vote printing machine is just a pathetic excuse for doing nothing .
DeleteDamn predictivecrext..... the people of scotland are sovereign. And the section 30 is a red herring
ReplyDeleteExcept, Skier - the sovereignty of the Scottish people does not depend on any perception of some grey area in a piece of WM legislation passed by an English majority.
ReplyDeleteIt's only arguable within the confines of devolution.
This is not about devolution.
The Scottish people are sovereign. PERIOD.
Spot on Ramstam - "the Scottish people are sovereign. Period."
DeleteAnyone Scottish arguing otherwise is either ignorant of their own Scottish heritage and Scottish constitutional rights or is a Britnat. Period!
I agree. For me the S30 is a red herring being used, very effectively, to generate Yes votes until such time as it's clear Scots want to vote again and are going to vote Yes.
DeleteI cannot see how a court could rule against Holyrood consulting the sovereign Scottish people about their desire on the matter of independence.
But the word 'legally binding' is also a red herring; you can only hold a legally binding vote on something that is clearly defined and to be implemented within a defined period. A pre-agreed (e.g. with the rUK, EU, UN), defined independence to be implemented on an agreed date for example. That's not realistic, so consultative it must be; better from a negotiating position to not be legally bound to anything.
The S30 did not make 2014 legal binding; it remained consultative. All the S30 did was lessen the chance of a legal challenge while the Edinburgh Agreement was a political declaration stating that England/rUK would accept the outcome and not try to challenge it. Neither government was legally bound to anything by the 2014 vote.
The proven liar Skier demonstrates he has no idea of what the claim of right and Scottish constitutional rights are. He contradicts himself.
Delete"It remained consultative" - yet more Skier pish.
When you ask the sovereign people of Scotland by referendum how they want to be governed then it is binding and legal. The 2014 was legal and binding not consultative just as any future refendum/election will be that asks the people of Scotland how they want to be governed. Once again Skier demonstrates his cringe accepting English constitutional sovereignty concepts.
In summary, you cannot believe anything the proven liar Skier posts because when he is not lying he posts pish.
https://fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-legally-hold-another-referendum/
DeleteIf the Scottish parliament passed a referendum act along the same lines as last time, it wouldn’t be legally binding even if authorised by the UK parliament. A vote for independence wouldn’t by itself lead to an automatic change in the legal status of Scotland.
This was acknowledged by the Scottish government in its consultation ahead of the last referendum:
“Any changes to Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom will require negotiation with the UK government and legislation in the UK and Scottish parliaments.”
It’s the same as for the EU referendum: the leave vote is an instruction to politicians, who would then have to pass the laws necessary to actually make it happen.
So in that sense, any referendum in the UK is technically advisory.
The exception is where the law setting it up makes the vote legally binding—as was the case with the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011. The law on the last Scottish referendum wasn’t like that, and the complexity of legislating for Scottish independence means that a future one is unlikely to be either.
So, strictly speaking, any Scottish independence referendum—whether held with the agreement of Westminster or not—would be an “advisory” political instruction to Scottish and UK lawmakers to act upon.
Even a mandate for indy based on an election result would not be legally binding. You need to specific in exact and every detail what independence would mean and when it would happen to allow the result to be bound to that. You can't legally bind to something undefined.
DeleteUtter pish from the proven liar Skier yet again.
DeleteThere are Independence supporters that still have high levels of the cringe - so much so they can be hard to distinguish from Britnats - Skier could be one of those. Or he could just be a Britnat.
DeleteIt's now been 9 months since the 'evil SNP plot to stop Salmond making a political comeback' failed completely, twice, and here we all are still waiting on said comeback to happen, yet Mr Salmond is showing zero interest in coming back.
ReplyDeleteMakes you think it was all unionist lies propagated from the south of England.
Does anyone really believe that Salmond would tell a proven liar anything about his intentions. Particularly a proven liar who thinks Murrells messages telling people to get Salmond to fight on two fronts are just nothing at all. Indeed a proven liar who thinks it just ok for the Chief Exec of the governing party of Scotland and married to the FM of Scotland to interfere in a police criminal case.
DeleteAt least I plan to do what Salmond has always advocated and vote SNP 1 + 2. I understand you might vote against his wishes?
DeleteAnd when can we expect this comeback? There's been absolutely nothing to stop it now for 9 months. He won twice in a row; completely innocent.
I've said I would definitely consider what he had to say if he made a comeback, yet the election is rapidly approaching and there's sign of a Salmond party or anything.
With each passing day it looks more and more like the Salmond comeback was a big fat unionist lie.
I guess we'll know well in advance of the election; deadline for candidates is 31st March I understand.
DeleteI've searched Salmond's twitter account and everything I find is supportive of the SNP / advocates voting for them.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=SNP%20(from%3AAlexSalmond)&src=typed_query
Skier says - "And when can we expect this comeback."
ReplyDeleteThe proven liar asks me when can we expect this comeback. I never said Salmond was making a comeback nor even suggested he is thinking of a comeback - not once.
So, in summary, the proven liar is making things up again - a liar and a person of low personal integrity - that's you Skier.
If there's no planned comeback, there's no motive for this supposed SNP plot. Unless you are aware of a different plausible motive? Plots require motive; there can be no plot without one.
DeleteI've searched his entire twitter feed and there's nothing about your claims of a plot or persecution by the SNP. Nowhere does he attack the SNP, sturgeon, murrell or other members. All his posts mentioning the SNP promote them and advocate voting for them.
Seems to me you are just making stuff up and pretending to speak for him.
I'm going to trust Salmond himself over you.
Now Melbourne Bob very nicely asks for all this to stop but Melbourne Bob what do you suggest when this character Skier just keeps on lying, eg
Delete"Pretending to speak for him" - not once have I ever pretended to speak for Salmond. So Melbourne Bob what do you suggest? The guy Skier is a liar who just trolls and misrepresents what I have posted.
You were responding to my post ifs. My original comment about the salmond comeback motive unionists have been pushing didn't mention you or any other poster.
DeleteYet you immediately started attacking me with personal insults.
Skier - you said it doesn't bother you so what is your problem - lying again.
Delete2ND OFFER
So I'll make the offer again - you stop lying in general and more specifically stop misrepresenting my posts and General trolling and I will not return any abuse because there will be none to return.
You just have to agree and this stops - if not - then you have made clear what you are really about.
Through one or two posters, this site is in danger of becoming as sad as WOS. I ask politely that those whom are dragging the discussions of genuine positive posters down, to please desist on the name calling and so forth. If this does not stop, I would imagine James will have no alternative than to block those negative and insulting posters.
ReplyDeleteI agree Don. It's getting worse than the previous troll, if indeed the present one is a different person. Skier is being very patient.
DeleteTopher - pathetic troll. Skier is an arsehole who lies and I have proven that on multiple occasions. If he is your type of hero then you are a pathetic troll.
DeleteMelbourne Don, you will see above that i have put to Skier the opportunity to end this now. The ball is in his court.
DeleteNote to Melbourne Don and Topher - that is twice now Skier has rejected my efforts to end this. He clearly enjoys trolling and lying on this site.
DeleteTopher let me make it crystal clear for you I am not that GWC character and I found your comment extremely offensive. Kindly do not repeat it.
Melbourne Don and Topher I suggest in future you take your concerns to Skier as he is the problem not me.
Not sure what gender you are, however that matters not, as I made an incorrect assumption that you had at the very least an undergraduate's knowledge of what a debate was. Within my message, I did not mentioned the names of posters whom I think are deviating from what is acceptable on this site.
DeleteMelbourne Don clearly you missed the post where in debate with Adam I stated I was an economics graduate.
DeleteSo you are saying you think people are deviating from what you believe are acceptable standards. However, you do not specify who these people are and what your standards are and how you are the arbiter of acceptable standards. Sounds to me you ain't that great on debating.
PS what on earth has my gender got to do with anything? - you correctly say it matters not - so why say it.
Choosing not to vote is abstaining, so don't allow the language to be changed to boycott. A boycott is simply an attempt to have all non-votes from people that can't be arsed/don't vote for other reasons counted as no votes. The choice is on the voting slip. If you choose not to express a view in the democratically accepted way, your view is not counted. Anything else is cheating.
ReplyDeleteCrepusculous - I agree. In the 70s there was a referendum in N.Ireland the republican community said they were boycotting it. The turnout was low but Westminster recognised the result.
DeleteBoycotting only has meaningful impact if the vote is forced on people against their will.
DeleteScots could e.g. successfully boycott a referendum forced on Scotland by Westminster without mandate (EUref not included, as that was UK-wide and Scots had recently opted to be in the UK).
So Irish republicans boycotting the 1973 referendum did discredit it because it wasn't a poll held by N. Irish people, but forced on the province by the British. Internationally, it was seen as a sham for this reason.
If Stormont organises a border poll itself fairly and democratically, people can't boycott it meaningfully; it will just be seen as abstaining and help one side win. Same for an iref in Scotland.
If Yes parties get a majority and hold a vote that the courts say is fine, then it just looks like sour grapes to 'boycott' and Scots will accept the result. Scots respect the decisions of their countryfolk, be that no or yes. And if they respect that, so will the neighbours.
My post at 3.37pm Skier posts at 4.24pm. Nearly an hour to google and post.
DeleteI see Starmer is promising more devo to Scottish unionists. That should attract some Tory votes, costing the Tories seats.
ReplyDeleteDevo of course isn't of interest to people who support independence (e.g. the 45% in 2014 and the 55% now); they want independence.
Tory voters aren't going to be attracted by a promise of more devo. They think we have too much already. Starmer's just making a half-hearted attempt to retain Labour voters who are uneasy about independence but prefer it to the status quo.
DeleteAye, I ken what Starmer's up to, but the Tories recently benefited from capturing some labour voters as the latter floundered under Corbyn. Given any sense of Tory competence is going out the window under Johnson, and he's denying soft unionists a vote, Labour voters who voted Tory recently might switch back.
DeleteThe offer is unlikely to tempt any independence supporters, as devo is about unionism.
I suspect that the 'soft indy voters' are actually the ones currently saying No to polls, not Yes. The current Yes lead is at least 4 years in the making, briefly appearing as soft in 2016 after the EU vote, then steadily reappearing bit by bit as 'hard' since 2017.
Unionists - and the Yes side - may yet find that baseline Yes is now about 55% and it's not actually possible to save the union.
And of course if you are pro devo max, best just vote SNP +/- Green in May as voting Labour won't help; you need the English to do that in 4 years time. And at that time it's still best for Scots to vote SNP for Westminster (if we were still in the UK somehow) as they can be trusted to pressure Starmer into delivering if Labour did win south of the border.
DeleteThere's not really any comeback in Scotland for either Labour or the Tories now. Not when over half back indy. All they can do is divvy up an increasingly small share of the vote between them.
Touché. J'aime bien cet homme.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.stv.tv/politics/barnier-says-uk-must-respect-eu-sovereignty-in-trade-talks?top
Barnier says UK must respect EU sovereignty in trade talks
A vote withheld is not a vote in law and is not counted for the purposes of the calculation of the proportion of votes 'For' and 'Against' a resolution.
ReplyDeleteThat only holds if there's a genuine for or against option. Those who persist in insisting that the SNP set a generational limit on when independence referendums could be held never seem to give a date on when the majority of us, the electorate, agreed to that.
DeleteThe only possibility is that the two options were,
"Yes and no retake for a generation" and "No and no retake for a generation". At which point it'd be a perfectly valid thing to abstain as in either case your vote would be taken as endorsing the no revote.
It wouldn't have been a fair choice between accepting or rejecting a resolution though.
Not in law? Except in 1979, when the referendum on devolution had a bar imposed in the result. Abstainers and people who had died - because the registers were well out of date - effectively counted against a 'YES' result. Thanks, Labour and George Cunningham.
DeleteBrexit fun beginning in Northern Ireland already.
ReplyDeletePeople there really going to feel the lurve for England and the union.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55393560
Brexit: Hugo Boss and Zalando suspend NI deliveries
Some online retailers are suspending delivery to Northern Ireland.
The move is to give them time to adapt their systems to the new Irish Sea border, which begins operating in January...
...Last week, Amazon warned Northern Ireland customers they could face delays and unavailability of some products when the Irish Sea border starts operating...
...The delivery firm, DPD Ireland, says it will be temporarily suspending its collection service from Great Britain into Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from 23 December...
Another firm, Parcel Motel, which uses a "virtual address" in County Antrim allowing shoppers in the Republic of Ireland to avoid added costs through international shipping restrictions, is also suspending that service.
In a statement it said: "As of 31 December, our virtual address services in the UK will be temporarily suspended, until such time as a final Brexit decision has been implemented and our services have been adapted to meet the new requirements.
"As a result, all parcels crossing the new border between Britain and Ireland will be subject to customs formalities affecting the cost and transit time of your shipment."...
...Last week Sienna Hosta, a specialist plant nursery in Surrey, told customers it would no longer sell to Northern Ireland by mail order.
In years to come when future historians are writing the history of Scotland I reckon the gradualists will not be thought of as devolutionists but Westminster appeasers.
ReplyDeleteSalmond, and his endorsement of devoultion, is the best known gradualist.
DeleteSo tell me something new. So tell me something you haven't said to me before.
DeleteWhat is the point of that comment other than trolling?
I suggest you turn your attention to my 2nd offer above. Do you accept or do you just like trolling?
It was just to keep readers informed. Not everyone has read every post/comment, so e.g. newer readers might not have known this about Salmond. Some of the electorate were in primary school when Salmond was FM; they don't necessarily know all the history.
DeleteYou brought up gradualists, and I gave the most famous example.
It's been at least a few weeks since I mentioned this as part of a comment. It's not like I'm constantly posting about the same topic as some do.
Of course you have no idea if Salmond is still a gradualist - right now in this current situation.
DeleteBut you ignore my 2nd offer to end this - why? I am responding to the people who posted their concerns in a reasonable non trolling way. You so far are ignoring them. Why?
End what? I'm not calling anyone names or being abusive. I'm just responding politely to comments. You attacked a large number of Scottish independence supporters by calling them 'appeasers'; all I did was note that Salmond was a gradualist for pretty much his entire frontline political career. We can assume he still holds his past views until he tells people differently; nobody should try to speak for him.
DeleteIt's you that needs to calm yourself. You constantly abuse independence supporters calling them names such as 'woke, transfans, evil, appeasers, monkeys, junkies, idiots' etc. It's not me doing that.
On behalf of all others in this forum can you both just please fxxxxxg grow up and focus getting Independence !
DeleteI'm perfectly focused on indy thanks. So much so I don't have the time to berate others for not focusing sufficiently on indy in my own personal opinion.
DeleteThat aside, and on the subject of polling, the Comres 38% No seems to be a record low? I have to go back to 2011 to find a 38% and it's from TNS door chapping polls which always got weirdly low Yes and Nos.
No is in serious trouble.
Moving from slavery to freedom in 2 steps instead of one isn't gradualism.
DeleteYou know that, I know that, Alex Salmond certainly knows that.
PS. When is your beloved Saint Nicola going to do something to prevent Scotland being destroyed by the english government?
If she's not to busy making it a criminal offence to be white skinned and male like her Justice Minister is currently proposing.
DeleteThe man (ha!) literally defended his refusal to make Misogyny a Hate Crime because he would be forced to make Misandry a crime too under the equality legislation.
Too many of our resident feminazis were too overwhelmed by their hormones to even notice what he meant. I heard mr "I hate White people" loud and clear. There's not an Earthly hope of a Yes vote when our enemies can point to a future under his nazi rule as the outcome of independence.
Note to ST - twice I have made offers to Skier to end this - you can see from his lack of response to the first offer then his casual ignorant reply above he is not interested.
DeleteSkier seems addicted to trolling and personal abuse on this site. I remember his and GWCs pathetic double act. He clearly is missing him and intends to drag me down in to his and GWCs world of abuse and lies.
Skier says above " I am not calling anyone names or being abusive" to most reasonable people Skier calling me "an unpleasant little shite" would constitute being abusive and name calling. So once again he is lying even when I try to end this. He posts so many lies it is tiresome responding to them.
Skier obviously sees himself as the site bully.
So ST what do you recommend? I have tried twice and been rebuffed twice. I am willing to ignore his posts if he does the same.
One of the main reasons why Yes has been hardening is not really because of covid, or really because of brexit, but because the UK is pursing brexit in the face of covid.
ReplyDeleteIt shows how both lives and livelihoods don't matter to the English nationalist government; a government even the Scottish Tories are struggling to defend. That is putting fuel on fire that is English Tories telling Scots unionists they are not unionists voluntarily, but that Scotland is owned by English Tories.
This is why online unionist sirens demand that the SNP go for indy right now, in the middle of new strain covid wave 3. They know exactly how much damage that would do to Yes; a quick glance at Johnson's ratings tells you that.
Well it’s sort because both really but certainly they are simply the matters of existential importance that demonstrate to all what a bunch of muppets operate in westminster and around England’s green and pleasant land.
DeleteYou are Nicola Sturgeon and I claim my free copy of Bland Reading Monthly.
DeleteThat's the most pathetic reach since your last televised blinkathon.
Provide any evidence for that ore be forever proven to be a Yoon.
Well well there was me thinking he was Peter Murrell or Ian McCann the desperate way he defends them but Skier is really a she - Sturgeon herself.
DeleteNo thats impossible Skier has spent years and years on here - Hours and hours each day - couldn't possibly run the Scotgov the SNP read all these books and troll relentlessly on SGP.
"Well it’s sort because both really but certainly they are simply the matters of existential importance that demonstrate to all what a bunch of muppets operate in westminster and around England’s green and pleasant land."
DeleteYes, pretty much. And Scots understand quite well that even if we voted yes tomorrow in a covid super-spreading referendum event (and lets not kid ourselves on that the celebrations alone would cause a huge spike, even if we manage to keep voting socially distanced), the independence process is a long one, so what is a matter of a few months when it comes to people's lives and livelihoods?
Which is exactly why Johnson's government is so hated in Scotland; pursuing hard, cliff edge indy in the middle of a global pandemic.
And it seems some on here are rather slow when it comes to thinking and typing. At a fairly respectable 60 words per minute, the above post took me ~1.5 mins. 10 of those in day would be a standard coffee break in total (that's 15 minutes). Leaves some room for other daily activities.
DeleteAha Skier says he could be Sturgeon after all - is peejay on to something? Naw Skier is just a Fanatic Sturgeon Fanboy.
DeleteA literal statement that manning the lifeboats to escape the sinking ship is wrong.
ReplyDeleteBet your Mother's proud of what you've become.
You think everyone crowding into street campaign and independence celebration party lifeboats right now is a bright idea? God knows what sort of spike a Yes vote would cause with all the hugging alone.
DeleteIt's going to be a few years to reach the shore once we've all voted to get in, from a ship that's been going down for decades. A few months to give everyone the vaccine and let the sunshine do it's work will save more lives and than it will cost. If Scots are unhappy with this approach (which polls don't suggest is the case), they'll make it known in May.
My mum's very proud of me; she taught me not to trust people without checking the facts myself, to think logically and carefully about my actions, not waste my time hating people, and not to call people names / tell them their mother would not be proud of them because I can't win an argument.
Skier Says his mother taught him - " and not to call people names " obviously not well enough - "unpleasant little shite " you said. Pity she didn't tell you not to troll and bully people - you dastardly keyboard warrior.
DeleteGrassroots Oban is hosting a two-part event on Annual Ground, Roof and Floor rent with Graeme McCormick, who will be joined by Kate Forbes (SNP Finance Minister) for the second meeting. The first part is tonight at 7pm.
ReplyDeleteCheck the website for details and to register.
https://grassrootsoban.scot/2020/12/21/local-tax-reform-for-an-independent-scotland/
This is very important as once again it unites all parties against Westminster rule (bar the Tories).
ReplyDeleteIt also causes problems for London because each divergence in Scotland makes it difficult for the former to agree international trade deals. To do that, London needs the same rules UK wide, so this throws another spanner in the brexit UK works.
Of course if London then moves to try and overrule, the Yes vote printing machine rattles off another hefty batch. Yet Lab + Libs have to support it.
The way this game is being played could easily give >60% yes in 6 months. Scotland united on the future.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55396311
MSPs to pass Brexit bill to 'keep pace' with EU laws
It also preps scotland for membership of the EEA/EFTA/EU.
Here is the full bill from Holyrood.
Deletehttps://beta.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/uk-withdrawal-from-the-european-union-continuity-scotland-bill-2020
Overview
This Bill aims to make sure that Scottish law can continue to align with EU law after 31 December 2020.
This Bill will help Scottish law keep up with future developments in EU law after 31 December. It will also allow changes to be made to EU laws which are already operating in Scotland. This could apply to areas that are devolved to Scotland, like the environment, agriculture and fisheries.
This Bill does 3 main things. It:
gives Scottish Ministers power to keep devolved laws similar to EU laws
ensures Scottish Ministers and public bodies pay attention to environmental principles when they make policies
sets up a new organisation to replace the oversight of environmental law provided by the EU
Crikey I have never know an independence supporter to quote the hated British Nationalist propaganda broadcaster as much as you Skier. One of the world's oldest and worst propaganda institutions since it was created for this purpose in 1922. It also heavily contributes to UK media being branded one of the least trusted in the world. No doubt Skier will be along quoting a ref to the BBC saying how trusted and objective they are😂😂😂😂😂😂.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you are an independence supporter?
Have you got a link to all the evidence in the Salmond plot out of interest? From a trusted pro-indy Scottish* mainstream paper?
DeleteThanks in advance.
---
*By this I mean actually based in / run from Scotland, not just an English outlet self-IDing as that.
Skier no such thing as a trusted pro Indy Scottish mainstream newspaper. Surprised you think there is one. Reading and watching all these Britnat media outlets has given you a strong dose of the cringe.
DeleteGlad to assist.
So where did you get your info on the Salmond plot? Did you just come up with it all yourself? Is that why you can't provide any evidence?
DeleteNote to any readers - Skier brings up the Salmond plot not me. It's a bit like the Britnats always accusing Sturgeon of going on about independence all the time but of course she doesn't. Another tactic Skier shares with Britnats.
DeleteSo Skier do you never talk to fellow SNP members in your branch in the South of Scotland - none of them clued up - or are you not really an SNP member? Or do they just avoid you like the plague - or Covid even?
Let's list some of the SNP things you did not know- not in order of priority:
1. You had no idea your NEC had not discussed independence for 18 months.
2. You had no idea who removed the SNPs previous leader and the first SNP FM from its website history section.
3. You had no idea that the SNP were using funds to pay for individual lawyer fees incurred.
4. You had no idea that Murrell had sent messages to Sturrock telling her to get Salmond.
5. You had no idea that the old NEC never discussed the Murrell messages.
6. You had no idea Sturgeon signed off the worlds only former minister Harrassment procedure that proved to be unlawful, unfair and tainted by bias.
7. You had no idea that Sturgeon signing off a procedure that tries to exclude her from responsibility does not. She signed it and she asked for former ministers to be included.
8. You had no idea your party leader has a memory problem as do the vast majority of her senior government staff.
9. You had no idea the Chief Exec of the SNP has a memory problem as well.
You really don't know much about your own party do you. Sure you are a member.
You've made a series of random, unsubstantiated statements that suit a narrative primarily put forward by anti-Yes party English/British websites.
DeleteIf you want Scots to believe you, you need something a bit more substantial.
Personally, I, like most Scots, will always assume innocent until proven guilty, just like I did in the Salmond trial. Unionists presented lists just like yours 'confirming his guilt' before the courts had even heard the evidence.
From what I can see, you are the sort of person that would have had the man pinned as a rapist without trial if it suited you, as you are doing to Sturgeon right now.
Skier speaking for all Scots again. I suppose since you are such a highly qualified person you feel confident in doing do. Well done .
DeleteNow why do you not know much about what is going on - are you really in the SNP of are you just such an obnoxious person thst no one in your branch or anywhere else speaks to you.
Finally which of the nine things I listed above are, as you put it, unsubstantiated?
Thanks in advance.
"As you are doing to Sturgeon right now."
DeleteSkier I can certainly confirm that I have never and do not intend to claim Sturgeon is a rapist - you really are being silly - possibly deranged. There is no criminal trial involving Sturgeon at present so why would you suggest that I said that.
Glad to clarify that for you.
Strange how you can claim to speak for "most Scots" but you don't seem to speak to many in your own SNP branch.
Conspiracy to commit perjury is a criminal offence. You have joined the ranks of unionists who have found sturgeon guilty of this without trial, just as they found innocent man Salmond guilty of sexual assault and attempted rape in trial by blog/comment.
DeleteSkier - you cannot seem to get to grips with past or present events relating to this matter. Please pay more attention.
DeleteAnyway which of the 9 items listed above do you believe are, as you put it, unsubstantiated.
Ifs: "There is no criminal trial involving Sturgeon"
DeleteYes, because she's innocent. 100% innocent.
And she remains so unless there is a trial and it finds her guilty of something.
It is only unionists that claim she is guilty of a plot to frame Salmond when there is no substantive evidence to that effect and she's not been found guilty in court. If there was any substantive evidence, she'd be under arrest facing trial. Conspiracy to commit perjury is a serious criminal offence punishable by jail.
If you personally have evidence and are not giving it to the police, it is you that is aiding and abetting a criminal and persecuting Salmond.
Do you have evidence and have you given it to the police? if you have not, you are persecuting Salmond. If you have, and they have not charged Sturgeon, your evidence must be worthless and the police / CPS deem her innocent.
Skier - " there is no criminal trial involving Sturgeon at present" - there you are fixed that quote for you.
DeleteThere is no criminal trial involving you at present either.
DeleteWhat of it?
As you said, there is is no criminal trial involving Sturgeon at present, meaning she is totally 100% innocent as will remain so for the foreseeable.
DeleteThere may be a trial involving you at some point (e.g. civil defamation or the criminal withholding of key evidence in the Salmond case), and maybe one involving Sturgeon; it's impossible to say what the future will bring.
UK break-up gathering pace.
ReplyDeleteNorthern Ireland looks south as Brexit takes bite out of UK trade links
DUBLIN/LONDON (Reuters) - As a major supplier of food in Northern Ireland, Lynas Foodservice is sourcing more goods such as cheese from across the open border with EU-member Ireland to avoid the bureaucratic trade hurdles being erected with Britain after Brexit.
Th current delays at channel ports also giving the electorate a taste of things to come.
It will be interesting to see polls in Ireland on Irish Unity, North & South once the transition period has ended.
DeleteOn a different note, what duplicitous bastard goes to a 20 person wake and spends time shopping the First Minister for technical breach of ‘rules’?
ReplyDeleteThat’s certainly one way to not be honouring the deceased.
A Britnat bastard.
DeleteIt would appear that the £3million the Scotgov gave to the Britnat media hasn't stopped the Sun paying someone to tail Sturgeon. I doubt if it had been £300 million given to the Britnat media it would have made any difference. They are all Britnat scumbags..
Peter Murrell should do the decent thing and resign. He is just an embarrassment to himself, the SNP and the independence movement. If he was anyone else other than the party leaders husband I am sure he would have been suspeded by now.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the CPS Murrell is completely innocent with no charges pending.
DeleteYougov UK Scots sample:
ReplyDelete57% SNP
18% Con
13% Lab
2% Brx
2% Grn
2% Oth
You can see why unionists want Sturgeon and Murrell to resign.
After wrongly blaming Liverpool fans at Hillsborough, the Sun "newspaper" said it had learned its lesson.
ReplyDeleteWhat editor decided to pay for a photo of Scotland's FM at a funeral momentarily without a face covering?
Nicola Sturgeon has done more to save lives in this pandemic than any other politician. A bloody disgrace.
Many people will be embarrassed to be seen with a copy of the Sun after this.
It doesn't sell in Liverpool, and shouldn't sell in Scotland either after this IMO.
Fabiani has written today to the Chief Constable Iain Livingstone ( not before time), Peter (Schrodinger) Murrell, and Swinney and not one of the letters said Merry Xmas at the end. Not surprising.
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for Fabiani having to deal with all this deceit and lies especially with regards to her own party Chief Executive and her own party Deputy Leader's procrastination, delay and obstruction.