Jump to content

Scottish independence and devolution superthread


Happy Hearts

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

We've had inflation and rising interest rates as has every country in the world. 

 

How can people believe Scotland would prosper economicly in the event of independence when those advocating it have failed to present an economic case? Boo Tories and bad Westminster isn't a convincing argument.

It's more than economics though, well for me it is.

 

Unelected theocratic legislature (Iran the only country that has similar), undemocratic electoral system, no written constitution, no proper way of impeachment (see arbitrary ministerial code!)

 

Would Scotland prosper economically after indy?  I don't see why not, but it wouldn't happen over night.

 

Are the SNP a bit shit?  Yes, it would seem so!

 

But as to my previous point, UK PLC is fecked at the moment, and the whole of it is suffering due to the inequities of the political system allowing a zealous neo-liberal cabal screw it for everyone.  Throw in the right wing dog whistle tropes on race, immigration, culture wars if you like, and you have a tin pot regime struggling to do the basics.

 

Independence would allow Scotland to wipe that slate clean and create a modern polity fit for the 21st century.

 

UK could do the same (I hope the do!) but I can't see it.

 

This was an interesting article from the other day UK spends more financing inequality in favour of rich than rest of Europe, report finds | Inequality | The Guardian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Exactly. All they talk about is economics as if it's the be all and end all. Do people really not care that they don't have a democratic electoral system? Seems the unionists do. Each to their own I suppose 

 

If they-

1. implemented a PR voting system

2. implemented House of Lords reform/scrapped

 

The call and percentage support for independence would drop like a stone. I would be far less likely to vote independence if those two things were done. But neither party down south will touch it and so the independence solution to the UKs anti-democratic issue will always remain.

 

 

Many don't, they don't care about anything other than their bank balance and being anti change.

 

Comfortable dependence is better than independence for these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Exactly. All they talk about is economics as if it's the be all and end all. Do people really not care that they don't have a democratic electoral system? Seems the unionists do. Each to their own I suppose 

 

If they-

1. implemented a PR voting system

2. implemented House of Lords reform/scrapped

 

The call and percentage support for independence would drop like a stone. I would be far less likely to vote independence if those two things were done. But neither party down south will touch it and so the independence solution to the UKs anti-democratic issue will always remain.

 


Voting system I get but what difference does the House of Lords make to your life ? Seems such a bizarre thing to hang your independence hat on. 

Edited by Dazo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Exactly. All they talk about is economics as if it's the be all and end all. Do people really not care that they don't have a democratic electoral system? Seems the unionists do. Each to their own I suppose 

 

If they-

1. implemented a PR voting system

2. implemented House of Lords reform/scrapped

 

The call and percentage support for independence would drop like a stone. I would be far less likely to vote independence if those two things were done. But neither party down south will touch it and so the independence solution to the UKs anti-democratic issue will always remain.

 

Yeah why would people care about savings, investments, their jobs, pensions and a functioning economy. 

 

In what we do we not have a democratic electoral system? Out with the house of lords which I do think we should reform we all get to vote and elect our MPs to parliament.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:


Voting system I get but would difference does the House of Lords make to your life ? Seems such a bizarre thing to hang your independence hat on. 

 

Democracy needs sorted in the UK, you don't do that by tackling half the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TallPaul said:

Yeah why would people care about savings, investments, their jobs, pensions and a functioning economy. 

 

In what we do we not have a democratic electoral system? Out with the house of lords which I do think we should reform we all get to vote and elect our MPs to parliament.

 

 

 

If you have to ask, you're not really looking for an answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Democracy needs sorted in the UK, you don't do that by tackling half the problem.


House of Lords just seems like a complete irrelevance in the grand scheme of things and certainly not something you would give independence up for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazo said:


House of Lords just seems like a complete irrelevance in the grand scheme of things and certainly not something you would give independence up for. 

 

I wouldn't, but if your big thing is representative democracy it doesn't make much sense to modernise only half the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

I wouldn't, but if your big thing is representative democracy it doesn't make much sense to modernise only half the game.


Nope I didn’t think you would, I didn’t think any supporter would. As I said it’s utterly bizarre since we would still have a Tory government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Democracy needs sorted in the UK, you don't do that by tackling half the problem.

SNP are the great bastions of democracy right enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carter said:

SNP are the great bastions of democracy right enough. 

 

The nick of Westminster is **** all to do with the SNP mate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

periodictabledancer
1 hour ago, windsor1874 said:

 

The call and percentage support for independence would drop like a stone. I would be far less likely to vote independence if those two things were done. But neither party down south will touch it and so the independence solution to the UKs anti-democratic issue will always remain.

 

Based on what ?

Scotland does not vote in majority terms for Labour or Tory. In fact it barely votes for either party at all. All PR might do is swap one unionist govt (Tory) for another (Labour). Scotland will STILL get a govt that is totally unrepresentative of it's democratically expressed wish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

periodictabledancer
3 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Because it means that when people like Michelle Mone swindle the taxpaying electorate for £200 million, we can hold them to account and vote them out. We can't vote out unelected politicians. I thought that would be fairly obvious. If you're happy with that then fair enough.

Mone is to be held to account by the criminal justice system , like the rest of us.

But she is clearly not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

If you have to ask, you're not really looking for an answer

Well all vote for our favoured candidate to represent our constituency, the party with the most elected MPs can form an government. Can you explain why that's not democratic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

The nick of Westminster is **** all to do with the SNP mate

I'm afraid it's got everything to so with the SNP. How they've governed and behaved, including overwhelming hubris and the unedifying spectacle of an administration seeking to jail a former First Minister. If you yearn for separatism then the incumbent governing party have everything to do with the apparent panacea you attempt to have us believe would unfold after cessation.

 

Unless of course there's no longer any faith in the SNP and we're asked to believe we would be competently governed in an Independent state by the same types who govern us at present at UK level. Not something that's going to get the masses terribly excited or mobilised I wouldn't have thought.

 

Perhaps your ire should be turned towards the likes of Salmond or Sturgeon. They've promised the acolytes endlessly and delivered precisely nothing. The concept of Independence is further away than it's ever been.

 

Westminster is far from perfect. Yet the best alternatives the separatists have offered up in the past two decades is a sleazy fat oaf with octopus arms trying to beast all and sundry and a vile harridan who suffered the indignity of Police tarpaulin in her front and back garden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

Based on what ?

Scotland does not vote in majority terms for Labour or Tory. In fact it barely votes for either party at all. All PR might do is swap one unionist govt (Tory) for another (Labour). Scotland will STILL get a govt that is totally unrepresentative of it's democratically expressed wish. 

Scotland doesn't vote in UK elections every individual British Citizen does and each constituency is represented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

periodictabledancer
Just now, windsor1874 said:

You're right, it will still be totally unrepresentative of Scotland as a whole. But it would be SLIGHTLY more representative, it would show willing on the part of the UK to change and modernise, and that will be enough for most to take away the democratic angle to independence.

 

Anyway the UK changing to PRs never going to happen unfortunately, so no point debating about it. All theoretical.

It wouldn't be "SLIGHTLY more representative" ; it would be substantially more so because "every vote would count".

I still fail to see why you insist getting a Labour govt (or whatever form of unionist govt a UK general election under PR might throw up) would be a game changer.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

periodictabledancer
6 minutes ago, Carter said:

 

 

Perhaps your ire should be turned towards the likes of Salmond or Sturgeon. They've promised the acolytes endlessly and delivered precisely nothing. The concept of Independence is further away than it's ever been.

 

 

It's not further away than it's ever been.  That's just wishful thinking on your part and it's quite clear support remains strong even in the face od NSs numerous failings.  In fact I read some opinin poll results other day that said quite the opposite. 

And bizarrely we keep hearing how "far away" independence is while being told there will not be a referendum under any circumstances, it doesn't matter if the SNP campaign  on an indepenence mandate  it's just be ignored and the UK govt will not explain what the democratic path to independence is.

All for something that is so "far away". 

Edited by periodictabledancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carter said:

I'm afraid it's got everything to so with the SNP. How they've governed and behaved, including overwhelming hubris and the unedifying spectacle of an administration seeking to jail a former First Minister. If you yearn for separatism then the incumbent governing party have everything to do with the apparent panacea you attempt to have us believe would unfold after cessation.

 

Unless of course there's no longer any faith in the SNP and we're asked to believe we would be competently governed in an Independent state by the same types who govern us at present at UK level. Not something that's going to get the masses terribly excited or mobilised I wouldn't have thought.

 

Perhaps your ire should be turned towards the likes of Salmond or Sturgeon. They've promised the acolytes endlessly and delivered precisely nothing. The concept of Independence is further away than it's ever been.

 

Westminster is far from perfect. Yet the best alternatives the separatists have offered up in the past two decades is a sleazy fat oaf with octopus arms trying to beast all and sundry and a vile harridan who suffered the indignity of Police tarpaulin in her front and back garden. 

 

No, the state of Westminster has nothing to do with the SNP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

periodictabledancer
14 minutes ago, Carter said:

I'm afraid it's got everything to so with the SNP. How they've governed and behaved, including overwhelming hubris and the unedifying spectacle of an administration seeking to jail a former First Minister. If you yearn for separatism then the incumbent governing party have everything to do with the apparent panacea you attempt to have us believe would unfold after cessation.

 

Unless of course there's no longer any faith in the SNP and we're asked to believe we would be competently governed in an Independent state by the same types who govern us at present at UK level. Not something that's going to get the masses terribly excited or mobilised I wouldn't have thought.

 

Perhaps your ire should be turned towards the likes of Salmond or Sturgeon. They've promised the acolytes endlessly and delivered precisely nothing. The concept of Independence is further away than it's ever been.

 

Westminster is far from perfect. Yet the best alternatives the separatists have offered up in the past two decades is a sleazy fat oaf with octopus arms trying to beast all and sundry and a vile harridan who suffered the indignity of Police tarpaulin in her front and back garden. 

This post is complete nonsense. Westminster , and the state of it, is nothing to do with the SNP. 

Your use of language demonstrates  everything you post will simply be childish attempts at SNP bashing. The final  paragraph is pathetic. 

Edited by periodictabledancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
6 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

This post is complete nonsense. Westminster , and the state of it, is nothing to do with the SNP. 

Your use of language demonstrates  everything you post will simply be childish attempts at SNP bashing. The final  paragraph is pathetic. 

 

Wrong, it's poetic! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Because it means that when people like Michelle Mone swindle the taxpaying electorate for £200 million, we can hold them to account and vote them out. We can't vote out unelected politicians. I thought that would be fairly obvious. If you're happy with that then fair enough.


Politician enablers will still exist though. Preferred “bidders”, business contacts/friends and backhanders will exist until the end of time, no voting system will get rid of that. House of Lords or not there will be plenty Mones waiting to step in. 
 

And yes it doesn’t bother me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

This post is complete nonsense. Westminster , and the state of it, is nothing to do with the SNP. 

Your use of language demonstrates  everything you post will simply be childish attempts at SNP bashing. The final  paragraph is pathetic. 

:laugh:

 

Cheer up bud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Carter said:

I'm afraid it's got everything to so with the SNP. How they've governed and behaved, including overwhelming hubris and the unedifying spectacle of an administration seeking to jail a former First Minister. If you yearn for separatism then the incumbent governing party have everything to do with the apparent panacea you attempt to have us believe would unfold after cessation.

 

Unless of course there's no longer any faith in the SNP and we're asked to believe we would be competently governed in an Independent state by the same types who govern us at present at UK level. Not something that's going to get the masses terribly excited or mobilised I wouldn't have thought.

 

Perhaps your ire should be turned towards the likes of Salmond or Sturgeon. They've promised the acolytes endlessly and delivered precisely nothing. The concept of Independence is further away than it's ever been.

 

Westminster is far from perfect. Yet the best alternatives the separatists have offered up in the past two decades is a sleazy fat oaf with octopus arms trying to beast all and sundry and a vile harridan who suffered the indignity of Police tarpaulin in her front and back garden. 

 

What a carcrash of a post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

No, the state of Westminster has nothing to do with the SNP.

It'll have even less to do with them when a plethora of their MPs lose their seats next year. That'll hardly be an endorsement for support for Independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

What a carcrash of a post.

Would you prefer I changed 'octopus arms' for 'sleepy cuddles'?

 

Even his own legal counsel inferred he was a beast.

 

That's the standard of flag bearer for the separatist ideology. I can see why you and others feel so let down by them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carter said:

It'll have even less to do with them when a plethora of their MPs lose their seats next year. That'll hardly be an endorsement for support for Independence.

 

Sound, but saying that the nick of Westminster is down to the SNP is really really stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carter said:

Would you prefer I changed 'octopus arms' for 'sleepy cuddles'?

 

Even his own legal counsel inferred he was a beast.

 

That's the standard of flag bearer for the separatist ideology. I can see why you and others feel so let down by them. 

 

:wtfvlad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Sound, but saying that the nick of Westminster is down to the SNP is really really stupid.

 

Westminster was established in 1801. SNP in 1934.

 

Stands to reason Westminster is all their fault.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That thing you do
4 hours ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

There was a vote, the issue is already settled, it's not the best of three. If you believe in democracy accept the result, a bit Trumpian to ask for a redo just because you don't like the result. 🤷‍♂️

Im going to give this point of view the disdain it deserves.

 

"It was settled" is the hiding place of those who liked the 2014 result and so simply refuse to be open to another vote (in spite of the geopolitical and other changes since Sept 2014).

 

Noone for having a second vote, are suggesting that the result cant be no, only that there has been so much polarising political movements since 2014 including Brexit that Scotland didnt vote for, the reopening of the north sea as a cash cow that was all dead and impossible in 2014, the ultra right wing voting of the rest of the UK that is at odds with what most Scots think is reasonable, the broken promises of the No campaign etc that the landscape has changed enough to ask again and any reasonable person understanding "material change in circumstances" will look at the UK and see that is what has happened. But hey lets pretend none of that happened and the world hasnt changed at all because we liked a result 9 years ago.

 

Democracy does not stand still and shouldnt have ended Sep 2014. Asking the question again is entirely reasonable. The answer may very well be no again and we would be back to only if there is a material change in circumstances should we look at it again within a generation. But the fact some on here would not want the opportunity suggests their own political positioning makes them blind to the chaos that as gone on since the first vote. "It was settled" is the biggest load of bollocks of an argument its possible to have.

 

Instead, explain how the events since 2014 are not a material change in circumstances? You cant, can you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Im going to give this point of view the disdain it deserves.

 

"It was settled" is the hiding place of those who liked the 2014 result and so simply refuse to be open to another vote (in spite of the geopolitical and other changes since Sept 2014).

 

Noone for having a second vote, are suggesting that the result cant be no, only that there has been so much polarising political movements since 2014 including Brexit that Scotland didnt vote for, the reopening of the north sea as a cash cow that was all dead and impossible in 2014, the ultra right wing voting of the rest of the UK that is at odds with what most Scots think is reasonable, the broken promises of the No campaign etc that the landscape has changed enough to ask again and any reasonable person understanding "material change in circumstances" will look at the UK and see that is what has happened. But hey lets pretend none of that happened and the world hasnt changed at all because we liked a result 9 years ago.

 

Democracy does not stand still and shouldnt have ended Sep 2014. Asking the question again is entirely reasonable. The answer may very well be no again and we would be back to only if there is a material change in circumstances should we look at it again within a generation. But the fact some on here would not want the opportunity suggests their own political positioning makes them blind to the chaos that as gone on since the first vote. "It was settled" is the biggest load of bollocks of an argument its possible to have.

 

Instead, explain how the events since 2014 are not a material change in circumstances? You cant, can you.

 

Some act like a vote is where democracy ends, rather than it being just a stop in the journey of democratic conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Image

 

Alba trying something the SNP should have already done! See how this goes - Can already tell the SNP are going to abstain from it rather than see it as an avenue to move forward to achieve the purpose they are voted into office to achieve. 

 

There should be a constitutional mechanism for all areas of the UK to withdraw if that is what they want to do. Hopefully this can help put that power where it should actually be held, instead of it being within Englands gift to give. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Im going to give this point of view the disdain it deserves.

 

"It was settled" is the hiding place of those who liked the 2014 result and so simply refuse to be open to another vote (in spite of the geopolitical and other changes since Sept 2014).

 

Noone for having a second vote, are suggesting that the result cant be no, only that there has been so much polarising political movements since 2014 including Brexit that Scotland didnt vote for, the reopening of the north sea as a cash cow that was all dead and impossible in 2014, the ultra right wing voting of the rest of the UK that is at odds with what most Scots think is reasonable, the broken promises of the No campaign etc that the landscape has changed enough to ask again and any reasonable person understanding "material change in circumstances" will look at the UK and see that is what has happened. But hey lets pretend none of that happened and the world hasnt changed at all because we liked a result 9 years ago.

 

Democracy does not stand still and shouldnt have ended Sep 2014. Asking the question again is entirely reasonable. The answer may very well be no again and we would be back to only if there is a material change in circumstances should we look at it again within a generation. But the fact some on here would not want the opportunity suggests their own political positioning makes them blind to the chaos that as gone on since the first vote. "It was settled" is the biggest load of bollocks of an argument its possible to have.

 

Instead, explain how the events since 2014 are not a material change in circumstances? You cant, can you.

And yet there has been zero evidence to suggest the majority of Scots are now in favour of indy other than a few polls in The National. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

And yet there has been zero evidence to suggest the majority of Scots are now in favour of indy other than a few polls in The National. 

 

If only we could have some sort of official poll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Some act like a vote is where democracy ends, rather than it being just a stop in the journey of democratic conversation.

What would you advocate on that basis? The Scottish Independence referendum was only 9 years ago. Separatists have never accepted that democratic outcome and have agitated for another Referendum ever since. SNP being likely to lose a plethora of MPs is hardly an endorsement in itself of strong electoral appetite for another Referendum. 

 

The last few years have probably illustrated to the critical mass that  there's more to life than a never ending constitutional question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That thing you do
Just now, TallPaul said:

And yet there has been zero evidence to suggest the majority of Scots are now in favour of indy other than a few polls in The National. 

 

But thats not the point though is it? Has there been enough change to justify a vote? Yes, in every definition of the phrase "change of circumstances". 

 

Whether people want independence will be what is decided at the referendum.  No is a legitamite second result. Im just arguing that Scotland has the right to be asked and that conditions to be asked have been met.

 

The result is the peoples to decide.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carter said:

What would you advocate on that basis? The Scottish Independence referendum was only 9 years ago. Separatists have never accepted that democratic outcome and have agitated for another Referendum ever since. SNP being likely to lose a plethora of MPs is hardly an endorsement in itself of strong electoral appetite for another Referendum. 

 

The last few years have probably illustrated to the critical mass that  there's more to life than a never ending constitutional question. 

 

I advocate for a vote on the basis of massive national change since the question was asked.

 

Go on the threads after 2014 and you'll see even unionists largely agreeing 10 years is about right to wait. They've changed their minds now right enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That thing you do
1 minute ago, Carter said:

What would you advocate on that basis? The Scottish Independence referendum was only 9 years ago. Separatists have never accepted that democratic outcome and have agitated for another Referendum ever since. SNP being likely to lose a plethora of MPs is hardly an endorsement in itself of strong electoral appetite for another Referendum. 

 

The last few years have probably illustrated to the critical mass that  there's more to life than a never ending constitutional question. 

How about a clear definition of when its fair to be asked the question again as its in the peoples interest to have the right.

 

1. Once in a generation (with clear deifnition of what a generation is)

2. When theres a material change in circumstances

 

If either condition is met, the people have the right to be asked, and the right to vote No or Yes.

 

How anyone can argue point 2 has not been met, is beyond me. Some defintions of generations are 10 years others are 20 or 25. NI has a generation/right to be asked defined as 7 years. Not that it happens of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

How about a clear definition of when its fair to be asked the question again as its in the peoples interest to have the right.

 

1. Once in a generation (with clear deifnition of what a generation is)

2. When theres a material change in circumstances

 

If either condition is met, the people have the right to be asked, and the right to vote No or Yes.

 

How anyone can argue point 2 has not been met, is beyond me. Some defintions of generations are 10 years others are 20 or 25. NI has a generation/right to be asked defined as 7 years. Not that it happens of course.


I think that’s fair and should have been defined before the first vote. I’d also want a higher percentage than 51% defined for such a monumental change for the country. 
 

I don’t agree though that there is an appetite for another referendum and if there isn’t under this current UK government I doubt there ever will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Im going to give this point of view the disdain it deserves.

 

"It was settled" is the hiding place of those who liked the 2014 result and so simply refuse to be open to another vote (in spite of the geopolitical and other changes since Sept 2014).

 

Noone for having a second vote, are suggesting that the result cant be no, only that there has been so much polarising political movements since 2014 including Brexit that Scotland didnt vote for, the reopening of the north sea as a cash cow that was all dead and impossible in 2014, the ultra right wing voting of the rest of the UK that is at odds with what most Scots think is reasonable, the broken promises of the No campaign etc that the landscape has changed enough to ask again and any reasonable person understanding "material change in circumstances" will look at the UK and see that is what has happened. But hey lets pretend none of that happened and the world hasnt changed at all because we liked a result 9 years ago.

 

Democracy does not stand still and shouldnt have ended Sep 2014. Asking the question again is entirely reasonable. The answer may very well be no again and we would be back to only if there is a material change in circumstances should we look at it again within a generation. But the fact some on here would not want the opportunity suggests their own political positioning makes them blind to the chaos that as gone on since the first vote. "It was settled" is the biggest load of bollocks of an argument its possible to have.

 

Instead, explain how the events since 2014 are not a material change in circumstances? You cant, can you.

Define a “ generation “? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carter said:

I'm afraid it's got everything to so with the SNP. How they've governed and behaved, including overwhelming hubris and the unedifying spectacle of an administration seeking to jail a former First Minister. If you yearn for separatism then the incumbent governing party have everything to do with the apparent panacea you attempt to have us believe would unfold after cessation.

 

Unless of course there's no longer any faith in the SNP and we're asked to believe we would be competently governed in an Independent state by the same types who govern us at present at UK level. Not something that's going to get the masses terribly excited or mobilised I wouldn't have thought.

 

Perhaps your ire should be turned towards the likes of Salmond or Sturgeon. They've promised the acolytes endlessly and delivered precisely nothing. The concept of Independence is further away than it's ever been.

 

Westminster is far from perfect. Yet the best alternatives the separatists have offered up in the past two decades is a sleazy fat oaf with octopus arms trying to beast all and sundry and a vile harridan who suffered the indignity of Police tarpaulin in her front and back garden. 

👍

1 hour ago, TallPaul said:

Scotland doesn't vote in UK elections every individual British Citizen does and each constituency is represented. 

Exactly 

1 hour ago, Carter said:

:laugh:

 

Cheer up bud. 

He lives in England . 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 if Indy thst enticing he should move up here then 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

So Alba need SNP (and Green) support.

 

The chance to come together for the greater good.

 

Maybe before or after the Alex Salmond court case. 


Shouldn’t be a problem since they all want the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

If only we could have some sort of official poll

 

:D 

 

Democracy is static dontyaknow? 

 

had our vote. Door closed. gave a license to be abused so can't revisit it ever again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

So Alba need SNP (and Green) support.

 

The chance to come together for the greater good.

 

Maybe before or after the Alex Salmond court case. 

 

Can't see that happening. Abla need all the support they can get. Doubt they will get it though.

 

abla.jpg.ca7611595baa0f21cc4436a77ea6af9d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Of course they will always exist! And then with an elected second chamber of parliament, when they're caught out they can get sacked by the electorate, the opposite of what happens now.

 

Good for you. 


I’m not sure you’ve thought your theory through to be honest. The type of people and scale involved aren’t going to be pit off by the fear of being unelected.  😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...