Jump to content

The rise and fall of The SNP.


Guest

Recommended Posts

Roxy Hearts
1 hour ago, jambomjm74 said:

The hoose jock is a new one… 
it would appear you are correct. 
Roxy appears to have an issue with anything that isn’t a pure brand of Scots and anything British is wrong, at the same time this view point isn’t in any way racist.

The mighty Thor, I’m sure I could find another name for him Just abuses any one who’s shares a  view he doesn’t agree with, which is any that points out SNP failures. 
The thread is about SNP failures, a party that has splintered and despite all the opportunities has failed to grow support beyond a few percent and is riddled with comedic moments .. 

I'm not interested in "pure brand of Scots". I'm more interested in the hypocrisy on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Unknown user

    1077

  • jack D and coke

    795

  • manaliveits105

    705

  • Roxy Hearts

    648

47 minutes ago, Alex Kintner said:

 

I get where you’re coming but by definition we’re not a one state country. We have democratic elections where any party can be voted for and there’s no barriers (legal or illegal) to any party forming a government.

A democratically elected one party state, which is dominated by the constitutional question… 

A question that was voted on and instead of being resolved, has led to a one party one issue country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I'm not interested in "pure brand of Scots". I'm more interested in the hypocrisy on here. 

It’s human nature to be hypocritical, we all do it … so do you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 hour ago, jambomjm74 said:

It is at the moment, whilst the SNP are very diverse and a broad church, so to speak. We are governed by one party and dominated by One policy …. The neverendum. 
WestMinster is also one party, similarly due to one issue “Brexit” where large swathes of working class voters wanted “Brexit Done”…

Neither is very helpful, in terms of controlling a govt and has left one party states.. 

 

That's not what a one party state is.

 

And I think you'll find there are two parties in government at Holyrood.

 

54 minutes ago, Dazo said:


Was it Stupid and irrational ? I think compared to who he was dealing with it was a fair enough comment. 

 

In what way is it fair to say Scotland, with two parties in government mind, is a one party state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
2 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

A democratically elected one party state, which is dominated by the constitutional question… 

A question that was voted on and instead of being resolved, has led to a one party one issue country.

 

That's not what a one party state is, and as Scotland's governed by two parties, it's just a stupid accusation anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

That's not what a one party state is, and as Scotland's governed by two parties, it's just a stupid accusation anyway.

A one party state is where one party runs the show.. are you really saying that isn’t the case in Scotland ?

if 45% to 50% still want independence and vote SNP to achieve this at every election.. how we will ever have another party in power ? How is this not, albeit a democratically elected, one party state…

You don’t like the term one party state as we all know it’s not a good thing.. How ever it is arrived at. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

That's not what a one party state is, and as Scotland's governed by two parties, it's just a stupid accusation anyway.

Of course it is.

The UK government have a huge majority, something the Nats don't even have.

Are we living in a one party state in the UK ?

It's a silly accusation. 

The people of Scotland had a chance to vote on a party whose manifesto clearly stated their intentions on the constitution. They were voted in massively and share power with a party who have the same view on the constitution.

 I can see where the seethe is coming from but, hey, that's democracy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Kintner
14 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

A democratically elected one party state, which is dominated by the constitutional question… 

A question that was voted on and instead of being resolved, has led to a one party one issue country.


I get the point you’re making and you’re spot on that the constitutional question overshadows everything else. The simple fact is though that you can’t have a one party state where the electoral system is specifically designed to share MSPs across the different parties and we currently have a coalition government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Kintner
7 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

A one party state is where one party runs the show.. are you really saying that isn’t the case in Scotland ?

if 45% to 50% still want independence and vote SNP to achieve this at every election.. how we will ever have another party in power ? How is this not, albeit a democratically elected, one party state…

You don’t like the term one party state as we all know it’s not a good thing.. How ever it is arrived at. 


A one party state isn’t where one party runs the show. A one party state is where only one party is allowed to run the show and ‘democratic’ elections are a farce or sham.

👍🏻

Edited by Alex Kintner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
6 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

A one party state is where one party runs the show.

 

No it isn't, it's where only one party is allowed.

 

And anyway, according to your definition, Westminster is and Holyrood isn't 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

No it isn't, it's where only one party is allowed.

 

And anyway, according to your definition, Westminster is and Holyrood isn't 🤷‍♂️

Both currently are .. in both houses, one party has complete control, both due to Nationalist questions…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
Just now, jambomjm74 said:

Both currently are .. in both houses, one party has complete control, both due to Nationalist questions…

 

Mate you can say a thousand is 100 but it isn't, that's not what the word means.

 

There's no way of stretching the definition of one party state to fit Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jambomjm74 said:

Both currently are .. in both houses, one party has complete control, both due to Nationalist questions…

Because they were voted in !

Allowed to be voted in, to be more precise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Mate you can say a thousand is 100 but it isn't, that's not what the word means.

 

There's no way of stretching the definition of one party state to fit Scotland.

Ok so under what circumstances can you see a non SNP majority in the next decade and so meaning 20+ years in power.  How isn’t that a one party state, albeit a democratically elected one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

Sadly, it's a derogatory term used by some of the more ardent SNP/independence keyboard warriors.

 

They are attempting to compare the issue of the 'better, more presentable and somewhat subservient' slaves kept in the Dixie States of the USA, known as 'House N******' with the people who have concerns about the viability and benefits of Scottish independence. It's cheap, it's offensive and it sums up modern popular political discourse.

I’m not sure if that’s laughable or offensive. What ever way, anyone who chooses to use it, is without question a moronic fool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
Just now, jambomjm74 said:

Ok so under what circumstances can you see a non SNP majority in the next decade and so meaning 20+ years in power.  How isn’t that a one party state, albeit a democratically elected one. 

 

Because a one party state is one where only one party is allowed to govern.

 

Look, you sat on a bollock, get over it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
Just now, jambomjm74 said:

I’m not sure if that’s laughable or offensive. What ever way, anyone who chooses to use it, is without question a moronic fool. 

 

What's a person who makes an accusation they don't understand the definition of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
1 hour ago, jonesy said:

Putting aside the puerile, offensive patter of HJ, would it be fair to assume that, as a fairly regular contributor to a thread about another political party, that Johnson and pals are living sans rent in Thor's?

One could suggest that Johnson and chums (hence the chumocracy) are definitely in my head. To a degree they probably are. However a cursory trawl through my posts on that thread would draw you to the conclusion that I'm vehemently against everything they represent for political and ideological reasons. I find the constant lying, corruption and ineptitude pretty offensive.

 

The difference on this thread? Wee Nippy/Krankie wore a red dress. 

 

The puerility is the level of the discussion of the Hoose Jocks, so I'll keep using it. You've got to fish where the fish are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Ok so under what circumstances can you see a non SNP majority in the next decade and so meaning 20+ years in power.  How isn’t that a one party state, albeit a democratically elected one. 

Failure to win any future Indy Ref would result in a decline in their majority, IMO. The other parties would then be in a position to determine either a coalition or, if they get enough numbers, govern themselves.

None of the above has any relevance to a one party state, which doesn't exist, as we don't live in one....for the ****ing umpteenth time !

😒

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

What's a person who makes an accusation they don't understand the definition of?

I do understand the definition, I appreciate the differences between democratically elected one party and a dictatorship. They are very clear. 
But again the facts are that we have a one party state, due to the constitutional question.. and I don’t see that driver going away or resolving either way, anytime soon. 
I am not using the term to be offensive , just to best illustrate Scottish politics.. we are stuck, with no easy fix and no real  winners..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boab said:

Failure to win any future Indy Ref would result in a decline in their majority, IMO. The other parties would then be in a position to determine either a coalition or, if they get enough numbers, govern themselves.

None of the above has any relevance to a one party state, which doesn't exist, as we don't live in one....for the ****ing umpteenth time !

😒

 

A coalition with labour and conservative… I’m not sure I see that happening — better together was like a Belfast Rangers / Celtic get together… just about the worst marriage of convenience ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Kintner
23 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Sadly, it's a derogatory term used by some of the more ardent SNP/independence keyboard warriors.

 

They are attempting to compare the issue of the 'more presentable and overly subservient' slaves kept in the Dixie States of the USA, known as 'House N******' with the people who have concerns about the viability and benefits of Scottish independence. It's cheap, it's offensive and it sums up modern popular political discourse.


I’ve never used it and had always wondered where it came from. 👍🏻
 

Anyone who uses that term, and knows it’s origin, is a moron imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
12 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

I do understand the definition, I appreciate the differences between democratically elected one party and a dictatorship. They are very clear. 
But again the facts are that we have a one party state, due to the constitutional question.. and I don’t see that driver going away or resolving either way, anytime soon. 
I am not using the term to be offensive , just to best illustrate Scottish politics.. we are stuck, with no easy fix and no real  winners..

 

That's not what a one party state is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Kintner

Even by the DR’s standards this is woefully biased😂

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-based-x-factor-winner-26430111?fbclid=IwAR3V0XxOGupHpqK4mGQkrKDjbRjFXE9Hr8gVfespdpy1aZVMpRG0a5GTZ3Y
 

Z list celebrity moron makes ridiculous claim about Ukraine bombing their own people and the DR’s opening paragraph is:

 

“Steve Brookstein moved to Scotland during lockdown and has confirmed he is a supporter of Scottish nationalism.”


😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

I do understand the definition, I appreciate the differences between democratically elected one party and a dictatorship. They are very clear. 
But again the facts are that we have a one party state, due to the constitutional question.. and I don’t see that driver going away or resolving either way, anytime soon. 
I am not using the term to be offensive , just to best illustrate Scottish politics.. we are stuck, with no easy fix and no real  winners..

It's not offensive, just factually incorrect. Incredibly so !

Saying you understand the definition and then saying it's a fact that we have one is tying yourself in knots !

The constitutional question was clear at the Election and people voted for it.

That's a fact going by seats won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
14 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

I do understand the definition

 

Now you do, you didn't when you said this, or when you made the accusation.

 

"A one party state is where one party runs the show."

 

And the reason it's important, is that despite the fact that many, many governments fit your definition, Holyrood doesn't, and using the term is deliberately negative, bringing a false parallel with actual oppressive regimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Smithee said:

 

Now you do, you didn't when you said this, or when you made the accusation.

 

"A one party state is where one party runs the show."

 

And the reason it's important, is that despite the fact that many, many governments fit your definition, Holyrood doesn't, and using the term is deliberately negative, bringing a false parallel with actual oppressive regimes

Tell me when you think that we will have a non nationalist govt in Scotland. Ta. Other than if independence was secured. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
3 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Tell me when you think that we will have a non nationalist govt in Scotland. Ta. Other than if independence was secured. 

 

I'd have more respect if you just held your hands up rather than changing what words mean so you were right all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roxy Hearts
1 hour ago, jambomjm74 said:

It’s human nature to be hypocritical, we all do it … so do you 

Scottish hypocrisy bad, British hypocrisy good! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
3 hours ago, Dazo said:


I love the irony of the rent free comments on this thread. 😂

I know . They are the same ones on the Tory threads who BJ appears to be living in rent free 

1 hour ago, jonesy said:

Sadly, it's a derogatory term used by some of the more ardent SNP/independence keyboard warriors.

 

They are attempting to compare the issue of the 'more presentable and overly subservient' slaves kept in the Dixie States of the USA, known as 'House N******' with the people who have concerns about the viability and benefits of Scottish independence. It's cheap, it's offensive and it sums up modern popular political discourse.

It is an offensive term . Started by the ardent Braveheart himself ! ( name to remain nameless ) but he wants to blow up Russia now 

1 hour ago, jonesy said:

If they are indeed living in your head, one can safely assume that some dodgy Russian money is paying any rent... 😜 

 

One post among many re Sturgeon's dress, fair enough, but there are plenty on other threads that discuss BoJo the Clown's carefully constructed dishevelled appearance, so that kind of negates the claim. Sadly, physical appearance will always tend to come into it when discussing those in the public eye.

 

And, re your last paragraph, I hope that's not an admission of trolling? :) 

😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Kintner
19 minutes ago, jonesy said:

 

 

popcorn-billhader.gif


I stand by my comment. If TMT is aware of its origins, then it’s a moronic phrase to use. 👍🏻

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

I'd have more respect if you just held your hands up rather than changing what words mean so you were right all along.

I’m not changing words; I don’t really need your respect as such. 
My view is that we have a one party state, albeit through a democratic vote driven by the ongoing neverendum….
You may say this doesn’t meet the unpalatable wording of a one party state…. Again I say I’m not using the phrase to say it’s unfair or it isn’t representing a democratic position.
 How ever, I really don’t see how we will move away from this entrenched position and back to the old two party state .. so for now it’s a one party state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
35 minutes ago, Alex Kintner said:


I’ve never used it and had always wondered where it came from. 👍🏻
 

Anyone who uses that term, and knows it’s origin, is a moron imo.

 

I think it is a good phrase that encapsulates the thinking of many Scots. Similar notions of Jockholm syndrome and Scottish cringe or too wee, too poor, too stupid allude to similar patterns of thinking and behaviour in some of our Unionist population. 

 

I'm aware of the origin of the term and fail to see the offence. Quite the opposite as fas as i am concerned. I understand that people must look after their own interests but there is also a societal need for fairness and equality. We have come a long way since slavery but we have a lot further to go. Protections are in place for all sorts of minorities or discriminated groups but nobody i can see includes the poor.

 

    No windfall taxes for the huge profits being made by oil companies but higher taxes for the poor. The poor are on survival wages and imo comparisons with slavery are not always inappropriate. Freedom is a relative term and our citizens have the freedom to pay high rents to live in damp, mouldy flats. They have the freedom to send their children to underperforming and socially defining state schools. Their offspring face a future where you cannot afford to buy and live in your own house and where education, the traditional route out of poverty is too expensive to sustain. It goes on to all aspects of our lives and until the poor do what other groups have done which is to agitate and organise themselves they will not improve their lot.

 

  Advancement of the poor is becoming more and more difficult as any such attempts are often considered to be wrongthink. The poor need to be constanty reminded that they are undeserving, greedy and a threat to the consensus on inequality. House Jocks are right there with a particular focus on Scotland obviously. They may even be worse because in their minds Scots have even less right to equality simply because they are Scottish and not English. House Jocks are regularly on here to tell us how bad we are, totally disregarding any context or inaccuracy as they repeatedly tell us we are not worthy.

 

I really can't see the offence you feel at the term. House Jock is a derogatory term but it has been reserved for those who fit the description. If you are not a House Jock then what is the problem? Nobody is promoting slavery, they are pointing out a subservient mentality that exacerbates the prejudice and exploitation in our society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 minute ago, jambomjm74 said:

I’m not changing words; I don’t really need your respect as such. 
My view is that we have a one party state, albeit through a democratic vote driven by the ongoing neverendum….
You may say this doesn’t meet the unpalatable wording of a one party state…. Again I say I’m not using the phrase to say it’s unfair or it isn’t representing a democratic position.
 How ever, I really don’t see how we will move away from this entrenched position and back to the old two party state .. so for now it’s a one party state. 

 

Your view is wrong, we don't have a one party state, that's not what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
4 minutes ago, Alex Kintner said:


I stand by my comment. If TMT is aware of its origins, then it’s a moronic phrase to use. 👍🏻

 

I know its origin, can't say I'm arsed what people think of its use!

Uncle Tams gonna Uncle Tam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Kintner
4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I know its origin, can't say I'm arsed what people think of its use!

Uncle Tams gonna Uncle Tam


Where does Uncle Tam come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Your view is wrong, we don't have a one party state, that's not what it means.

So do you really see a point where SNP are not in power in the next 10 years.. so in power for 20 years+.

With polls at best tied but support at never below 45% .. means we are entrenched in a neverendum and one party one policy rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
Just now, Alex Kintner said:


Where does Uncle Tam come from?

Uncle toms. Surely you’ve heard of that? Just Tams to make sound Scottish. 
Another fave phrase of mine🥰

Hurts their tender wee bottoms so it does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Kintner
13 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I think it is a good phrase that encapsulates the thinking of many Scots. Similar notions of Jockholm syndrome and Scottish cringe or too wee, too poor, too stupid allude to similar patterns of thinking and behaviour in some of our Unionist population. 

 

I'm aware of the origin of the term and fail to see the offence. Quite the opposite as fas as i am concerned. I understand that people must look after their own interests but there is also a societal need for fairness and equality. We have come a long way since slavery but we have a lot further to go. Protections are in place for all sorts of minorities or discriminated groups but nobody i can see includes the poor.

 

    No windfall taxes for the huge profits being made by oil companies but higher taxes for the poor. The poor are on survival wages and imo comparisons with slavery are not always inappropriate. Freedom is a relative term and our citizens have the freedom to pay high rents to live in damp, mouldy flats. They have the freedom to send their children to underperforming and socially defining state schools. Their offspring face a future where you cannot afford to buy and live in your own house and where education, the traditional route out of poverty is too expensive to sustain. It goes on to all aspects of our lives and until the poor do what other groups have done which is to agitate and organise themselves they will not improve their lot.

 

  Advancement of the poor is becoming more and more difficult as any such attempts are often considered to be wrongthink. The poor need to be constanty reminded that they are undeserving, greedy and a threat to the consensus on inequality. House Jocks are right there with a particular focus on Scotland obviously. They may even be worse because in their minds Scots have even less right to equality simply because they are Scottish and not English. House Jocks are regularly on here to tell us how bad we are, totally disregarding any context or inaccuracy as they repeatedly tell us we are not worthy.

 

I really can't see the offence you feel at the term. House Jock is a derogatory term but it has been reserved for those who fit the description. If you are not a House Jock then what is the problem? Nobody is promoting slavery, they are pointing out a subservient mentality that exacerbates the prejudice and exploitation in our society. 


I just think it’s a poor analogy and it’s offensive to compare the two. Scottish people aren’t currently a persecuted minority in any way, shape or form that remotely compares to the persecution of black people. 

Edited by Alex Kintner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Kintner
1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

Uncle toms. Surely you’ve heard of that? Just Tams to make sound Scottish. 
Another fave phrase of mine🥰

Hurts their tender wee bottoms so it does. 


Hadn’t heard of it but just googled it. Another phrase linked to black oppression. Really don’t get why any need is felt to pull out these terms and it only adds to the negative connotations that get thrown at nationalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
3 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

So do you really see a point where SNP are not in power in the next 10 years.. so in power for 20 years+.

With polls at best tied but support at never below 45% .. means we are entrenched in a neverendum and one party one policy rule. 

 

That's not a conversation I was having, and there's a coalition in Holyrood.

 

If you want out of that situation, vote independence, cos we're not going away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
6 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Without doubt this is all Westminsters fault  . 

It is 

 

 

1026A447-49AB-4219-BE6B-B3063A82BC76.jpeg

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...