The rise and fall of The SNP.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, GinRummy said:

We knew a Brexit vote was on the cards before the independence vote but the Scottish people bottled it. I’m not against another vote but can’t help feeling, if it’s a no, there’ll be other reasons to plan for the next one as soon as the votes have been counted. 

The Brexit vote was not announced until AFTER the Indy Ref.

 

 

[ri Alban]

19 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I didn’t introduce it to the debate. Alex Salmond did, so no I won’t stop. The possibility of Brexit was already known, the tories already had power. 

No they didn't, it was a coalition with the Libdems.

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Tories weren't pro Brexit. This once in a generation bollox is that, bollox. As and NS would say something just to shut twat Unionist reporters up.  

Oh the EU referendum only came to be when the conservative party won the 2015 election, so sorry that's false anaw.

C’mon everybody who voted in the last referendum knew fine well an EU vote was on the cards.

 

The once in a generation stuff was from alex Salmond. 

[GinRummy]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

The Brexit vote was not announced until AFTER the Indy Ref.

 

 

I know that. I suppose I can only say that I knew it was a strong possibility and was one of the reasons I voted Yes. If other people weren’t aware of it then I’m not sure why not. 

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

No they didn't, it was a coalition with the Libdems.

The tories had practically the whole cabinet bar one or two positions. They had the power. 

[ri Alban]

5 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

The tories had practically the whole cabinet bar one or two positions. They had the power. 

 

5 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

The tories had practically the whole cabinet bar one or two positions. They had the power. 

Still didn't have the power to have an EU referendum, the Libdems would vote against it and take the government down. They put it in their manifesto for the 2015 general election and won a majority. 

If labour wins the next election with rejoining the EU as part of the manifesto, there'll be an EUref2. 

And just for the record, there's been 4 GE in 9 years, there should have been only 2.

Edited April 2, 2020 by ri Alban

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

 

Still did have the power to have an EU referendum, the Libdems would vote against it and take the government down. They put it in their manifesto for the 2015 general election and won a majority. 

All I said was the possibility of an eu referendum was known at the last independence referendum. I knew it was a possibility, everyone I talked to about the independence referendum knew so who didn’t know?

[Pans Jambo]

22 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

C’mon everybody who voted in the last referendum knew fine well an EU vote was on the cards.

 

The once in a generation stuff was from alex Salmond. 

Aye Once in a generation "Unless there's a material change in circumstances".

[GinRummy]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

Aye Once in a generation "Unless there's a material change in circumstances".

I accept that. My point was that the possibility of an eu referendum was known at the time of the indie ref. What other material change in circumstances could be used to force another referendum?

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, GinRummy said:

I accept that. My point was that the possibility of an eu referendum was known at the time of the indie ref. What other material change in circumstances could be used to force another referendum?

 

The dissolution of Holyrood, off the top of my head.

[Space Mackerel]

2 hours ago, GinRummy said:

I accept that. My point was that the possibility of an eu referendum was known at the time of the indie ref. What other material change in circumstances could be used to force another referendum?

 

Winning every election by 5-1 last 10 years?

[GinRummy]

8 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Winning every election by 5-1 last 10 years?

Was meaning after the next referendum. If it were a no again. 

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, GinRummy said:

Was meaning after the next referendum. If it were a no again. 

 

It won't be a no the next time.

[GinRummy]

Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

It won't be a no the next time.

FWIW I think you’re right. I thought it’d be a yes last time as well though. 

[ri Alban]

41 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

FWIW I think you’re right. I thought it’d be a yes last time as well though. 

Let's everyone concentrate on beating Coronavirus, first. 

[GinRummy]

9 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Let's everyone concentrate on beating Coronavirus, first. 

I’m only on this thread to talk about something else but yeah, goes without saying 👍

[Pans Jambo]

6 hours ago, GinRummy said:

I accept that. My point was that the possibility of an eu referendum was known at the time of the indie ref. What other material change in circumstances could be used to force another referendum?

Wouldnt think much else is needed. Being out of the EU is a quite a major change in Scotlands circumstances.
 

“The only way to guarantee remaining part of the EU is to vote NO”.

 

So “we” did vote no, & then we voted No for a 2nd time when asked if we wanted to leave the EU and since then, Westminster has ignored us, taken back powers and rode roughshod over devolvement legal agreements without as much as a by your leave.

 

Fairly material I would say...

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Wouldnt think much else is needed. Being out of the EU is a quite a major change in Scotlands circumstances.
 

“The only way to guarantee remaining part of the EU is to vote NO”.

 

So “we” did vote no, & then we voted No for a 2nd time when asked if we wanted to leave the EU and since then, Westminster has ignored us, taken back powers and rode roughshod over devolvement legal agreements without as much as a by your leave.

 

Fairly material I would say...

 

 

Mind Blair McDougal, Labor lacky, him of Better Together saying Boris would never be PM and the U.K. would never leave the EU on QuestionTime back in the days? 

 

Oh how we chuckle now. 

[GinRummy]

11 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Wouldnt think much else is needed. Being out of the EU is a quite a major change in Scotlands circumstances.
 

“The only way to guarantee remaining part of the EU is to vote NO”.

 

So “we” did vote no, & then we voted No for a 2nd time when asked if we wanted to leave the EU and since then, Westminster has ignored us, taken back powers and rode roughshod over devolvement legal agreements without as much as a by your leave.

 

Fairly material I would say...

 

 

Yeah I said I concede that point. You’re bound to be aware there is a feeling that if we were to vote no a second time the SNP would just search for a reason to hold yet another referendum. I was just shooting the shit, wondering what reason there would be for another one. It’s probably irrelevant though because it would likely be a yes this time. Cheers for the well informed responses 👍

[jambos are go!]

23 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Yes I accept that £27k is the average wage and that the average UK worker will get a good bit more than minimum wage. That has no bearing on my argument though because we are an exceedingly unequal society and when the support package is viewed at regional levels it can be demonstrated that the amount of support for London far exceeds the support available for any other part of the UK and that is unfair. The average wage for London is around £37k and this means that the average wage for almost all other regions is considerably less than the UK  £27k average. It is around £23k in NE England. A worker in London on London average wage get more than £200 per week more than a worker on the average wage in the North East. Both will be doing nothing.

Do you understand that point and if so do you accept that it is unfair.

We are discussing the £330billion rescue package. Discussion of the chancellor’s £30billion stimulus was with another poster and you were confused because each of you were talking about different things. Nothing to do with me. Nice attempt at deflection though.

Your Tartan Taliban comment is the next natural step i.e. abuse. This package is not a good package. It skews resources to London and the better off. Smithee outlined a far more sensible and effective range of options and gave reasons for them being better. Are you telling us that our reasoning is flawed because we are the Tartan Taliban?

You tell us “BTW I support tackling low wages and benefits levels as a UK wide priority” . If you do you should not support this scheme which is only helping the better off to avoid low wages. For many people particularly those o/s London wages will fall below minimum.

Been a bit busy so sorry for the delay in responding/

 

Firstly any body in the UK will get will get 80% of their wage upto a maximum of £2500 a month. If you are in London or elsewhere you will get no more than that from the UK  Government.

 

Secondly, there was no confusion from me about the £330 Billion package . I was right and the other poster was wrong and admitted it.

 

Thirdly I cannot take credit for coming up with the Tartan Taliban description. It is I understand a badge  of honour for a group of  Nationalist zealots so I don't know how you can call it abuse. You  say 'because we are the Tartan Taliban". Are you one of them?

 

Finally, I'm a democratic socialist and unionist who looks for change through the ballot box. How would you describe your political stance?

[jack D and coke]

58 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Been a bit busy so sorry for the delay in responding/

 

Firstly any body in the UK will get will get 80% of their wage upto a maximum of £2500 a month. If you are in London or elsewhere you will get no more than that from the UK  Government.

 

Secondly, there was no confusion from me about the £330 Billion package . I was right and the other poster was wrong and admitted it.

 

Thirdly I cannot take credit for coming up with the Tartan Taliban description. It is I understand a badge  of honour for a group of  Nationalist zealots so I don't know how you can call it abuse. You  say 'because we are the Tartan Taliban". Are you one of them?

 

Finally, I'm a democratic socialist and unionist who looks for change through the ballot box. How would you describe your political stance?

As long as none of it is ever offered by the tartan taliban though eh..

 

[ri Alban]

31 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

As long as none of it is ever offered by the tartan taliban though eh..

 

JAG is English and lives in England. You shouldn't bother yer arse. 

[jack D and coke]

12 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

JAG is English and lives in England. You shouldn't bother yer arse. 

Is he really lol? 
Now I see how he just doesn’t understand in the slightest. 

[jambos are go!]

Season ticket holder for over 50 years and never lived or worked anywhere but Edinburgh. It's currently cloudy with an occasional drop or two of  rain. Got and email from Edinburgh district council this morning saying that Garden Refuse collections are to cease

 

How do folk get away with just posting untruths in this fashion.

 

[manaliveits105]

Ayebaws talking shit as usual - they just make things up and try and gang up on anyone disagreeing - best ignored 

 

[jambos are go!]

2 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

As long as none of it is ever offered by the tartan taliban though eh..

 

What do you know about the Tartan Taliban. 

[jack D and coke]

12 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

What do you know about the Tartan Taliban. 

Just that I cringe my tits off when people like yourself use terms like that tbh. 

[jambos are go!]

15 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Just that I cringe my tits off when people like yourself use terms like that tbh. 

That is not an answer as usual

[jack D and coke]

6 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

That is not an answer as usual

Im all ears if you’d like to explain the tartan taliban to me though in some made up and fantastical way. Fill yir boots...

Edited April 3, 2020 by jack D and coke

[coconut doug]

2 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Been a bit busy so sorry for the delay in responding/

 

Firstly any body in the UK will get will get 80% of their wage upto a maximum of £2500 a month. If you are in London or elsewhere you will get no more than that from the UK  Government.

 

Totally correct but intrinsically unfair. This is the government scheme but just because it was devised by the government doesn't make it fair. In my last post i pointed out to you that someone on average wage in London would receive £200 per week more than somebody on average wage almost anywhere else in the country. I believe this to be an irrefutable fact which you have not tried to refute nor have you commented on the fairness of it other than to tell us that those earning more than £37k in London will not get 80% of their wages as if this relevant.

       You say you are a socialist but you seem to have little concern for inequality. Why should the average Londoner who benefits from this scheme get £2,500 a month for doing nothing when the average worker in the rest of the country who is still working and possibly risking his health and life works for around £150 a week less? 

     The scheme is a device to help business, particularly unscrupulous ones and the middle classes. Why else would you support people up to £2,500 a month when the average worker does not earn that amount. 

   I told you the scheme would be abused and it has been spectacularly so. The actions of Celtic and other big clubs in paying off poorly paid workers so the club can benefit from the scheme whilst continuing to pay players and other staff some of whom earn tens of thousand every week is disgusting. Celtic if i remember initially did not pay the living wage and took a long time and a lot of shaming before they did. Football clubs have been exposed but they are high profile the same thing will be and is happening right across all industries. that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody as that's what the scheme was designed to do.

   Meanwhile lots of the poorest in society get nothing. Zero hours and other casual and short contract workers. 

 

Secondly, there was no confusion from me about the £330 Billion package . I was right and the other poster was wrong and admitted it.

This was a conversation you had with someone else which you introduced into our conversation as a deflection.

 

Thirdly I cannot take credit for coming up with the Tartan Taliban description. It is I understand a badge  of honour for a group of  Nationalist zealots so I don't know how you can call it abuse. You  say 'because we are the Tartan Taliban". Are you one of them?

 

 I doubt there are decent people in this country who would wish to associate themselves with the Taliban. They are savages and murdering terrorists so i cannot imagine why Indy supporters would would to identify with them. i can understand why their opponents might wish make the link though. The same reasons we are routinely linked to Nazis, the IRA and crazy cults. The Tartan Taliban name appears to have been given to a Scots born jihadi who went to "work" with the Taliban. That's how i can call it abuse.

 

Finally, I'm a democratic socialist and unionist who looks for change through the ballot box. How would you describe your political stance? 

I don't think there are many on here who are not democratic and would not support change through the ballot box, myself included.

 

 

 

[GinRummy]

The Tartan Taliban phrase is not abuse. It’s funny because it’s ridiculous. If it was thought up as a serious insult to even the most ardent nationalist then whoever thought it up is a total fool. If it was thought up as a joke then all well and good because it’s funny. 

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Ayebaws talking shit as usual - they just make things up and try and gang up on anyone disagreeing - best ignored 

 

 

Lmao the irony of this pish coming from your fingers, as the riddy personified who has never contributed a literate thought in your entire posting history, and got absolutely owned with his own words when he pretended to care about the women of Edinburgh

[Justin Z]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

JAG is English and lives in England. You shouldn't bother yer arse. 

 

2 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Season ticket holder for over 50 years and never lived or worked anywhere but Edinburgh. It's currently cloudy with an occasional drop or two of  rain. Got and email from Edinburgh district council this morning saying that Garden Refuse collections are to cease

 

How do folk get away with just posting untruths in this fashion.

 

 

So . . . wtf, ri?

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

 

So . . . wtf, ri?

 

Taps aff weather in Arizona! 

Edited April 3, 2020 by ri Alban

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

The Tartan Taliban phrase is not abuse. It’s funny because it’s ridiculous. If it was thought up as a serious insult to even the most ardent nationalist then whoever thought it up is a total fool. If it was thought up as a joke then all well and good because it’s funny. 

 

The Taliban are not funny and alluding to Indy supporters as being a branch of  a terrorist organisation is not funny either. I suppose you think the Nazi and IRA references are hilarious too. 

 

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, coconut doug said:

 

The Taliban are not funny and alluding to Indy supporters as being a branch of  a terrorist organisation is not funny either. I suppose you think the Nazi and IRA references are hilarious too. 

 

I found Mel Brooks take on Hitler funny. Was Mel a nazi?

[Justin Z]

5 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

 

Taps aff weather in Arizona! 

 

True, we've got about six or seven months of that ahead. It makes it a lot less special, tbf.

 

But yeah, you missed the mark and ought to own up.

[Justin Z]

7 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I found Mel Brooks take on Hitler funny. Was Mel a nazi?

 

While I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, this analogy doesn't work. Mel Brooks was being Hitler in To Be or Not to Be. He wasn't calling some other group of people Nazis.

[GinRummy]

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

While I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, this analogy doesn't work. Mel Brooks was being Hitler in To Be or Not to Be. He wasn't calling some other group of people Nazis.

Probably poor analogy but it was the ridiculous humour I was referring to. My point was it was ridiculous to compare a Scottish nationalist to the Taliban. There would be nothing even slightly amusing about comparing a BNP politician to a Nazi because it’s close to the mark. The laugh is the ridiculousness of the phrase Tartan Taliban. 

[Justin Z]

Just now, GinRummy said:

Probably poor analogy but it was the ridiculous humour I was referring to. My point was it was ridiculous to compare a Scottish nationalist to the Taliban. There would be nothing even slightly amusing about comparing a BNP politician to a Nazi because it’s close to the mark. The laugh is the ridiculousness of the phrase Tartan Taliban. 

 

Yeah, you're right of course. And in your case specifically, it is humorous. The little detail though is that there are people who would use such a term unironically, because they have their heads so far up their arses they think there is little functional difference between supporters of independence and a fundamentalist religious terror group.

 

Because of this, I wish SNP/Indy supporters would just laugh it off instead of taking the huff, because reacting with anything but mocking laughter lends it additional credence in my view. But hey ho, nobody listens to me anyway.

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Yeah, you're right of course. And in your case specifically, it is humorous. The little detail though is that there are people who would use such a term unironically, because they have their heads so far up their arses they think there is little functional difference between supporters of independence and a fundamentalist religious terror group.

 

Because of this, I wish SNP/Indy supporters would just laugh it off instead of taking the huff, because reacting with anything but mocking laughter lends it additional credence in my view. But hey ho, nobody listens to me anyway.

All good points. It’s ok Justin, I’ll listen to you 👍

[Justin Z]

7 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

All good points. It’s ok Justin, I’ll listen to you 👍

 

Haha well thanks but I'm a bit of a dick--it's probably best they don't.

[jack D and coke]

12 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Yeah, you're right of course. And in your case specifically, it is humorous. The little detail though is that there are people who would use such a term unironically, because they have their heads so far up their arses they think there is little functional difference between supporters of independence and a fundamentalist religious terror group.

 

Because of this, I wish SNP/Indy supporters would just laugh it off instead of taking the huff, because reacting with anything but mocking laughter lends it additional credence in my view. But hey ho, nobody listens to me anyway.

It would be laughed off if it wasn’t so incessant. 
If I called you a dick chances are you’d laugh it off the first few times. If I kept saying it however I’d imagine it would start to piss you off and I’d get a reaction. To be clear I’m not saying you’re a dick btw  

The point is these remarks are deadly serious when talking about Scottish nationalists. So are IRA, Nazi, North Korea etc etc. It’s really not meant as a light hearted joke at all. 

[Justin Z]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

It would be laughed off if it wasn’t so incessant. 
If I called you a dick chances are you’d laugh it off the first few times. If I kept saying it however I’d imagine it would start to piss you off and I’d get a reaction. To be clear I’m not saying you’re a dick btw  

The point is these remarks are deadly serious when talking about Scottish nationalists. So are IRA, Nazi, North Korea etc etc. It’s really not meant as a light hearted joke at all. 

 

No, I know it's not meant as a lighthearted joke--that's what I was saying.

What I was also saying was, Indy supporters treating it as the joke it is--and the people saying it as the joke they are--is more effective than getting rattled. Not saying that's even easy, just that it's best, imo.

 

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

To be clear I’m not saying you’re a dick btw  

 

 

No worries, already covered that myself

[jack D and coke]

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

No, I know it's not meant as a lighthearted joke--that's what I was saying.

What I was also saying was, Indy supporters treating it as the joke it is--and the people saying it as the joke they are--is more effective than getting rattled. Not saying that's even easy, just that it's best, imo.

 

 

No worries, already covered that myself

Just reminded me of this little diamond from America World Police. Amazing  

 

 

[Justin Z]

Now, as for a Scottish political party that is actually "falling" . . .

 

 

Congrats though, OP, on being a red Tory. Even Ruth has your back now.

[jack D and coke]

Just now, Justin Z said:

Now, as for a Scottish political party that is actually "falling" . . .

 

 

Congrats though, OP, on being a red Tory. Even Ruth has your back now.

Scottish Labour confuse me. What are they now? Every leading appointment appears worse than the last. 
Absolutely finished up here. 

[GinRummy]

Never usually venture into this discussion, either online or in real life, other than the build up to the last referendum. 
 

It’s fairly toxic stuff. I just can’t help wondering how disappointed people might be if not a lot actually changes after independence. I get the whole ‘at least we’ll be in charge of our own affairs argument’ but what really changes when there’s a Democrat in charge in America rather than the republicans or a Tory government rather than labour in the uk? 

I get there are some changes but to the average punter it’s just different shades of shit. 

[GinRummy]

5 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Scottish Labour confuse me. What are they now? Every leading appointment appears worse than the last. 
Absolutely finished up here. 

She looks like Ruth Davidson in about ten years time. 😂

[Justin Z]

3 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Never usually venture into this discussion, either online or in real life, other than the build up to the last referendum. 
 

It’s fairly toxic stuff. I just can’t help wondering how disappointed people might be if not a lot actually changes after independence. I get the whole ‘at least we’ll be in charge of our own affairs argument’ but what really changes when there’s a Democrat in charge in America rather than the republicans or a Tory government rather than labour in the uk? 

I get there are some changes but to the average punter it’s just different shades of shit. 

 

Well yes, but you're pointing to a scenario in America or the UK which is still equivalent to a "No" vote--maintaining the status quo.

 

Being able to break that status quo is different, imo.