12 hr waits in A&E increase by 300% in last year under SNP run NHS Scotland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetterTogether

Seems to me the Nationalists are very thick skinned when dishing it out but incredibly thin skinned when it comes to recieving not such good news about their cause.
Both sides have an unpleasant side but currently the Nationalist minority fraction seem to be doing the lions share of rabble rousing.
Now why would any unionist stop talking down the nationalist cause we won a referendum by a significant majority but still the Nationalist are rattling on trying to get their own way.
At the moment we have a party the SNP that has distinctly failed to provide a single coherent rational costed out reason for breaking up the union, but still insists on using grievance and spin to try and persuade a large section of somewhat gullible electorate to trust them because it will be alright on the night.

---

Maybe your right Bettertogether. Perhaps I am dishing it out but it wasn't my intention. Your a fairly ardent unionist and i'm sick of your moaning. I voted yes in the referendum after giving it a lot of thought. Ive always respected the unionist viewpoint but there's been a particularly virulent unionist presence on the internet since the referendum. I'm aware there's probably the opposite hard-line nationalists groups too but I don't go looking for it. I've rarely seen it on the org. Squidge and Rheghead stood their ground against some pretty insulting behaviour during the referendum but they did it with respect. Some of the early unionists who were banned from the org and blamed pro SNP moderation for their demise didn't realise how insulting they were being. That's how they got banned and you were lucky not to get banned either. Scottish politics have changed. You are going to have to get more accommodating towards a nationalist position if your ever going to keep the union together. Your attitude is as much a danger to the union as Alex Salmond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sids

Yes. Did somebody do that?

---

Yes. You did.
At least I will argue your intention was to associate Scottish nationalism with Nazi ideology. Why else would you bring the Nazis into it?

You haven't got a clue.

The above post was in reply to something bettertogether put on and then took off and edited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gleeber

Maybe your right Bettertogether. Perhaps I am dishing it out but it wasn't my intention. Your a fairly ardent unionist and i'm sick of your moaning. I voted yes in the referendum after giving it a lot of thought. Ive always respected the unionist viewpoint but there's been a particularly virulent unionist presence on the internet since the referendum. I'm aware there's probably the opposite hard-line nationalists groups too but I don't go looking for it. I've rarely seen it on the org. Squidge and Rheghead stood their ground against some pretty insulting behaviour during the referendum but they did it with respect. Some of the early unionists who were banned from the org and blamed pro SNP moderation for their demise didn't realise how insulting they were being. That's how they got banned and you were lucky not to get banned either. Scottish politics have changed. You are going to have to get more accommodating towards a nationalist position if your ever going to keep the union together. Your attitude is as much a danger to the union as Alex Salmond. Yes. You did. At least I will argue your intention was to associate Scottish nationalism with Nazi ideology. Why else would you bring the Nazis into it?

---

I must say I find your post mildly disturbing and worrying to say the least.

I sincerely hope that you aren't a moderator.

I could easily say I'm quite sick of some of the posts that I disagree with on here but I respect people's freedom of speech, so when I find myself disagreeing I either answer or ignore the posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gleeber

Yes. You did.
At least I will argue your intention was to associate Scottish nationalism with Nazi ideology. Why else would you bring the Nazis into it?

---

I mentioned people fighting the Nazis, as an example of a positive side to nationalism.
I'll read it again- if it's confused you so thoroughly, maybe I didn't write it very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sids

Nationalism rears its ugly head, here and there, from time to time.

Sometimes it may be a good thing. Guys went off to repel and defeat the Nazis.
.

---

That looks clear enough to me.

I don't believe you really even thought it meant the SNP are Nazis.

Gleeber what you appear to suggest is that vociferous unionists silence themselves on here or else they will be banned that's quite disturbing and not really what one expects in a civilised society that values personal liberties and freedoms.

Respect for others views is a two way street maybe you should consider that Scottish Politics has changed, the referendum was held the Unionist won and although the SNP have won 56 seats at this election they may well go the way Labour has if they fail deliver on their promises.

Nothing in politics is fixed or definite especially a rapidly expanding parties future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetterTogether

Gleeber what you appear to suggest is that vociferous unionists silence themselves on here or else they will be banned that's quite disturbing and not really what one expects in a civilised society that values personal liberties and freedoms. Respect for others views is a two way street maybe you should consider that Scottish Politics has changed, the referendum was held the Unionist won and although the SNP have won 56 seats at this election they may well go the way Labour has if they fail deliver on their promises. Nothing in politics is fixed or definite especially a rapidly expanding parties future.

---

Hear hear , could not have put it better

Many thanks Golach I expect the occasional dig in the ribs on here it's expected not quite so used to veiled threats being issued though.

That may well give an insight as to why so many people voted No in the referendum the fear of being silenced unless they toe the official party line.

Freedom of speech suppressed ruthlessly any dissent quashed, it does sound eerily reminiscent of regimes around the world right minded people abhor.

Ok are we agreed that everybody is threatening everybody else?

It is always surprising when people who are smart enough to know better fling around the veiled references to supporters of the SNP being a nazi/fascist/totalitarian organisation. In fact, it's often not so veiled. It goes along with the comments that we see so often played out on this forum that somehow all the people who voted SNP are duped or having the wool pulled over their eyes.

The SNP is a main stream political party with a democratic constitution where one member has one vote. So at the conference recently where there were 3 thousand delegates every single one of those delegates had the same number of votes as those members on the National Exec, the same number of votes as Nicola Sturgeon or John Finnie or any of the PArliamentary candidates. A conference where anyone could table a motion and did.

The Westminster parliament and the crazy press have to recognise that. And actually THAT is what is scaring the bejesus out of them. not the 56 MPs in parliament, not Nicola Sturgeon but the very idea that the SNP has become the main party of Scotland, that it will be strong enough tO have its voice heard and that the voice of the SNP will be that of the ordinary members, and that it will challenge the cosy world of two party politics. What scares them is that the rest of the UK will hear a different voice and think - hang on a minute, maybe there is something else we can do and educate themselves like so many have done in Scotland, and turn away from the system and then what will they do.

A sensible question for you squidge. How do you reconcile the new rules for SNP,MPs about not criticising the party or other Members with their duty to the electorate to represent them all. What happens if an elected SNP MP is given a problem by one of their electorate that requires criticism of the party or another member. Don't you for see there may be a possible conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetterTogether

A sensible question for you squidge. How do you reconcile the new rules for SNP,MPs about not criticising the party or other Members with their duty to the electorate to represent them all. What happens if an elected SNP MP is given a problem by one of their electorate that requires criticism of the party or another member. Don't you for see there may be a possible conflict.

---

MPs blabbing to the newspapers with gripes about their party doesn't go down well in the other parties either.

I can read the word "Nazi," without assuming it means me.

Am I wrong in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sids

I mentioned people fighting the Nazis, as an example of a positive side to nationalism. I'll read it again- if it's confused you so thoroughly, maybe I didn't write it very well.

---

Don't beat yourself up about it. You wrote it perfectly well, the meaning was clearly as you state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crayola

Don't beat yourself up about it. You wrote it perfectly well, the meaning was clearly as you state.

---

Is it safe to say "parrot stranglers," or will the cap fit?

Believe it or not, someone I work with would get upset if you said that! Seriously! But she likes parrots a lot which is different from wilfully taking offence at the mere mention of Nazis. Unless they don't think it's good nationalism to fight Nazis maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetterTogether

A sensible question for you squidge. How do you reconcile the new rules for SNP,MPs about not criticising the party or other Members with their duty to the electorate to represent them all. What happens if an elected SNP MP is given a problem by one of their electorate that requires criticism of the party or another member. Don't you for see there may be a possible conflict.

---

There amendment you mention actually talks about individuals PUBLICLY criticising other members and party policies. As a business leader I'm sure you would have been to many management meetings where decisions were made that were not agreed by the whole of your management team and where robust debate had taken place to decide what course of action to take. Once the decision had been made to implement a course of action I doubt you would be too pleased to find one of your team slagging the others off in the tea room or running to the papers. As a civil servant, I was used to the situation where once the decision had been made we were expected to implement that decision. The arguing and disagreeing shoud take place in private. Once the decisions have been made and the policies agreed then thats it. if you disagree with party policy the place to get it changed is at conference, where you can put forward a motion and delegates can vote. Not by running to the press.

If a constituent required help with a problem which meant criticism of the party or another member then I would expect that there would be exactly that - criticism but that it wouldn't be done by Better Together MP writing an article for the paper about Squidge MP for example. If there had been a serious crime like an allegation of child abuse, there would be a full and frank investigation. (Wouldn't that be refreshing?) if the criticism is of a less serious nature then I would expect that in the course of investigating the concerns of the constituent the facts would become clear and if there was an apology or restitution to be made by either the party or another member then a press release would be drawn up and a formal response would be made.

Interestingly I checked the labour party's standing orders and they have pretty much the same condition too.

Do I think there is a possible conflict? Well, in so much as it is always hard to investigate a colleague or your own group, of course there is the possibility for conflict. But robust systems for ensuring that, where there is internal wrangling or wrongdoing it can be resolved or confronted mean that each MP will be sure they have both the support and protection of the party if they require it.

It isn't the SNP that's to blame, it's the Highland Heath Board, who think they are saving money by moving everything to Inverness. Maybe they are saving money - who's to say? But they are, no doubt, putting more lives at risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katarina

It isn't the SNP that's to blame, it's the Highland Heath Board, who think they are saving money by moving everything to Inverness. Maybe they are saving money - who's to say? But they are, no doubt, putting more lives at risk.

---

The Highland Health Board are part of the Scottish NHS, funding for which is entirely under the control of an SNP led Scottish Government.