Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69

Thread: If The Supreme Court deems Indyref2 legal?

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky Smeek View Post
    And Paul Kavanagh hits the nail squarely on the head:- https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2...-nationalists/
    What an absolute load of tosh from The National writer. What both he and you fail miserably to grasp is that there is no appetite for a referendum, other than from the minority constantly calling for one. This country isn't awash with cash to keep having referendums. Surely even you can grasp that?

    Polls show less than 50% would vote yes, the SNP/greens got less than 50% of the votes at the last elections. I for one, don't want money wasted on this issue until the SNP can show WAY more than 50% support a second referendum.

    If you, the rest of the 'yes' movement want an 'advisory' referendum, then get all your supporters to 'chip in' to a GoFund me page, and when you have enough cash, pay for a referendum, just don't use my tax money unless you can demonstrate well over 50% support it.

    So you and your article are wrong to assume just because the SNP have the most seats, the population demand a second referendum. We the majority don't.

  2. #42

    Default

    And not a shred or a scintilla of evidence provided to back up any of the claims you make. I refer you to your previous derogatory statements on another thread about providing evidence.

    I repeat. If you and your fellow naesayers are so damn confident "No" would win put it to the test. You won't because you know that you will lose. You know that folk will see through project fear.

    But of course you are a democracy denier. The SNP asked the people of Scotland to give them a majority of seats in Holyrood and in return said they would deliver IndyRef2. So having said to the people that if you vote us in we will spend this money (on IndyRef2) you are now whining about a party that is at least trying to keep a manifesto pledge that the electorate approved. If that's not a threat to democracy then I don't know what is. And, in any case the public money that would be spent would only be on the adminstration of the referendum and not on general campaigning. That would have to be raised by the respective campaign groups. The public expenditure required has already been approved by the voters. I know you don't like that fact but it is inescapeable. In any case it is a microscopic sum when compared to the catalogue of waste, incompetence and corruption that has tanked the UK economy.

    As to your comments about how democracy in Scottish elections work I'm afraid it just reveals the extent of your willingness to deceive the public. The party with the largest number of seats forms the government and gets to enact its manifesto. But you also know this. It's an inconvenient truth but one you need to acknowledge. If you are going to attempt to argue otherwise then you are effectively calling into question the legitimacy of virtually every election ever - see WGD's blog.

    We the people, who voted the SNP into power at Holyrood on the back of a manifesto promise to hold IndyRef2, demand that democracy be respected. No-one has the right to deny democracy.

    The will of the Scottish people will be heard.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky Smeek View Post
    And not a shred or a scintilla of evidence provided to back up any of the claims you make. I refer you to your previous derogatory statements on another thread about providing evidence.

    I repeat. If you and your fellow naesayers are so damn confident "No" would win put it to the test. You won't because you know that you will lose. You know that folk will see through project fear.

    But of course you are a democracy denier. The SNP asked the people of Scotland to give them a majority of seats in Holyrood and in return said they would deliver IndyRef2. So having said to the people that if you vote us in we will spend this money (on IndyRef2) you are now whining about a party that is at least trying to keep a manifesto pledge that the electorate approved. If that's not a threat to democracy then I don't know what is. And, in any case the public money that would be spent would only be on the adminstration of the referendum and not on general campaigning. That would have to be raised by the respective campaign groups. The public expenditure required has already been approved by the voters. I know you don't like that fact but it is inescapeable. In any case it is a microscopic sum when compared to the catalogue of waste, incompetence and corruption that has tanked the UK economy.

    As to your comments about how democracy in Scottish elections work I'm afraid it just reveals the extent of your willingness to deceive the public. The party with the largest number of seats forms the government and gets to enact its manifesto. But you also know this. It's an inconvenient truth but one you need to acknowledge. If you are going to attempt to argue otherwise then you are effectively calling into question the legitimacy of virtually every election ever - see WGD's blog.

    We the people, who voted the SNP into power at Holyrood on the back of a manifesto promise to hold IndyRef2, demand that democracy be respected. No-one has the right to deny democracy.

    The will of the Scottish people will be heard.

    Sorry Corky, the highest court in the land begs to differ and as you are one who respects the law of the land you have to accept that fact.

    I see you are still banging on about seats. I've explained countless times how irrelevant that is in relation to a referendum, I'm coming to the conclusion that you are incapable of making the distinction between seats won at an election and how that relates to a referendum. I'll reiterate, the majority don't want a referendum so we can't seee the point in having one. When yyour 'side' is the majority rather than the minority, we'll look at it again. Until that happens there's no point in discussing it with you as your only coming over as a sore loser.

  4. #44

    Default

    Corky,
    Aye/Aye…Hear/Hear!
    Time to get out there, and get enuff to March on Edinburgh!

  5. #45

    Default

    I think that we will just have to wait and see what happens at the next GE really. May be it will be as Corky says and that the Independence vote will be galvanised but maybe not. I think there has been one poll that found that half of those asked would vote SNP on the single issue platform. But there it is again- only 50%.
    But all I personally hear from people is worries about 'heating and eating' and cost of living crisis and 'how to get through'. I have not met a single person for whom Indyref 2 is the burning issue of the day.
    One thing does puzzle me- why did the Nationalists not make more noise about the Scotland Act at the time it was agreed and became legally binding rather than waiting until now? Perhaps that reveals my ignorance but I have wondered about that

  6. #46

    Default

    Goodfellers, it appears it is you who does not understand democracy (or is it that you do not wish to acknowledge the truth). I'll try again for you. Gaining the most seats at an election gives a party the right to form a government. If the party who won the election promises, during the campaign, to hold a referendum then they have the right to do so. The SG are trying to do what the people of Scotland asked them to do. So your assertion that seats won is irrelevant in a referendum is completely wrong. The seats won give the winning party the right to hold a referendum if that's what they promised to do. If the SNP/Greens hadn't won a majority of seats their call for a referendum would have no legitimacy. However, they did win a majority of seats and that gives them the right to enact the policies the electorate voted for. In other words there is a direct relationship between seats won and a (subsequent) referendum. I'm sorry if you cannot see that but it is quite plainly and simply a fact.

    You bet I'm a sore loser. I'm on the side that won the election but the side who lost it continue to dictate the agenda. That is not democracy.

    I appreciate that you don't want to continue the discussion. Most unionists adopt that stance when the folly of their arguments has been displayed before them.

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky Smeek View Post
    Goodfellers, it appears it is you who does not understand democracy (or is it that you do not wish to acknowledge the truth). I'll try again for you. Gaining the most seats at an election gives a party the right to form a government. If the party who won the election promises, during the campaign, to hold a referendum then they have the right to do so. The SG are trying to do what the people of Scotland asked them to do. So your assertion that seats won is irrelevant in a referendum is completely wrong. The seats won give the winning party the right to hold a referendum if that's what they promised to do. If the SNP/Greens hadn't won a majority of seats their call for a referendum would have no legitimacy. However, they did win a majority of seats and that gives them the right to enact the policies the electorate voted for. In other words there is a direct relationship between seats won and a (subsequent) referendum. I'm sorry if you cannot see that but it is quite plainly and simply a fact.

    You bet I'm a sore loser. I'm on the side that won the election but the side who lost it continue to dictate the agenda. That is not democracy.

    I appreciate that you don't want to continue the discussion. Most unionists adopt that stance when the folly of their arguments has been displayed before them.

    The SNP could have won every single seat BUT they won it on a promise they couldn't keep as it was outwith their power. Simple really.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goodfellers View Post
    The SNP could have won every single seat BUT they won it on a promise they couldn't keep as it was outwith their power. Simple really.
    And there you have it. Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you also for finally agreeing with everything I have been saying. I'm pleased you have seen the light and now realise just how undemocratic it all is.

    We may have to name some more streets in your name as a thank you for your efforts on behalf of Scottish independence.

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky Smeek View Post
    And there you have it. Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you also for finally agreeing with everything I have been saying. I'm pleased you have seen the light and now realise just how undemocratic it all is.

    We may have to name some more streets in your name as a thank you for your efforts on behalf of Scottish independence.
    Be careful Corky, this comment is bordering on dangerous rhetoric "Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No" ENGLAND has nothing to do with it. Westminster and the law is YOUR problem. A more simple minded 'yes/SNP supporter may be emboldened by your anti-English rant and act on it. Be careful, very careful to distinguish between the English as a wholesale entity and Westminster.

    If you post anything that can be perceived as anti-English , I will report it to the police. These are going to be challenging times especially close to election time and it doesn't need you stirring up anti English sentiment.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goodfellers View Post
    Be careful Corky, this comment is bordering on dangerous rhetoric "Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No" ENGLAND has nothing to do with it. Westminster and the law is YOUR problem. A more simple minded 'yes/SNP supporter may be emboldened by your anti-English rant and act on it. Be careful, very careful to distinguish between the English as a wholesale entity and Westminster.

    If you post anything that can be perceived as anti-English , I will report it to the police. These are going to be challenging times especially close to election time and it doesn't need you stirring up anti English sentiment.
    Wow. So you want to deny freedom of speech as well as democracy.


    And, bear in mind that I already have ample evidence, in the form of comments you have already made on this forum, of your treatment of me. That is why I use "Reply with quote" so often just in case I need to have evidence for the police.


    I am not anti-English. I have lived and worked in England and loved the experience. I have whole swathes of my family who are English, whom I love dearly. I have nothing but respect for the people and the country. So, if you repeat your libellous accusation about me stirring up anti English sentiment then it will be me taking legal action. It was, however, very kind of you to make the accusation on a public forum for all to see.
    Last edited by Corky Smeek; 29-Nov-22 at 10:49.

  11. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky Smeek View Post
    Wow. So you want to deny freedom of speech as well as democracy.


    And, bear in mind that I already have ample evidence, in the form of comments you have already made on this forum, of your treatment of me. That is why I use "Reply with quote" so often just in case I need to have evidence for the police.


    I am not anti-English. I have lived and worked in England and loved the experience. I have whole swathes of my family who are English, whom I love dearly. I have nothing but respect for the people and the country. So, if you repeat your libellous accusation about me stirring up anti English sentiment then it will be me taking legal action. It was, however, very kind of you to make the accusation on a public forum for all to see.
    Repeated

    Be careful Corky, this comment is bordering on dangerous rhetoric "Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No" ENGLAND has nothing to do with it. Westminster and the law is YOUR problem. A more simple minded 'yes/SNP supporter may be emboldened by your anti-English rant and act on it. Be careful, very careful to distinguish between the English as a wholesale entity and Westminster.

    If you post anything that can be perceived as anti-English , I will report it to the police. These are going to be challenging times especially close to election time and it doesn't need you stirring up anti English sentiment.

    I await the police or a letter from your solicitor.

  12. #52

    Default

    Goodfellers, you need to know that Scotland's voice will not be silenced no matter the attempts to deny democracy or freedom of speech.

    I speculated the other day about where you get you behavioural cues from. I think I know now.


  13. #53

    Default

    No one is trying to silence 'Scotland's voice' When it's in the majority rather than minority, we'll listen.

  14. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goodfellers View Post
    No one is trying to silence 'Scotland's voice' When it's in the majority rather than minority, we'll listen.
    That has a hollow ring to it much like the "Yes it is" remark of D. Ross in the video above when asked if the Union was voluntary.

    It's interesting to note that you only want to hear Scotland's voice when it is in the majority. So minorities need to keep quiet do they? What threats do you have in store for minorities who have the brass neck to want their voice heard?

    Have you really thought about what sort of picture you are painting of the country you wish to live in? One where the full rigours of the law are brought down on people to prevent them from having their say. One where democracy is subordinated and 50% of the population are ignored. One where you threaten dissenting voices with the police. One where you can hurl personal insults but shout from the rooftops if someone has the audacity to say something you take offence to, even if that offence is of a purely manufactured variety. All sounds a bit authoritarian to me yet still, I imagine, you consider yourself a democrat.

    I understand your conservatism (with a small "c") but you cannot expect the rest of us to sit on the sidelines and have views like yours go unchallenged.

  15. #55

    Default

    I ask this in all humility. What is the answer if 50% are perpetually going to feel that they are wronged- on either side? What if 'yes' support never rises above 50% or even falls below that? Will it be as the FM herself has declared 'if we can't win 50% then we don't deserve to have independence'?

  16. #56

    Default

    What has happened to this Board. Reporting to the Police….HUH!
    If people cannot have a Conversation without resorting to this ‘garbage’, they should just go home!

    Quote…Be careful…Very Careful!

    To substantiate an Allegation, the International ‘norm’ is…….
    Reasonable and Probable Grounds. And…….ie
    A set of Facts or Circumstances, which would cause a person of ‘Normal Care and Judgement, to have a Strong Belief’!
    Has that Threshold been reached? I doubt it.
    This is merely ‘banter’….between friends!
    Last edited by The Horseman; 29-Nov-22 at 22:34.

  17. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goodfellers View Post
    No one is trying to silence 'Scotland's voice' When it's in the majority rather than minority, we'll listen.
    And are you……Goodfellow……the Judge. Seems that way….we will listen!

  18. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    I ask this in all humility. What is the answer if 50% are perpetually going to feel that they are wronged- on either side? What if 'yes' support never rises above 50% or even falls below that? Will it be as the FM herself has declared 'if we can't win 50% then we don't deserve to have independence'?

    In an attempt to avoid any more vitriol I think, for the time being, it would be wiser if I avoided adding my thoughts .

  19. #59

    Default

    Site playing up a bit today?? Or is it my broadband?

    I tried to post a response and it disappeared into the ether after about 90 seconds of trying to load. I re-wrote it and posted it only to find the original had appeared?

    The second post has been edited into this.
    Last edited by Corky Smeek; 30-Nov-22 at 11:27.

  20. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    I ask this in all humility. What is the answer if 50% are perpetually going to feel that they are wronged- on either side? What if 'yes' support never rises above 50% or even falls below that? Will it be as the FM herself has declared 'if we can't win 50% then we don't deserve to have independence'?
    This sheds some light on the matter - Prof Alison Young of Cambridge University provides an analysis of the SC decision and provides a view of what it means for the independence movement going forward.


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •