James105

There was no need for me to imagine that you didn't form your own opinion. The conversion was not racist to anyone capable of reading the meaning of words in a dictionary, and just because an organisation bows down to those infected with the woke mind virus in a foolhardy attempt to appease the mob does not magically change the meaning of the word.

Good to see there are still some out there that still bow down and doff their caps to the "palace" and rely on their superior royal bloodlines rather than attempting to form an opinion of their own. I'd rather just use one of those old fangled dictionaries to understand the meaning of words then checking to see what the palace thinks, but each to their own.

The military do not have the right to strike. I see no reason that this same policy should not also be applied to other essential services such as nurses, teachers and transport. Postal workers can strike if they want, although I am not sure anyone would actually notice.

Yet another 2am game for England with all the bars closed. Sigh. This is not a great country to be in for this world cup with the puritanical joy sponges in charge not allowing the bars to be open for half of the matches.

Well, she was wearing African attire, with an African name (changed from her original British name), representing a charity that supports black women of African heritage. She wasn't 'presenting' as a British person was she? She was clearly presenting as someone that has a different heritage, which encouraged the exact question she was asked and then she pretended to be offended by it and garnered the attention she sought as the race baiter she is. This is all just a stupid game, played and encouraged by stupid people, which will probably end when white people (falsely) accused of racism simply start 'identifying' as black so they are granted immunity from being called a racist.

Actually, Stephen Fry summed this up perfectly in this quote: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f***** what." https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather If we went down your road then what is to stop me from saying I'm offended by the nonsense you post and demanding certain actions be taken?

Sigh

It's certainly impossible to foresee an anti-racist future when the needle for racism is dialled so low that a non-racist question is now deemed racist. I presume this was an attempt at humour?

Yes, it's tricky to debate something when your argument is basically untrue. This one? Perhaps you should find better judges of character to agree with... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10081819/Archbishop-Canterbury-face-disciplinary-action-sexual-abuse-scandal-say-lawyers.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/17/justin-welby-admits-he-was-wrong-to-say-there-was-a-cloud-over-george-bell https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/we-are-truly-sorry-for-the-shameful-way-the-church-has-acted-235009/

If you are going to throw those kind of accusations around then I presume you have a link to back it up... right?

Since she is so obviously a British person, born and bred in Britain, and does not want to answer any questions that could cast any doubt on her undiluted Britishness, then she is not wearing 'fancy dress', she is engaging in what the left term as 'cultural appropriation' and should be called out on it.

Who really cares if she read the sodding email? The things people get worked up about on here is ridiculous. Let's face it, she won't be winning any employee of the month awards anytime soon, she has publicly insulted the head of the company, she publicly took them to court, and she is well and truly on Musk's firing radar. If she was a US based employee she would be gone already. Do you seriously think she has a bright future at Twitter or will be out the door at the first available (legal) opportunity? There is no law in the EU that says someone cannot be fired (so long as the correct process is followed) is there?

The majority of England rejects the winning party every single election and anyway I was asking a question. Ramping up to what exactly? There is no legal route to hold another referendum. Scotland has nothing to offer to entice the UK government to grant another referendum. So what is the next step then? Complain even more than now (if that is even possible)?

So vote for a party that can get into power then. You keep voting for parties that cannot win power in Westminster, and then blame someone else for this failing. You sound just like a BNP voter who has rejected every mainstream party their entire lives wondering why they are not getting their representation in government. I don't have the power to "let you go", but what is in it for this UK government (or the UK politicians who want to be re-elected), or the next one, or the one after that to have another time wasting, divisive, expensive referendum. It didn't stop the moaning last time so even if granted it won't stop the moaning next time when your fellow Scots once again reject independence for economic reasons. Ramping up to what by the way? War? Terrorism? Don't be so ridiculous.

You pay less tax than England and you get more per head spending than the English: "Scotland receives £1671 or 17% more per person by the UK average and its tax revenues are £308 lower per person." https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/can-scotland-afford-to-be-independent-how-much-independence-from-uk-would-cost-and-budget-deficit-explained-3231268 This is what I mean by the incessant whinging.

Sturgeon has the power to raise taxes in Scotland. You want nicer things then pay for them. What is the benefit to the UK or UK politicians to grant Scotland another divisive, expensive time wasting referendum? If there is no benefit to the UK or UK politicians then why on earth would the UK grant it?

So you are suggesting she read the email but chose not to answer it even though it explicitly stated that if she did not answer it she would lose her job? Right.

Incessant whinging is an accurate description of my perception of the Scottish lately on this question. If you want another referendum then you are going about it the wrong way. It's all me, me, me and what can I get, without taking into account what the other side wants. Since you need the other side to grant this referendum it needs to be sold to the other side. If there is no benefit to the other side then why would they waste the time and money on it? Once you look at it from that perspective you will edge a bit closer to understanding why a referendum is not and will not be granted for the foreseeable future. You should also reset your expectations of politicians as their primary goal is re-election. How does a UK politician offering support for another Scottish referendum help them achieve that goal? Hint: It doesn't.

Nigel Farage had no power. He wasn't the PM and UKIP had 1 MP in Westminster out of 650. He was basically a media personality. His voice counted no more than Bob Geldof's and had the result gone the other way he would have been (rightly) ignored. Alex Salmond would have been president of Scotland if Scotland had voted for independence so yes, what he said does count and should not be compared to Farage who is irrelevant in comparison.

A Sherlockian smorgasbord of logic, deduction and reasoning. 1. She didn't read the email so I deduced she didn't check her email. 2. If she had gone to the office everyone would be talking about that email - it would be impossible to be unaware of it. Since she was unaware of the email I deduced she didn't go to the office. It's elementary.

Here is another fact. If you read your previous post you literally said: "No one mentioned 'once in a lifetime/generation' at the last vote ". Alex Salmond was the leader of the SNP at the time so what he says counts. The simple fact is the only reason to offer another referendum to Scotland would be a foolish attempt to stop the incessant whinging that comes from the north of the border, but since the last referendum did not achieve that goal there is no guarantee the moaning would stop after the next one. Since the Scots have stopped voting for parties that have the potential to be in power in Westminster neither of the 2 main UK parties seek or need the Scottish vote any more, so there is literally zero incentive for the winning party to offer Scotland another referendum. Unless you genuinely think that politicians are in it for altruistic reasons and to "serve the people", what benefit is it to the current UK government (or the next one, or the one after that etc) to grant another Scottish referendum?

If he was really concerned about drink driving accidents he would be campaigning for proper punishments for drink driving, not what time the bars close. Loss of licence for 18 months for first offence along with a minimum 50,000 fine and jail sentence for Thais. Jail time, massive fine and deportation following jail for foreigners. These are the things that reduce drink driving incidents, not what time the bars are open to. But let's not pretend he actually cares about this, he is just another puritan that sucks the joy out of life.

I know facts are highly inconvenient to the narrative you have told yourself but here you go... "Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity'" SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity". Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661 It's difficult to lend out the crystal ball (I actually refer to it as common sense) as it's one of those things you have or you don't. It cannot be shared.

Yes, the £180bn feels a bit low to me. The barnet formula should of course be applied to this so it should be 30% higher, so something along the lines of £220bn would be more appropriate. But don't worry, it won't come to that for the following reasons: 1. Scotland cannot legally hold a referendum without Westminster approval. 2. Scotland had a once in a lifetime/generation vote 8 years ago. 3. In 20-30 years when Scotland get permission to legally hold another referendum, the Scots will once again vote against it.