UK minister surprised by Scottish independence referendum move

[kingdong]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Interesting to see that it is not only the Scots and Welsh who are reacting badly to this ill thought out power grab from our corrupt and incompetent Westminster government. Jersey tells our corrupt, embarrassment of a PM to get stuffed too. 

 

 

 

Jersey today,tooting tomorrow,...citizen smith

[kingdong]

11 hours ago, transam said:

"You POSTED "Force fed", THAT was one of your twists to make the post look different, you are a master of twisting stuff, we all KNOW you are a master of twisting stuff, we've had years of it... Sadly you can't see it...????

Master of twisting stuff? And there was me thinking it was chubby checker.

[izod10]

On 9/21/2020 at 6:56 PM, nauseus said:

The motion is to examine the possibilities of greater self determination for the islands - this could include independence. The islands might achieve independence from Scotland anyway. Westminster might allow them a referendum on their own, especially if Scotland gets one, who knows? 

 

If the Orkneys and Shetlands become independent then they would not necessarily Become enclaves within Scottish waters. In fact if they became fully independent (nations) they would not be enclaves at all! All of the best oil and fishing is west of Shetland and the new EEZs for O&S would see Scotland lose much of its maritime bonus in two great chunks overnight! The island groups could then afford direct ferry services to wherever they want to go - probably Stavanger - take care!

 

 

Love this  Scotland votes for independence,but refuses Shetland a vote on its own independence  lol

 

  The English would be quids in when scotland shoves off

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, izod10 said:

Love this  Scotland votes for independence,but refuses Shetland a vote on its own independence  lol

 

  The English would be quids in when scotland shoves off

For all the claymore rattling you hear on here by bitter remainers,the majority of Scots know which side of their bread is buttered,when it comes to independence.

[RuamRudy]

55 minutes ago, izod10 said:

Love this  Scotland votes for independence,but refuses Shetland a vote on its own independence  lol

 

  The English would be quids in when scotland shoves off

1) where have you read anything about either shetland wanting independence, or being refused a vote on it? 

 

2) why would England be enhanced by an independent shetland? Do you really think you have so much to offer? And then there is all the clamouring to tell us that oil is finished - was it a lie? 

[RuamRudy]

52 minutes ago, kingdong said:

For all the claymore rattling you hear on here by bitter remainers,the majority of Scots know which side of their bread is buttered,when it comes to independence.

They do indeed. 

 

[RuamRudy]

A fact I was unaware of until today which possibly explains why the Westminster government is refusing to allow democracy to be upheld in my country - the only way a permanent member of the UN Security Council can be removed is when its borders significantly change. 

 

So when Scotland walks away from the UK, it is likely that the rUK will be kicked off the UNSC and become just another mediocre little country. Not that I will laugh, oh no... 

[Rookiescot]

13 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

A fact I was unaware of until today which possibly explains why the Westminster government is refusing to allow democracy to be upheld in my country - the only way a permanent member of the UN Security Council can be removed is when its borders significantly change. 

 

So when Scotland walks away from the UK, it is likely that the rUK will be kicked off the UNSC and become just another mediocre little country. Not that I will laugh, oh no... 

Has to be more to it than that. If that was all they were worried about they would have offered devo max (or at least lived up to their promise of devo max) and killed off calls for independence. 

Nah I suspect there is a far more mundane explanation. 

Money.

[RuamRudy]

38 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Has to be more to it than that. If that was all they were worried about they would have offered devo max (or at least lived up to their promise of devo max) and killed off calls for independence. 

Nah I suspect there is a far more mundane explanation. 

Money.

Oh sure, the money is a big part of it, but there is prestige to being one of only 5 permanent members, especially when the others are genuinely big hitters. 

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

A fact I was unaware of until today which possibly explains why the Westminster government is refusing to allow democracy to be upheld in my country - the only way a permanent member of the UN Security Council can be removed is when its borders significantly change. 

 

So when Scotland walks away from the UK, it is likely that the rUK will be kicked off the UNSC and become just another mediocre little country. Not that I will laugh, oh no... 

What with the uns pathetic track record think that,d be a case of goodbye and good riddance

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

They do indeed. 

 

The thirty pieces of silver will swerve it.

[mommysboy]

On 10/19/2020 at 10:19 PM, Rookiescot said:

Has to be more to it than that. If that was all they were worried about they would have offered devo max (or at least lived up to their promise of devo max) and killed off calls for independence. 

Nah I suspect there is a far more mundane explanation. 

Money.

As I remember the last vote was in 2014, was done according to SNP designs, and was to be a 'once and for all' referendum.

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

As I remember the last vote was in 2014, was done according to SNP designs, and was to be a 'once and for all' referendum.

It was, but the Nats overlooked that the moon wasn't in the Seventh House and Jupiter didn't align with Mars.

:Aquarius.

[NanLaew]

37 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

As I remember the last vote was in 2014, was done according to SNP designs, and was to be a 'once and for all' referendum.

As the French suggest, "a lot of water has flowed under that bridge"

[transam]

11 hours ago, NanLaew said:

As the French suggest, "a lot of water has flowed under that bridge"

No, Cod...............????

[Rookiescot]

12 hours ago, mommysboy said:

As I remember the last vote was in 2014, was done according to SNP designs, and was to be a 'once and for all' referendum.

Please show me where any legally binding commitment to a "once and for all" exists. 

[RuamRudy]

13 hours ago, mommysboy said:

As I remember the last vote was in 2014, was done according to SNP designs, and was to be a 'once and for all' referendum.

 

Every other person who remembers this particular lie remembers it as 'once in a generation'. 

 

Many thousands of taxpayers' pounds has been spent on coming up with that particular fake news and you go and undermine it with one post. 

 

Thankfully this thread has other, more on-message folks who have no issue whatsoever repeating lies ad nauseum; leave the heavy lifting to them. They are experts. 

[NanLaew]

51 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

13 hours ago, mommysboy said:

As I remember the last vote was in 2014, was done according to SNP designs, and was to be a 'once and for all' referendum.

Please show me where any legally binding commitment to a "once and for all" exists. 

 

It wasn't a legal statement. It was simply a comment thrown out by the then SNP Obergruppenführer Salmond.

 

The new Obergruppenführer Sturgeon can also say anything she wants to make the gullible think the SNP are bold and relevant.

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

It wasn't a legal statement. It was simply a comment thrown out by the then SNP Obergruppenführer Salmond.

 

The new Obergruppenführer Sturgeon can also say anything she wants to make the gullible think the SNP are bold and relevant.

Of course they are not relevant at a UK level. If Scottish voters were relevant in the English parliament, we wouldn't be forced to fund and be governed by the most corrupt, venal, incompetent government in memory. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by RuamRudy

[transam]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Of course they are not relevant at a UK level. If Scottish voters were relevant in the English parliament, we wouldn't be forced to fund and be governed the most corrupt, venal, incompetent government in memory. 

 

 

 

 

Yeh, yeh, yeh.....I think the Monster Raving Loony Party and the Communist Party are now debunked in the UK, but some still hang on to their ideas.........????

[RuamRudy]

Just now, transam said:

Yeh, yeh, yeh.....I think the Monster Raving Loony Party and the Communist Party are now debunked in the UK, but some still hang on to their ideas.........????

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say. 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say. 

Just pointing a fact out....????

[vogie]

18 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Every other person who remembers this particular lie remembers it as 'once in a generation'. 

 

Many thousands of taxpayers' pounds has been spent on coming up with that particular fake news and you go and undermine it with one post. 

 

Thankfully this thread has other, more on-message folks who have no issue whatsoever repeating lies ad nauseum; leave the heavy lifting to them. They are experts. 

Not only was "once in a generation" said, but also "once in a lifetime" these quotes can be attributed to your First Minister and you Deputy Minister, Salmond and Sturgeon.

Also the Edinburgh Agreement states that "a result that everyone will respect" now you can twist that as much as you like but for the most, we all know what it means. 

Why you and a couple of other posters on here cannot accept this is a mystery, but by admitting it I suppose would not do your cause any good now would it.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Not only was "once in a generation" said, but also "once in a lifetime" these quotes can be attributed to your First Minister and you Deputy Minister, Salmond and Sturgeon.

Also the Edinburgh Agreement states that "a result that everyone will respect" now you can twist that as much as you like but for the most, we all know what it means. 

Why you and a couple of other posters on here cannot accept this is a mystery, but by admitting it I suppose would not do your cause any good now would it.

Twisting? Look in the mirror, mate. 

The agreement was respected, otherwise we would be free of this corrupt, racist Brexit sh!tshow of a joke union. 

But unfortunately we remain bound to this rapidly sinking ship of fools. 

 

But tell me, when can we celebrate Johnson, for once being true to his word and being found dead in a ditch? The wake would be epic. 

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Twisting? Look in the mirror, mate. 

The agreement was respected, otherwise we would be free of this corrupt, racist Brexit sh!tshow of a joke union. 

But unfortunately we remain bound to this rapidly sinking ship of fools. 

 

But tell me, when can we celebrate Johnson, for once being true to his word and being found dead in a ditch? The wake would be epic. 

 

What have I twisted?

[RuamRudy]

Just now, vogie said:

What have I twisted?

 

You repeatedly claim that verbal turns of phrase of certain politicians have legal significance while you deny the same of others. 

[vogie]

23 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You repeatedly claim that verbal turns of phrase of certain politicians have legal significance while you deny the same of others. 

Can you show me an example of that accusation please.

So are you happy to agree that everything I wrote in my post is correct?

[RuamRudy]

19 minutes ago, vogie said:

Can you show me an example of that accusation please.

 

I do seem to recall many requests for you to back up your baseless accusations with evidence, only for you to scurry away and go silent - as I mentioned last week when I wroe about cowardice.

 

Anyway, the facts are clear. In the post above, you have imbued constitutional significance upon throwaway comments which were intended to impart the importance of the subject. 

 

On other occasions, you have suggested that 'dead in a ditch' was a turn of phrase that should not be taken as anything of substance. 

 

24 minutes ago, vogie said:

So are you happy to agree that everything I wrote in my post is correct

That the agreement was Intended to be accepted and respected? Yes - as it has been. 

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I do seem to recall many requests for you to back up your baseless accusations with evidence, only for you to scurry away and go silent - as I mentioned last week when I wroe about cowardice.

 

Anyway, the facts are clear. In the post above, you have imbued constitutional significance upon throwaway comments which were intended to impart the importance of the subject. 

 

On other occasions, you have suggested that 'dead in a ditch' was a turn of phrase that should not be taken as anything of substance. 

 

That the agreement was Intended to be accepted and respected? Yes - as it has been. 

First part of your post is purely obfuscation and scurrying away and remaining silent is not part of my psyche thanks very much, but it is not the first time you have invented a story when backed into a corner.

And obviously the agreement hasn't been respected or else you would not have been seeking another referendum, good grief RR, it is not difficult to understand.

[Phulublub]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

Not only was "once in a generation" said, but also "once in a lifetime" these quotes can be attributed to your First Minister and you Deputy Minister, Salmond and Sturgeon.

The original post said "once and for all", which is not the same as either of your quotes. 

 

I recall Salmond saying "once in a generation", but do not recall anyone saying "once in a lifetime".  Can you provide some evidence of it being said by anyone of any significance?

 

If the second quote is not, in fact, accurate, I would ask:  How long is a generation?  Or even a lifetime?  The lifetime of a UK Parliament is five years (maximum).  So we have had more than one Parliamentary lifetime (which would have to be more than a generation) sicne 2014.

 

But even if you consider me to be twisting things, then the fact remains that in 2014 there was no realstic prosepct of the UK leaving the EU but there was a significant risk that an independent Scotland would  have to apply for membership, perhaps with much impaired conditions attahed.  Ther situation has changed hugely and now the choice might be between remaining in an increasingly unwelcome Union with England, or leaving that Union and seeking membership of the EU. Or not - that would be for thr Scots to decide. 

 

I have said before that I voted against independence in 2014.  Were the question asked again I may very well vote the other way.

 

PH