Scottish nationalists set for record majority, boosting independence push

[IvorBiggun2]

12 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

It was always Salmonds phrase.

Apparently more than one SNP leader said it.

 

 

Quote

 

Mr Salmond and his team used the phrase several times in interviews, including one with Andrew Marr where he said that "in my view this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime opportunity".

His deputy Ms Sturgeon, used that "lifetime" phrase during the final Holyrood debate before the referendum - as did three other SNP MSPs, before passing a motion which also called the ballot the "opportunity of a lifetime".

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175

[RuamRudy]

53 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

Apparently more than one SNP leader said it.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175

 

Johnson said he would rather be dead in a ditch than seek an extension to Brexit. Do you understand the difference between a turn of phrase and a legally binding agreement? 

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

No.

So a completely different economic situation has no effect on the outlook of the people. Strange way of thinking.

[youreavinalaff]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So a completely different economic situation has no effect on the outlook of the people. Strange way of thinking.

Not at all. The new economic situation has no bearing on Scotland alone. It is the UK that left the EU.

 

When those in Scotland realise this they will no doubt feel better. Particularly the majority. That is those that voted NO.

[vogie]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Johnson said he would rather be dead in a ditch than seek an extension to Brexit. Do you understand the difference between a turn of phrase and a legally binding agreement? 

Johnsons statement was a metaphor, Salmonds was stated to the Scottish people as fact, he also said any such referendum must be respected whichever way it went.

 

[mommysboy]

8 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

 

You guys made the rules, so, I guess you'll have to live with the result.

 

That is correct, the referendum was designed by the Scots, even down to the timing, which gave them all the advantages.  It was agreed that it should be 'once and for all', and that is usually taken to mean 30-40 years. Even then a quite respectable majority returned a vote to remain.  Less than a week later, the SNP started banging the drum for independence again. This was way before the EU referendum.  So in the independence referendum SNP was campaigning for leave despite it meaning a withdrawal from the EU, thereafter they continued on the same path way before Brexit was envisaged. 

[RuamRudy]

50 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

Johnsons statement was a metaphor, Salmonds was stated to the Scottish people as fact, he also said any such referendum must be respected whichever way it went.

 

 

Nonsense, of course, but I can tell you what was stated as fact - that the only way to remain in the EU was to vote no. 

 

As we know, that wasn't enough to fool most Scots - the majority wanted shot of this corrupt, fetid Union then, albeit not nearly in as sizeable numbers as today, but it fooled the others in Scotland to vote No. 

[IvorBiggun2]

11 hours ago, 2530Ubon said:

 

Ok, now we all know that you are commenting on a topic that you haven't the foggiest idea about.

 

Watch the video and weep.

 

 

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

Absolute rubbish. It was Sturgeon that made  the statement, not Salmond.

 

 

Just goes to show how distorted comments come about, one thing gets said and something else gets written by someone else, it all becomes a mishmash theory that is supposed to construed as some valid argument.

One has to assume you disagree with Bojo, he uses the "once in a generation" phrase.

It was Alex Salmond that wrote the foreword to the Scottish Government document.

 

 A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/

[sandyf]

12 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

 

It all boils down to ones interpretation of who said what. May be a read of this

 will clear things up?

Yes this statement from your link is perfectly clear, but there is no accounting for unreasonable persons.

 

Nothing in this statement suggests Salmond is agreeing to close down opportunities in the future to oppose austerity or Brexit, if necessary, and no reasonable person could read that into the quote.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18159096.fact-check-claim-snp-vowed-indyref-once-lifetime-opportunity/

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Just goes to show how distorted comments come about, one thing gets said and something else gets written by someone else, it all becomes a mishmash theory that is supposed to construed as some valid argument.

One has to assume you disagree with Bojo, he uses the "once in a generation" phrase.

It was Alex Salmond that wrote the foreword to the Scottish Government document.

 

 A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/

Not sure of your point here Sandy, Scotland said 'no'

[sandyf]

10 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Johnson said he would rather be dead in a ditch than seek an extension to Brexit. Do you understand the difference between a turn of phrase and a legally binding agreement? 

Not forgetting he was to lie down in front of the bulldozer, but guess what.

 

Boris Johnson has gone back on his claim that he would lie down in front of bulldozers to stop the construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport, saying that would now be 'technically difficult'.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/boris-johnson-goes-back-on-heathrow-expansion-promise-to-lie-64688

[bkkcanuck8]

9 hours ago, vogie said:

 

Johnsons statement was a metaphor, Salmonds was stated to the Scottish people as fact, he also said any such referendum must be respected whichever way it went.

 

Respected just means you don't declare sovereignty without winning the referendum preceding it.  Just as respecting the election results of a general election does not mean that there are no more elections.  "Once in a lifetime opportunity" is a common sales pitch, but almost never is it a "once in a lifetime" event -- it is just motivational speech that is a wee bit exaggerated. 

 

[vogie]

31 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Respected just means you don't declare sovereignty without winning the referendum preceding it.  Just as respecting the election results of a general election does not mean that there are no more elections.  "Once in a lifetime opportunity" is a common sales pitch, but almost never is it a "once in a lifetime" event -- it is just motivational speech that is a wee bit exaggerated. 

 

Nice try but I'm afraid you'll have to walk 500 miles for the cigar. When the leader of the SNP and his Deputy Leader catagorically says that this is a once in a lifetime/generation and even backs it up with, it is a result that the Scottish people must respect, he is not trying to sell you a vacuum cleaner, he is saying it as it is. 

But I do agree it is sometimes very difficult to judge whether the SNP is lying or telling the truth.

[bkkcanuck8]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Nice try but I'm afraid you'll have to walk 500 miles for the cigar. When the leader of the SNP and his Deputy Leader catagorically says that this is a once in a lifetime/generation and even backs it up with, it is a result that the Scottish people must respect, he is not trying to sell you a vacuum cleaner, he is saying it as it is. 

But I do agree it is sometimes very difficult to judge whether the SNP is lying or telling the truth.

It is difficult to judge whether most politicians are telling the truth or lying (though if you are not sure - maybe they are just misrepresenting).  It would have likely been a once in a generation event since holding referendum after referendum with no change the landscape -- has significant political risk (it is why even though Quebec can hold a referendum anytime it wants -- it does not happen too often [1980, 1995]).  The party calling for a referendum really has to be given a political reason to call another referendum if they want to mitigate the risk.... that is where Brexit comes into play and the broken promises that have never been fulfilled that were made during the referendum (not to mention the change in the Better Together campaign slogan "Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.").   In effect Brexit itself was a big enough change in the landscape that it gives the Scottish parliament all the ammo it needs to say -- things have changed and thus a new referendum is a politically acceptable answer. 

[RuamRudy]

30 minutes ago, vogie said:

Nice try but I'm afraid you'll have to walk 500 miles for the cigar. When the leader of the SNP and his Deputy Leader catagorically says that this is a once in a lifetime/generation and even backs it up with, it is a result that the Scottish people must respect, he is not trying to sell you a vacuum cleaner, he is saying it as it is. 

But I do agree it is sometimes very difficult to judge whether the SNP is lying or telling the truth.

 

The desperation in the British Nationalists is clear when this is the only thing they can drag up to try prevent independence.

 

The weakness of this particular claim makes it utterly risible, but the reality is that there is no other argument available to them. Deep down, they know that their precious union is unwanted by the majority of Scots; they know that only the undemocratic diktak from an unelected, unwanted party imposed upon us by another country is keeping this corrupt union together. 

 

There is only one direction the UK is headed, and thankfully that's the history books. 

[vogie]

25 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

It is difficult to judge whether most politicians are telling the truth or lying (though if you are not sure - maybe they are just misrepresenting).  It would have likely been a once in a generation event since holding referendum after referendum with no change the landscape -- has significant political risk (it is why even though Quebec can hold a referendum anytime it wants -- it does not happen too often [1980, 1995]).  The party calling for a referendum really has to be given a political reason to call another referendum if they want to mitigate the risk.... that is where Brexit comes into play and the broken promises that have never been fulfilled that were made during the referendum (not to mention the change in the Better Together campaign slogan "Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.").   In effect Brexit itself was a big enough change in the landscape that it gives the Scottish parliament all the ammo it needs to say -- things have changed and thus a new referendum is a politically acceptable answer. 

But it doesn't alter the fact that in 2014 Scotland as well as voting to leave the UK they were voting to leave the EU, because that is exactly what would have happened if the Scots in all their entirety had won on a majority to leave the UK.

If anything Brexit has made it even more difficult for the SNP to persuade the Scots to partition the UK, can you imaging the Scots joining the EU and having to have a hard border with their biggest trading partner, it doesn't even bare thinking about, in my opinion it will not take a lot of convincing some hard line Nationalists which side their bread is buttered.

But your interpretation of what the SNP leaders said is only that, an interpretation.

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The desperation in the British Nationalists is clear when this is the only thing they can drag up to try prevent independence.

 

The weakness of this particular claim makes it utterly risible, but the reality is that there is no other argument available to them. Deep down, they know that their precious union is unwanted by the majority of Scots; they know that only the undemocratic diktak from an unelected, unwanted party imposed upon us by another country is keeping this corrupt union together. 

 

There is only one direction the UK is headed, and thankfully that's the history books. 

Now you are accusing "the English Nationalists" isn't that something a Nationalist would say to take pressure of a country that has a government that is predominantly Nationalist. We may have a few nasty creepy crawly hiding under our skirting boards, but let's be clear the SNP has a total infestation of them.????

The Scots themselves prevented independence and no-one else!

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, vogie said:

Now you are accusing "the English Nationalists" isn't that something a Nationalist would say to take pressure of a country that has a government that is predominantly Nationalist. We may have a few nasty creepy crawly hiding under our skirting boards, but let's be clear the SNP has a total infestation of them.????

The Scots themselves prevented independence and no-one else!

Where did I write 'English Nationalists'? 

 

I am not a member of the SNP and independence for Scotland is not about securing an SNP future. They are the most likely to deliver it but that is where my loyalty to them lies. 

 

But its funny just how out of step your thinking is with the whole of the UK. What is it, vogie, you are right and most people in the UK are wrong? 

 

 

Trust in Nicola Sturgeon four times higher than Boris Johnson

 

Coronavirus in Scotland: Nicola Sturgeon more liked in England than Boris Johnson

 

[vogie]

24 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Where did I write 'English Nationalists'? 

 

I am not a member of the SNP and independence for Scotland is not about securing an SNP future. They are the most likely to deliver it but that is where my loyalty to them lies. 

 

But its funny just how out of step your thinking is with the whole of the UK. What is it, vogie, you are right and most people in the UK are wrong? 

 

 

Trust in Nicola Sturgeon four times higher than Boris Johnson

 

Coronavirus in Scotland: Nicola Sturgeon more liked in England than Boris Johnson

 

Where did I say you were a member of the SNP, but your words portray you as a fervent follower of the revolution.

I think anyone is more popular than Boris at the moment, it cannot be easy to make the decisions in these serious times, I'm sure he hates the decisions he is having to make. I believe Hitler was the most popular leader in the thirties so what does that prove, I am not denying that Sturgeon is not popular, the paradox is the more mistakes and lies that she and the SNP tell/make, the more popular she becomes.

Just to finish, I am not out of step with anyone, never forget it was the Scots that voted to remain within the UK and you coming out with profound statements like you do will not change that fact.

 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

But it doesn't alter the fact that in 2014 Scotland as well as voting to leave the UK they were voting to leave the EU, because that is exactly what would have happened if the Scots in all their entirety had won on a majority to leave the UK.

If anything Brexit has made it even more difficult for the SNP to persuade the Scots to partition the UK, can you imaging the Scots joining the EU and having to have a hard border with their biggest trading partner, it doesn't even bare thinking about, in my opinion it will not take a lot of convincing some hard line Nationalists which side their bread is buttered.

But your interpretation of what the SNP leaders said is only that, an interpretation.

"If anything Brexit has made it even more difficult for the SNP to persuade the Scots to partition the UK, can you imaging the Scots joining the EU and having to have a hard border with their biggest trading partner, it doesn't even bare thinking about,"

That decision is really up to the Scots. The English deciding what is the best thing for the Scots is really not the way forward.

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"If anything Brexit has made it even more difficult for the SNP to persuade the Scots to partition the UK, can you imaging the Scots joining the EU and having to have a hard border with their biggest trading partner, it doesn't even bare thinking about,"

That decision is really up to the Scots. The English deciding what is the best thing for the Scots is really not the way forward.

 

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"If anything Brexit has made it even more difficult for the SNP to persuade the Scots to partition the UK, can you imaging the Scots joining the EU and having to have a hard border with their biggest trading partner, it doesn't even bare thinking about,"

That decision is really up to the Scots. The English deciding what is the best thing for the Scots is really not the way forward.

A border between England and Scotland affects everyone that lives in the United Kingdom, it is not what is best for the Scots, it is what is best for the UK.

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

But it doesn't alter the fact that in 2014 Scotland as well as voting to leave the UK they were voting to leave the EU, because that is exactly what would have happened if the Scots in all their entirety had won on a majority to leave the UK.

If anything Brexit has made it even more difficult for the SNP to persuade the Scots to partition the UK, can you imaging the Scots joining the EU and having to have a hard border with their biggest trading partner, it doesn't even bare thinking about, in my opinion it will not take a lot of convincing some hard line Nationalists which side their bread is buttered.

But your interpretation of what the SNP leaders said is only that, an interpretation.

 

Hard borders work all over the world. The US has hard borders with both Mexico and Canada, 2 of its 3 biggest trading partners. Why, therefore, would a border between Scotland and England be more problematic? 

[vogie]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

Hard borders work all over the world. The US has hard borders with both Mexico and Canada, 2 of its 3 biggest trading partners. Why, therefore, would a border between Scotland and England be more problematic? 

And some borders don't, were you an avid fan of the East and West German border, personally I was none too keen.

[Mavideol]

Just now, vogie said:

 

A border between England and Scotland affects everyone that lives in the United Kingdom, it is not what is best for the Scots, it is what is best for the UK.

it will not matter as there will no longer be a UK (NI and I united and Wales becoming part of England)   555

[vogie]

Just now, Mavideol said:

it will not matter as there will no longer be a UK (NI and I united and Wales becoming part of England)   555

And a Happy New Year to you too.????????????

[RuamRudy]

Just now, vogie said:

And some borders don't, were you an avid fan of the East and West German border, personally I was none too keen.

 

I thought this was a semi serious discussion, but clearly you have a different view on it. 

[vogie]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

I thought this was a semi serious discussion, but clearly you have a different view on it. 

Ping, what was that, it was a deflection. 

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

it will not matter as there will no longer be a UK (NI and I united and Wales becoming part of England)   555

 

Don't dismiss Welsh independence as a possible outcome. That movement is still some way behind their Scottish brethren but it is growing rapidly. 

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Ping, what was that, it was a deflection. 

 

Derision, not deflection.