On 3/21/2021 at 10:26 AM, youreavinalaff said:

And you asked me to read whole posts. Blimey. Had you practiced what you preach you would not have needed to ask that question.

The post in question, in full, is

On 3/21/2021 at 8:15 AM, youreavinalaff said:

On 3/17/2021 at 10:45 AM, 7by7 said:

BTW, only 43.6% of voters voted Tory in December 2019. Does your insistence on a 50% plus vote share in Scotland mean that you believe they have no mandate for Brexit?

Why?

 

The Tories were given the mandate for Brexit by the referendum. I believe the referendum result was in the region of 52% in favour.

 Hence my question.

 

Instead of making up an excuse for dodging it, why not answer it?

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

The post in question, in full, is

 Hence my question.

 

Instead of making up an excuse for dodging it, why not answer it?

I did answer it.

 

The general election came after the referendum. The figures of who voted for who has no bearing. The leave vote was over 50%.

 

Thus, your question has no relevance to the Brexit vote.

On 3/21/2021 at 10:26 AM, youreavinalaff said:

The referendum was "leave" or "remain". Not, can we have another vote on anything that we don't like. Are you suggesting that a referendum should be held every time parliament needs to make a decision? That would really get things done, wouldn't it!?. No. The point is that 54% of whoever that voted for what ever is insignificant. It is the number of MPs that are voted in to each party that counts. That is the system. So, a referendum in favour of "leave" and an overwhelming majority in the election for the only party that was going to back the population's vote without trying to change it because of their own beliefs made Brexit happen

 

No, I do not believe that we should adopt a system similar to that in Switzerland and some US states and hold regular referendums.

 

However, to the surprise of no one on the Remain side, the Brexit delivered by Johnson is radically different to the Brexit promised by him and the Leave campaign in 2016 that in this instance we should have been given a say on whether we accepted it or not.

 

Although our FPTP system means that the Tories obtained an 80 seat majority, to say that they had the support of the majority is not true. In the period since the referendum and his victory, a large proportion of those who voted Leave in 2016 have come to realise that they were conned. Hence the Tories only being able to increase their vote share over 2017 by 1.2% despite Labour's falling by 7.8%.

 

On 3/21/2021 at 10:26 AM, youreavinalaff said:

If the independence leaning parties in Scotland get a majority then, if it was my decision, a second referendum would be granted.

 

Agreed.

 

On 3/21/2021 at 10:26 AM, youreavinalaff said:

However, there would be the need to put into the deal how long until the next one should take place to stop the losers, in the case of a repeat of the last result, from banging on about it until they get the result they want.

 

As I have said many times, the reason why the calls for holding IndyRef 2 now are so strong is because the UK Scotland voted to remain a part of in 2014 no longer exists.

 

How many people then anticipated there being a referendum on the UK's EU membership just two years later, let alone the result?

 

So, should Scotland vote to remain, then unless such a radical change to the UK's status happens so soon after the referendum, I see no need to call for another one until a minimum time has passed. I suggest giving the Scots the same terms on that timescale as enjoyed by the Northern Irish; at least seven years.

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I did answer it.

 

The general election came after the referendum. The figures of who voted for who has no bearing. The leave vote was over 50%.

 

Thus, your question has no relevance to the Brexit vote.

 

Your dodging it again has actually answered it.

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Your dodging it again has actually answered it.

No. You are incorrect. My repeat of my first answer means I have answered your question twice.

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

No. You are incorrect. My repeat of my first answer means I have answered your question twice.

 

Have you given a straight yes or no answer? No, you have not.

 

All you have done is give specious reasons for not giving that straight answer.

 

The straight answer you demand from others!

On 3/20/2021 at 10:13 AM, RuamRudy said:

Are you suggesting that Mr Macintosh has relinquished his Labour Party membership? Possibly he has, I have no idea, but it is irrelevant; I made no comment on his impartiality. The point I was responding to stated:

which is clearly not the case.

The fact speaks for itself: Your comment was incorrect.

Now that Sturgeon has been cleared of misconduct, hopefully we can get down to real business. 

 

Scottish independence: Draft bill for indyref2 published

41 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Now that Sturgeon has been cleared of misconduct, hopefully we can get down to real business. 

 

Scottish independence: Draft bill for indyref2 published

 

She will still be guilty in the eyes of Brexiteers and British/English nationalists.

Just as Salmond was even after having been found to be not guilty by the courts.

Of course as soon as it suited their purposes Salmond became a victim of conspiracy and was now an innocent man.

Give it a couple of months and there's every chance Salmond will be back to being a figure of hate for them.

58 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

She will still be guilty in the eyes of Brexiteers and British/English nationalists.

Just as Salmond was even after having been found to be not guilty by the courts.

Of course as soon as it suited their purposes Salmond became a victim of conspiracy and was now an innocent man.

Give it a couple of months and there's every chance Salmond will be back to being a figure of hate for them.

I am sure that she is guilty in many Scottish Nationalists eyes too, but will they admit it, of course not it just wouldn't fit in with their narrative now would it. 

 

But wait a second, who was this mysterious poster who was saying. ⬇️⬇️⬇️

????????????

 

On 3/1/2021 at 11:04 AM, Rookiescot said:

 

If you ask me she should resign right now. Definitely something stinky going on. And even if its not her its happened on her watch.

 

 

32 minutes ago, vogie said:

I am sure that she is guilty in many Scottish Nationalists eyes too, but will they admit it, of course not it just wouldn't fit in with their narrative now would it. 

 

But wait a second, who was this mysterious poster who was saying. ⬇️⬇️⬇️

????????????

 

 

 

I still hold that to be true. The entire thing has been a shambles and Sturgeon has not covered herself in glory.

No-one is more important than independence. Sturgeons mishandling of all this put her in the crosshairs of all the rabid unionists and the media. 

Whether she is guilty or not she has to a certain extent become a liability.  

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

I still hold that to be true. The entire thing has been a shambles and Sturgeon has not covered herself in glory.

No-one is more important than independence. Sturgeons mishandling of all this put her in the crosshairs of all the rabid unionists and the media. 

Whether she is guilty or not she has to a certain extent become a liability.  

 

There has definitely been something awry in how the whole affair was dealt with, but her integrity remains unsullied despite the best efforts of the Nasty Party. I think so close to an election, it is the wrong time to change leaders.

 

I look forward to the Nasty Party trying to claim that their collective silence over Johnson's misleading of parliament, his lying to the queen, his corruption, plus, of course the illegal activities of Hancock, the bullying by Patel etc, is not a sign of their odious politicising and hypocrisy.

 

Even Starmer called for Sturgeon to resign before she was cleared of wrong-doing, but said that Johnson should stay despite his repeated lying to parliament. Is there a single Yoon politician who is not a lying hypocrite?

 

Also, it is worth noting that whoever leaked the Holyrood committee report is guilty of breaching ministerial code. Their collective cowardice will come to the fore in the coming days, no doubt, as they all deny responsibility. I hope that there is a full inquiry into their actions, and that the culprit is dealt with appropriately. 

 

I am sure that the electorate will look at it all and conclude who is in the right and who is in the wrong. 

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

There has definitely been something awry in how the whole affair was dealt with, but her integrity remains unsullied despite the best efforts of the Nasty Party. I think so close to an election, it is the wrong time to change leaders.

 

I look forward to the Nasty Party trying to claim that their collective silence over Johnson's misleading of parliament, his lying to the queen, his corruption, plus, of course the illegal activities of Hancock, the bullying by Patel etc, is not a sign of their odious politicising and hypocrisy.

 

Even Starmer called for Sturgeon to resign before she was cleared of wrong-doing, but said that Johnson should stay despite his repeated lying to parliament. Is there a single Yoon politician who is not a lying hypocrite?

 

Also, it is worth noting that whoever leaked the Holyrood committee report is guilty of breaching ministerial code. Their collective cowardice will come to the fore in the coming days, no doubt, as they all deny responsibility. I hope that there is a full inquiry into their actions, and that the culprit is dealt with appropriately. 

 

I am sure that the electorate will look at it all and conclude who is in the right and who is in the wrong. 

 

I have to say I am enjoying the meltdown of the unionists. They had worked themselves into such a feeding frenzy they are now venting with fury but their leaders are curiously silent. Lady Davidson is posted missing. Rent a quote Jackie Baillie has gone to ground somewhere. Wee Willie Rennie is hiding behind the sofa.

The unionist media is also devastated. Not since Salmond was acquitted have I seen them so crestfallen.

Absolutely delicious.

 

And since we ALL believe in the polls again.

New poll on Scottish independence records majority for Yes | The National  

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

I have to say I am enjoying the meltdown of the unionists. They had worked themselves into such a feeding frenzy they are now venting with fury but their leaders are curiously silent. Lady Davidson is posted missing. Rent a quote Jackie Baillie has gone to ground somewhere. Wee Willie Rennie is hiding behind the sofa.

The unionist media is also devastated. Not since Salmond was acquitted have I seen them so crestfallen.

Absolutely delicious.

 

And since we ALL believe in the polls again.

New poll on Scottish independence records majority for Yes | The National  

 

Their tacticians are surely for the chop; their attempt to bring down Sturgeon seems to have been a spectacular own goal. Apparently another 10,000 people signed up for the SNP in the past 2 weeks. 

 

I wonder will Dross last the year? He will most likely scrape in to Holyrood on a list seat, being too cowardly to (1) give up his Westminster seat; (2) stand in a constituency seat. I am actually looking forward to the mauling he is going to take week after week in Edinburgh - generally I would not cheer the repeated humiliation of anyone, but here is a former playground bully with, seemingly, nothing in his personality to like. I will make an exception in this case and take delight in his being repeatedly exposed as the arrogant, incompetent charlatan he truly is. 

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Their tacticians are surely for the chop; their attempt to bring down Sturgeon seems to have been a spectacular own goal. Apparently another 10,000 people signed up for the SNP in the past 2 weeks. 

 

I wonder will Dross last the year? He will most likely scrape in to Holyrood on a list seat, being too cowardly to (1) give up his Westminster seat; (2) stand in a constituency seat. I am actually looking forward to the mauling he is going to take week after week in Edinburgh - generally I would not cheer the repeated humiliation of anyone, but here is a former playground bully with, seemingly, nothing in his personality to like. I will make an exception in this case and take delight in his being repeatedly exposed as the arrogant, incompetent charlatan he truly is. 

 

If you want a laugh read this thread from the beginning again.

Some of those posts have not aged well. ???? 

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

 

If you want a laugh read this thread from the beginning again.

Some of those posts have not aged well. ???? 

 

And some previously very vocal posters now conspicuous in their absence - what a difference a day (and the truth) makes!

Just been reading that in the past month, the Tories have tweeted 181 times about Nicola Sturgeon, calling for her to resign. 

In the same time, when Johnson has genuinely been found, again, to have lied to parliament, they have made no comments on it whatsoever. Tories truly are shameless liars. 

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Just been reading that in the past month, the Tories have tweeted 181 times about Nicola Sturgeon, calling for her to resign. 

In the same time, when Johnson has genuinely been found, again, to have lied to parliament, they have made no comments on it whatsoever. Tories truly are shameless liars. 

We need an angry emoji.......

14 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

If, after having read my responses, you cannot decipher my clear and obvious answers, I am not surprised you cannot hold down a job in UK. 555

 Still dodging the question, and now resorting to personal insults.

 

How old are you; 10?

Reported troll comment removed.

“The Scottish Conservatives will give Nicola Sturgeon a last chance to resign for misleading the Scottish parliament,” the party said in a statement on Friday. “Should the first minister refuse, the party will proceed with a vote of no confidence on Wednesday.”

 

????

53 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Still dodging the question, and now resorting to personal insults.

 

How old are you; 10?

Funnily enough, if I were only 10, that would make you look a little silly as I seem to have more knowledge of election and referendum voting procedures than you do.

 

I have stated that the less than 50% that the Tories got in the last election has no bearing on Brexit. The referendum had a majority of OVER 50% and therefore "leave" was how any future government should have moved forward. That is what the Tories did. You questioned the new governments mandate to act upon that vote even though less than 50% of the electorate voted for them.

 

Sadly, for you and your argument, that theory is flawed. You need to look at the laws. The Tory government has more than 50% representation in parliament. Therefore, if all of their MPs are in agreement, they have the mandate to proceed. This is clearly backed up by the previous government not being able to proceed because they could not get a majority vote in parliament. It is doubly backed up by the fact that Scotland could not proceed with independence as their referendum did not achieve 50% even though the SNP had a majority in Scottish Parliament.

 

So let's make it simple for you. The %%% of votes attained by the Tories in the last election has NO bearing on how Brexit should have moved forward. It has NO bearing on the referendum result. It is NOthing to do with it.

 

The argument that you used was in reference to Scotland needing more than 50% in a referendum to go ahead with independence. I'm quite sure, after all the posts you have made on the matter, you understand that referendums and general elections are voted for under different systems. Thus, your comparison in the two in your question is flawed and a simple "YES" "NO" answer cannot be offered without a clear explanation backing up the reasons why. Which I have now done 3 times.

 

I hope that makes it clear.

 

 

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Funnily enough, if I were only 10, that would make you look a little silly as I seem to have more knowledge of election and referendum voting procedures than you do.

 

I have stated that the less than 50% that the Tories got in the last election has no bearing on Brexit. The referendum had a majority of OVER 50% and therefore "leave" was how any future government should have moved forward. That is what the Tories did. You questioned the new governments mandate to act upon that vote even though less than 50% of the electorate voted for them.

 

Sadly, for you and your argument, that theory is flawed. You need to look at the laws. The Tory government has more than 50% representation in parliament. Therefore, if all of their MPs are in agreement, they have the mandate to proceed. This is clearly backed up by the previous government not being able to proceed because they could not get a majority vote in parliament. It is doubly backed up by the fact that Scotland could not proceed with independence as their referendum did not achieve 50% even though the SNP had a majority in Scottish Parliament.

 

So let's make it simple for you. The %%% of votes attained by the Tories in the last election has NO bearing on how Brexit should have moved forward. It has NO bearing on the referendum result. It is NOthing to do with it.

 

The argument that you used was in reference to Scotland needing more than 50% in a referendum to go ahead with independence. I'm quite sure, after all the posts you have made on the matter, you understand that referendums and general elections are voted for under different systems. Thus, your comparison in the two in your question is flawed and a simple "YES" "NO" answer cannot be offered without a clear explanation backing up the reasons why. Which I have now done 3 times.

 

I hope that makes it clear.

 

 

 

A lengthy way of dodging the question, with additional insults thrown in for good measure. The only surprise is that, unlike your posts elsewhere, you're not insulting my wife as well!

 

The actual question was: "Many Brexiteers and those opposed to IndyRef2 have made it clear that they only believe in democracy when the result suits them. Are you in that group?"

 

A simple question which only requires a simple Yes/No answer; which you have consistently failed to provide.

 

You can provide one now, or you can post yet another lengthy excuse for dodging it: complete with insults. But I'm done playing Paxman to your Howard.

 

 

I thought this thread would be busy today with unionists and British/English nationalists wishing to retract their smears against Sturgeon.

But it just seems to be empty. 

 

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

I thought this thread would be busy today with unionists and British/English nationalists wishing to retract their smears against Sturgeon.

But it just seems to be empty. 

 

 

On 3/1/2021 at 11:04 AM, Rookiescot said:

 

If you ask me she should resign right now. Definitely something stinky going on. And even if its not her its happened on her watch.

 

You first!

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

You first!

 

Nice that you only quoted part of my post.

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

A lengthy way of dodging the question, with additional insults thrown in for good measure. The only surprise is that, unlike your posts elsewhere, you're not insulting my wife as well!

 

The actual question was: "Many Brexiteers and those opposed to IndyRef2 have made it clear that they only believe in democracy when the result suits them. Are you in that group?"

 

A simple question which only requires a simple Yes/No answer; which you have consistently failed to provide.

 

You can provide one now, or you can post yet another lengthy excuse for dodging it: complete with insults. But I'm done playing Paxman to your Howard.

 

 

No. The question was regarding the less than 50% of votes the Tories got in the most recent election.

 

With regards to the above question, I did point out that I am more than happy for Scotland to have Indyref2. Thus, answering your question. 

25 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Nice that you only quoted part of my post.

Being economical with the truth again rookie, here is your post in all of its entirety, exactly the same as I posted last time.

 

Regardless of what the english think are the reasons scotland should not leave. 

It should be up to scotland to decide what it wants and when it wants and what party it wants to lead them.

 

that can be sturgeon or not. That can be to stay in the union or not.

 

it should not be for anyone else to decide what that country wants to do and when it wants to do it.

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Being economical with the truth again rookie, here is your post in all of its entirety, exactly the same as I posted last time.

 

 

Right OK I was thinking of another post I have made. I have had to repeat myself numerous times.

I will repeat what I said again.

Sturgeon has now become somewhat of liability because of the negative press coverage and the entire process has not covered her in glory.

However that post was made on March 1st. If she had gone then we would have had time to elect a new leader of the SNP before going into the Holyrood elections in May.

Now its too late.

But it turns out this wasn't "the big one" was it Vogie? Its not "bigger than Watergate" and Sturgeon did not "try and get an innocent man jailed".

It also appears that the polls are showing a lead for independence again.

We do still believe the polls dont we Vogie?