3 Things that will make your relationship successful in Thailand

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Can you provide reasoning for that proposal?

If, indeed, it can be demonstrated as the means of conducting a fair referendum, I further propose that we retroactively apply those same criteria to Brexit.

I'd not disagree about brexit.  The margin was too fine and some style of a %age condition might have avoided the serious divisiveness that we see now.  It was a condition of a prior scottish independence referendum, so it appears to be a legal way of doing it, but really -- is democracy by referendum a good idea?  Switzerland is pretty sick of it.  The UK's party political system stinks and has the unfortunate result of annoying everyone equally. General elections are a money race -- biggest election budget wins.  Lobbying is a commercial enterprise and things like a three-line whip are an affront to the democratic right of an MP trying to represent his constituents.  And we complain about Russian democracy!  

 

 

[RuamRudy]

 
One can only hope. I have been dreaming of an independent England for as long as I can remember. People from the rest of the UK think the UK is mostly the will of the English and England alone. Reality is it was thrust onto them as it was everyone else. I personally cannot abide all the whining, so let's all stand on our own two-feet; no subsidies, no bitterness, just get on with it.
 
... back to the world of dreams, I do believe the Scots are less willing than before their ref, which is a shame, and there would be hardly any willing in Wales at all. How could they prop themselves up for one? NI would sooner go independent than re-unify with Eire (which I would also like to see), which is even less likely again, plus they also spurned their last ref.
 
As for the op: Scottish minister calls for clarity over UK single market status... you will be told when they are good and ready, which has been the MO from day one.

I agree with most of what you say - I also wish for a peaceful, amicable separation that leaves all parties satisfied, or at least without internal turmoil.

However I think it is unacceptable that the devolved parliaments are not given full and clear details of the Brexit plan well in advance. If the country was in unison with Brexit, then it is a different matter, however Scotland clearly doesn't want to leave the EU, and Sturgeon is doing what any responsible leader would do - trying to get the best for her country.

[jpinx]

It's really not possible to cherry-pick your favourite scenario -- devolution, independence, or Brexit.  The facts are simple -- Brexit was voted for by the UK as a whole.  There is no requirement under the Westminster/Holyrood arrangements for Holyrood to be given prior information about the negotiations.  The fact that Scotland voted to remain is no more of a quirk than London doing the same, and London has equally no right to prior information.

 

Don't misunderstand this -- there is a lot of sympathy for people who are not happy on both sides,  but we really need to be pragmatic now and just "get on with it". 

[RuamRudy]

It's really not possible to cherry-pick your favourite scenario -- devolution, independence, or Brexit.  The facts are simple -- Brexit was voted for by the UK as a whole.  There is no requirement under the Westminster/Holyrood arrangements for Holyrood to be given prior information about the negotiations.  The fact that Scotland voted to remain is no more of a quirk than London doing the same, and London has equally no right to prior information.

 

Don't misunderstand this -- there is a lot of sympathy for people who are not happy on both sides,  but we really need to be pragmatic now and just "get on with it". 

It is an unwinnable argument from both our standpoints - I see Scotland as being greater than simply a region of the UK such as London or the West Midlands. I don't mean that from a dismissive or superior tone, but simply that we, as a country, are afforded much more latitude within the UK; Nicola Sturgeon is much more powerful than Sadiq Khan.

But I also accept that we should not be able to stop the wishes of the majority of the UK - just that we should not be be dragged along against our will.

I will be honest with you - the Brexit result was, for me, the best possible outcome.

I appreciate that, for those with an eye to the continuation of the UK, a pragmatic approach nationwide is the only possible way forward, but for those of us who believe that the home countries would each benefit from the dissolution of the UK, the opportunity to explore that dissolution is great - exactly what Sturgeon is doing.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I think a lot will depend on how the referendum is written and by whom.

 

This time it should permit ALL people of Scottish ancestry no matter where they live provided that they are still on an electoral roll anywhere worldwide and to have voted at least once in the last 15 years.

 

There should also be in place a minimum of 60% of the eligible voters must vote on the referendum with a 2/3 majority to carry the vote.

 

If that cannot be achieved then the referendum should be declared null and void, with the the option of a further referendum in 10 years time.

 

Although the UK government retained control of constitutional matters post devolution, for the 2014 referendum the UK government agreed to hand over the power to set all the criteria for the referendum to the Scottish parliament; which the Scottish parliament did with the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013

 

It was the Scottish parliament who decided the question.

 

It was the Scottish parliament who decided that EU and Commonwealth nationals living in Scotland could vote, but Scots living outside Scotland, even those living in the rest of the UK, couldn't.

 

It was the Scottish parliament who decided a simple majority of those voting would decide the result.

 

Of course, for Scottish parliament read SNP, as it was they who held the majority of seats in the Scottish parliament at the time.

 

So those who are not happy with the way that referendum was run, particularly with who could and could not vote, should take their complaints to the people responsible; the SNP in general; Sturgeon, who introduced the Bill, and Salmond, who led the party at the time, in particular.

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Although the UK government retained control of constitutional matters post devolution, for the 2014 referendum the UK government agreed to hand over the power to set all the criteria for the referendum to the Scottish parliament; which the Scottish parliament did with the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013

 

It was the Scottish parliament who decided the question.

 

It was the Scottish parliament who decided that EU and Commonwealth nationals living in Scotland could vote, but Scots living outside Scotland, even those living in the rest of the UK, couldn't.

 

It was the Scottish parliament who decided a simple majority of those voting would decide the result.

 

Of course, for Scottish parliament read SNP, as it was they who held the majority of seats in the Scottish parliament at the time.

 

So those who are not happy with the way that referendum was run, particularly with who could and could not vote, should take their complaints to the people responsible; the SNP in general; Sturgeon, who introduced the Bill, and Salmond, who led the party at the time, in particular.

You're right, and the biggest bone of contention was the choice about who could vote.  The irony of those choices was that several Scots who were ineligible to vote were instrumental in the last-minute surge of the unionists.  That, and numerous other examples, merely demonstrate the incompetence of Sturgeon's thinking.  She's a political lightweight and has no place trying to lead the Scottish people.  That said -- she is, and we and Westminster are stuck with her.    I believe Scotland could be an independent country under the crown, but not by the route Sturgeon has mapped out.

[7by7]

Not sure that I agree with

12 minutes ago, jpinx said:

several Scots who were ineligible to vote were instrumental in the last-minute surge of the unionists.

as it seemed to me at the time that it was nationalist ex pat Scots who were complaining loudest about not being able to vote; and, wrongly, blaming Westminster for it!

 

Or maybe that was just on this board?

 

 

[jpinx]

28 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Not sure that I agree with

as it seemed to me at the time that it was nationalist ex pat Scots who were complaining loudest about not being able to vote; and, wrongly, blaming Westminster for it!

 

Or maybe that was just on this board?

 

 

Not only here in TV -- it was the usual round of misunderstood misinformation.  Next rounds are 2020 and 2021 but Brexit will probably change the landscape before that.

Edited December 28, 2016 by jpinx

[RuamRudy]

Not sure that I agree with
as it seemed to me at the time that it was nationalist ex pat Scots who were complaining loudest about not being able to vote; and, wrongly, blaming Westminster for it!
 
Or maybe that was just on this board?
 
 

I wasn't able to vote but I saw the sense in that - where do you draw the line? If I left Scotland as a toddler, never having returned, should I still be allowed a vote? I don't think so.

[RuamRudy]

You're right, and the biggest bone of contention was the choice about who could vote.  The irony of those choices was that several Scots who were ineligible to vote were instrumental in the last-minute surge of the unionists.  That, and numerous other examples, merely demonstrate the incompetence of Sturgeon's thinking.  She's a political lightweight and has no place trying to lead the Scottish people.  That said -- she is, and we and Westminster are stuck with her.    I believe Scotland could be an independent country under the crown, but not by the route Sturgeon has mapped out.

I cannot help but feel that your enmity towards Sturgeon is based upon your personal feelings rather than on valid reasoning.

As with any administration, hers has its challenges, but I think she is making a much better fist of things than the PM.

Despite some obvious setbacks, she and her party still command vastly more respect and support in Scotland than any other party.

It will be interesting to see how Ruth Davidson manages the dichotomy she is placed in - supporting the tories, who will yank an unwilling Scotland out of the EU. I would, however, be disappointed if her honeymoon period was over - she keeps the SNP on their toes, not a bad thing at all.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I wasn't able to vote but I saw the sense in that - where do you draw the line? If I left Scotland as a toddler, never having returned, should I still be allowed a vote? I don't think so.

Yes - it would have taken some creative thinking to come up with a verifiable formula to allow all "true Scots" to vote, given the multitudes of "Scottish" families in USA and Canada alone.  There was also a cogent argument for making it a UK-wide referendum, since the break-up of the Union would affect everyone in the UK, not only Scotland.

 

Referendums are a blunt instrument, the SNP did get it right by standing for election on an Independence ticket. The referendum was forced on Scotland by Westminster in that case, though the question could and should have been resolved at a General election, if only MP's could be trusted to stand by their promises......... 

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I wasn't able to vote but I saw the sense in that - where do you draw the line? If I left Scotland as a toddler, never having returned, should I still be allowed a vote? I don't think so.

 

 

Perhaps they could have used a similar criterion for ex pats voting in a UK general election; i.e. been able to register as an overseas voter because they had previously been registered in a UK constituency within the last fifteen years.

 

That would certainly have allowed the many people born in Scotland yet who now live in other parts of the UK to vote.

 

But for their own reasons, the SNP decided against this; even though many of the Scottish diaspora, especially those living and working or studying elsewhere in the UK and Europe, intend to return home someday.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I cannot help but feel that your enmity towards Sturgeon is based upon your personal feelings rather than on valid reasoning.

As with any administration, hers has its challenges, but I think she is making a much better fist of things than the PM.

Despite some obvious setbacks, she and her party still command vastly more respect and support in Scotland than any other party.

It will be interesting to see how Ruth Davidson manages the dichotomy she is placed in - supporting the tories, who will yank an unwilling Scotland out of the EU. I would, however, be disappointed if her honeymoon period was over - she keeps the SNP on their toes, not a bad thing at all.

Have you met her?  Or Ruth Davidson? 

[RuamRudy]

Have you met her?  Or Ruth Davidson?  [emoji6]

I've met neither, but I get the feeling that they would both be very decent, honourable people.

I am not sure that I would particularly want to go for a drink with Nicola - she seems a bit staid, but I am certain that Ruth would be a hoot after a few.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I've met neither, but I get the feeling that they would both be very decent, honourable people.

I am not sure that I would particularly want to go for a drink with Nicola - she seems a bit staid, but I am certain that Ruth would be a hoot after a few.

Spot-on :)  The stand-out difference is RD's ability to think on her feet, and her razor-sharp mind.  NS relies much more on her "team".

[billd766]

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Can you provide reasoning for that proposal?

If, indeed, it can be demonstrated as the means of conducting a fair referendum, I further propose that we retroactively apply those same criteria to Brexit.

 

 

AFAIR the last referendum

 

1.   Barred Scottish people who were not actually living in Scotland at the time of the referendum from voting in it.

 

2.   In addition young people who were 16 but not yet 18, the voting age in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were allowed to vote.

 

3.   Only a simple majority was required to pass the referendum. Many people complained about the Brexit referendum having only a simple majority to win and you among many others have complained bitterly about the Brexit result, but you would quite happily have accepted a simple majority win in Scotland.

 

4.   Were you aware that and I quote Wikipedia here  " With some exceptions, all European Union (EU) or Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland aged 16 or over could vote, a total of almost 4.3 million people. This was the first time that the electoral franchise was extended to include 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

 

If you wish to apply my thoughts retroactively how far back in history do you wish to go? 5, 10, 50. 100, 250 or perhaps 500 years.

 

The 2014 referendum is past history and the Brexit referendum also.

 

Learn from their mistakes and improve the next one, if indeed there is to be another one and make some rules that can apply to any future referendum in the UK.

[RuamRudy]

 
AFAIR the last referendum
 
1.   Barred Scottish people who were not actually living in Scotland at the time of the referendum from voting in it.
 
2.   In addition young people who were 16 but not yet 18, the voting age in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were allowed to vote.
 
3.   Only a simple majority was required to pass the referendum. Many people complained about the Brexit referendum having only a simple majority to win and you among many others have complained bitterly about the Brexit result, but you would quite happily have accepted a simple majority win in Scotland.
 
4.   Were you aware that and I quote Wikipedia here  " With some exceptions, all European Union (EU) or Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland aged 16 or over could vote, a total of almost 4.3 million people. This was the first time that the electoral franchise was extended to include 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
 
If you wish to apply my thoughts retroactively how far back in history do you wish to go? 5, 10, 50. 100, 250 or perhaps 500 years.
 
The 2014 referendum is past history and the Brexit referendum also.
 
Learn from their mistakes and improve the next one, if indeed there is to be another one and make some rules that can apply to any future referendum in the UK.

Sorry, but I was hoping for your rationale, not an overview of the mechanics of the referendum.

You talk of mistakes - too late to correct the Brexit mistake, I fear, but hopefully we Scots can make up for our mistake of 2014.

[rott]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Not sure that I agree with

as it seemed to me at the time that it was nationalist ex pat Scots who were complaining loudest about not being able to vote; and, wrongly, blaming Westminster for it!

 

Or maybe that was just on this board?

 

 

Yes there were a number (you know who you are)  who did plenty of shouting and crowing and demanding their "freedom" and stating unequivocally they were going to win it by a wide margin. Did not seem able to explain their inaccuracy later.

[RuamRudy]

Yes there were a number (you know who you are)  who did plenty of shouting and crowing and demanding their "freedom" and stating unequivocally they were going to win it by a wide margin. Did not seem able to explain their inaccuracy later.

There was plenty of shouting on both sides of the argument, much like the more recent, equally as split Brexit referendum.

There are also lies and threats from the yoons, there was the very unconstitutional intervention by the queen, Obama telling us that while independence from Westminster was good for the US, it could only be bad for Scotland, etc etc.

Then there was the violence from the yoons: both from home grown bigots and those imported from England and Northern Ireland specifically to rabble rouse.

Add to that the very clear bias from the BBC and just about every mainstream newspaper in the land, and I think you must agree that the Nats did very well considering.

[7by7]

Yes, unfortunately there were lies and violence by a minority of yoons, by whom I assume you mean unionists, i.e. No supporters. But you seem to have conveniently forgotten that the same was true of a minority of Yes supporters.

 

The Queen should not, of course, made any comment at all; but she is half Scots and her "very unconstitutional intervention" was nothing more than a passing remark in response to a well wisher outside Crathie Kirk that she hoped voters will think very carefully about the future when casting their vote. I know that there has since been a crazy conspiracy theory propounded by journalist Isabel Oakeshott and the controversial peer and tax exile Lord Ashcroft in their unauthorised biography of Cameron, that this was planned in collusion with Cameron in order to persuade people to vote No. A conspiracy theory which you seem believe, presumably also believing that the person who spoke to Her Majesty was a plant!

 

Obama commented on the history of the relationship between the UK and USA, and stressed that the decision was up to the people of Scotland. I can find no reference to him saying that independence would be bad for Scotland; link, please. Maybe he should have kept his comments to himself, just as maybe he should have done the same during the EU referendum campaign. But US presidents have in the past often commented on the affairs of other nations and on both occasions he was responding to direct question put to him by journalists.

 

Of course, accusations of media bias are often made. With regard to the print and internet media, they all have their political stance and we are all aware of that stance for each. Broadcast media is  different as it is supposed to be balanced. Often, though, it, especially the BBC, is accused of bias. That those accusations come from all parts of the political spectrum indicates that they are, on the whole, getting the balance about correct. People of all political persuasions seem to believe: "Say something I agree with and you are fair and balanced, say something I disagree with and you are biased!"

 

I put it to you that as I live in the UK and so have far more access to the BBC's news and current affairs output than you I am in a better position to judge.

 

Your final comment

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I think you must agree that the Nats did very well considering.

 

does not make sense.

 

Do you seriously believe that around two thirds of Scots are so cowardly and/or so feeble minded that the accusations you make frightened and/or convinced them into either staying at home or voting No?

 

If so, you must have a very low opinion of your fellow Scots!

[RuamRudy]

Yes, unfortunately there were lies and violence by a minority of yoons, by whom I assume you mean unionists, i.e. No supporters. But you seem to have conveniently forgotten that the same was true of a minority of Yes supporters.
 
The Queen should not, of course, made any comment at all; but she is half Scots and her "very unconstitutional intervention" was nothing more than a passing remark in response to a well wisher outside Crathie Kirk that she hoped voters will think very carefully about the future when casting their vote. I know that there has since been a crazy conspiracy theory propounded by journalist Isabel Oakeshott and the controversial peer and tax exile Lord Ashcroft in their unauthorised biography of Cameron, that this was planned in collusion with Cameron in order to persuade people to vote No. A conspiracy theory which you seem believe, presumably also believing that the person who spoke to Her Majesty was a plant!
 
Obama commented on the history of the relationship between the UK and USA, and stressed that the decision was up to the people of Scotland. I can find no reference to him saying that independence would be bad for Scotland; link, please. Maybe he should have kept his comments to himself, just as maybe he should have done the same during the EU referendum campaign. But US presidents have in the past often commented on the affairs of other nations and on both occasions he was responding to direct question put to him by journalists.
 
Of course, accusations of media bias are often made. With regard to the print and internet media, they all have their political stance and we are all aware of that stance for each. Broadcast media is  different as it is supposed to be balanced. Often, though, it, especially the BBC, is accused of bias. That those accusations come from all parts of the political spectrum indicates that they are, on the whole, getting the balance about correct. People of all political persuasions seem to believe: "Say something I agree with and you are fair and balanced, say something I disagree with and you are biased!"
 
I put it to you that as I live in the UK and so have far more access to the BBC's news and current affairs output than you I am in a better position to judge.
 
Your final comment
does not make sense.
 
Do you seriously believe that around two thirds of Scots are so cowardly and/or so feeble minded that the accusations you make frightened and/or convinced them into either staying at home or voting No?
 
If so, you must have a very low opinion of your fellow Scots!

Yes, Yoons = Unionists. Childish, I know, but after the year or so of BT lies, smears and insults, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Can you point to any example of skinhead thugs rampaging on behalf of the Yes campaign? I think it is fair to say that the most of the bigotry and violence stemmed from the unionists.

I am on my phone so cannot link to empirical evidence of BBC bias against independence, but if you are willing to accept the truth, you might be interested to search for it.

As for your assumption that you are in a better position to judge - well I know nothing about you, nor would I be so arrogant as to suggest what you may or may not know, but let me welcome you to the 21st century - we don't even need to wait for the wireless to warm up where I live.

I am particularly amused by your suggestion that there was no collusion between Downing St and the palace regarding Betty's intervention. Far be it from me to suggest that you are being either deliberately blockheaded or naive in the extreme, but here is a woman who, for decades, reputedly held her vows of impartiality sacred, and appears, indeed, to have done so. Yet the first time she breaks those vows, she does so with the BBC next to her, recording all for public consumption.

Your final statement is utter nonsense, I am afraid. Nowhere did I make any suggestion of feeble mindedness or weakness, and I would prefer that you didn't stoop to such pathetic tricks to score cheap Internet points. I read most of your posts over the summer re: the immigration debate and I thought that you had argued rationally and respectfully in face of cheap, sleekit twisting of words. Please do not stoop to those tactics.

[7by7]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Can you point to any example of skinhead thugs rampaging on behalf of the Yes campaign? I think it is fair to say that the most of the bigotry and violence stemmed from the unionists.

 

 

It is unfortunate that violence from right wing thugs marred the victory celebrations. But as I said, the pre vote intimidation was far from one sided!

 

One report of many: Threats, intimidation and abuse: the dark side of the Yes campaign exposed

 

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I am on my phone so cannot link to empirical evidence of BBC bias against independence, but if you are willing to accept the truth, you might be interested to search for it.

As for your assumption that you are in a better position to judge - well I know nothing about you, nor would I be so arrogant as to suggest what you may or may not know, but let me welcome you to the 21st century - we don't even need to wait for the wireless to warm up where I live.

 

 

I have searched for it; couldn't find it. Of course, were one to cherry pick one could find examples to prove that they were biased. One has to take their whole output into consideration, not just the parts which suit one's argument.

 

 Of course those of us in the UK have more access to the entire BBC output than those who don't. Not all of their output is available on the internet or via the World Service.

 

Do you regularly listen to news and current affairs programmes on Radios 4 and 5? I do.

 

Do you regulalrly watch BBC TV news and current affairs programmes? I do.

 

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I am particularly amused by your suggestion that there was no collusion between Downing St and the palace regarding Betty's intervention. Far be it from me to suggest that you are being either deliberately blockheaded or naive in the extreme, but here is a woman who, for decades, reputedly held her vows of impartiality sacred, and appears, indeed, to have done so. Yet the first time she breaks those vows, she does so with the BBC next to her, recording all for public consumption.

 

 

Were the BBC, or any other broadcast media, present when the Queen made the comment? I can't find any video of it. All the reports at the time say only print media were there.

 

Those reports also say that Her Majesty's comment, “You have an important vote on Thursday. I hope everybody thinks very carefully about the referendum this week." was in response to a remark from a member of the public.

 

I fail to see how anyone can seriously believe the Queen's words would convince even an undecided person to vote 'No' let alone change the mind of a  'Yes' supporter!

 

Hence my final comment that your assertion that the nationalists did 'fairly well considering' makes no sense, unless your answer to the question I asked is actually yes!

 

You lost, badly. Only 36% cared enough about Scottish independence to vote 'Yes.'

 

 Stop making excuses for your defeat; live with it and accept it. Just as I and the majority of other Remain supporters are living with and have accepted the fact that we lost the EU referendum.

 

[RuamRudy]

On 12/31/2016 at 7:53 PM, 7by7 said:

It is unfortunate that violence from right wing thugs marred the victory celebrations. But as I said, the pre vote intimidation was far from one sided!

 

One report of many: Threats, intimidation and abuse: the dark side of the Yes campaign exposed

 

Now I am in a bit of a quandary - if I point out just how anti-Scottish the Telegraph is (they like us for our pheasant beating skills and our ability to make the whisky they drink, but they don't like it when we forget our place and start to get uppity) I lay myself open to accusations of paranoia, but any objective reader would surely acknowledge that the Telegraph loves Scotland and hates Scots. So I am going to suggest that anyone who wants a credible debate on this matter should, at the very least, take everything the Telegraph says with a fistful of salt. That said, I certainly don't recall anything from the Yes campaign that came close to the sickening thugs who draped themselves in their union flags and rampaged across Glasgow city centre. 

 

On 12/31/2016 at 7:53 PM, 7by7 said:

I have searched for it; couldn't find it. Of course, were one to cherry pick one could find examples to prove that they were biased. One has to take their whole output into consideration, not just the parts which suit one's argument.

 

I fully agree with your closing statement - here is the Wikipedia page dedicated to BBC criticism, with a lengthy section on accusations of anti independence bias from academics, The National Union of Journalists, The Scotsman (hardly a pro-indy newspaper), the Audience Council Scotland, The Sunday Times, former BBC employees and media professionals. Are they all cherry picking too?

 

On 12/31/2016 at 7:53 PM, 7by7 said:

 

Do you regularly listen to news and current affairs programmes on Radios 4 and 5? I do.

 

Do you regulalrly watch BBC TV news and current affairs programmes? I do.

 

So the BBC is your primary source of information? That could explain so much...

 

On 12/31/2016 at 7:53 PM, 7by7 said:

Were the BBC, or any other broadcast media, present when the Queen made the comment? I can't find any video of it. All the reports at the time say only print media were there.

 

Correct, my apologies -  but as the Daily Mail said, "Afterwards she [the queen] took the highly unusual step of stopping to converse with wellwishers outside the church – while aides pointedly invited surprised photographers to come and take pictures of her exchanges with the locals.".
 

On 12/31/2016 at 7:53 PM, 7by7 said:

I fail to see how anyone can seriously believe the Queen's words would convince even an undecided person to vote 'No' let alone change the mind of a  'Yes' supporter!

 

 

Then we must disagree about just how negative her words are - such as shame that she tarnished her decades of service by betraying her supposedly sacred oath. I thought she was better than that.

 

On 12/31/2016 at 7:53 PM, 7by7 said:

 

You lost, badly. Only 36% cared enough about Scottish independence to vote 'Yes.'

 

Yes, disappointing in the extreme - but with a turnout of almost 85%, it is still remarkable for any British plebiscite in recent years. I cannot help but wonder if the playing fields had been lever, how the result may have fared.

 

On 12/31/2016 at 7:53 PM, 7by7 said:

 Stop making excuses for your defeat; live with it and accept it. Just as I and the majority of other Remain supporters are living with and have accepted the fact that we lost the EU referendum.

 

 

Absolutely not! I am actually quite stunned by your suggestion. Why should be continue to live under a very far from perfect situation when we have the power to make things vastly better. You may want to give up, but that to me is shameful.

[sn1per]

On 27/12/2016 at 8:55 AM, Mansell said:

You are probably wrong about this. The next referendum will release Scotland from Whitehall. The first one failed because basically most people are afraid of change and the unknown. But minds change after a couple years to think about it all. Eventually Wales and N. Ireland will go their own way as well. 

"The only thing that is constant is change."

 

 

I propose a referendum to be held in England. Do we want Scotland IN or OUT........... answers on a postcard please

Edited January 3, 2017 by sn1per

[RuamRudy]

30 minutes ago, sn1per said:

I propose a referendum to be held in England. Do we want Scotland IN or OUT........... answers on a postcard please

 

I think a large number of people north of the border will support you 100% in that - we can also give you a heads-up on how the combined forces of the establishment and the media are going to twist the facts to suggest that the Union is the best way forward. Maybe together we can finally achieve the amicable divorce so many of us want.

Edited January 3, 2017 by RuamRudy
added the word 'amicable' because there is no need to fall out over where our government resides.

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I think a large number of people north of the border will support you 100% in that - we can also give you a heads-up on how the combined forces of the establishment and the media are going to twist the facts to suggest that the Union is the best way forward. Maybe together we can finally achieve the divorce so many of us want.

So very true - well said ! :)

[jpinx]

Was there not a poll indicating that large parts of North England wanted to join Scotland in Independence?  As in any divorce, it can be instigated by either side, but being forced to live side-by-side forever means that a jointly agreed divorce would be so much better for the relationship afterwards.  No need to change the status of the Queen, she is well liked north of the border.

 

It would also mean that Scotland will have to apply for member ship of the EU as an independent country, which means that Holyrood is going to have to get it's house in order or fail the entrance exam.  It is very noticeable that Westminster has been all too willing to give Holyrood all the less-important powers, knowing that the amateurs in Edinburgh will screw it up.  Under devolution there was no policing of Holyroods actions, and some shocking things have been going on.  The EU would actually be a good means of weeding out the misfits.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

 

It would also mean that Scotland will have to apply for member ship of the EU as an independent country, which means that Holyrood is going to have to get it's house in order or fail the entrance exam.  It is very noticeable that Westminster has been all too willing to give Holyrood all the less-important powers, knowing that the amateurs in Edinburgh will screw it up.  Under devolution there was no policing of Holyroods actions, and some shocking things have been going on.  The EU would actually be a good means of weeding out the misfits.

 

I have read this sentiment on more than a few occasions although when pressed, people are generally unable to come up with tangible reasons to make such suggestions as your comment of:

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Under devolution there was no policing of Holyroods actions, and some shocking things have been going on. 

 

What exactly do you mean by 'shocking things'? 

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have read this sentiment on more than a few occasions although when pressed, people are generally unable to come up with tangible reasons to make such suggestions as your comment of:

 

What exactly do you mean by 'shocking things'? 

I'll work on that for you and others who maybe interested, but if my old memory serves me right, there was an in-depth article in one of the rags about this maybe a year ago.  It also listed the "shocking things".     

 

Only people who actually live in Scotland get to see the way it is run - hence my comments about "policing" the Assembly.

[sn1per]

30 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I think a large number of people north of the border will support you 100% in that - we can also give you a heads-up on how the combined forces of the establishment and the media are going to twist the facts to suggest that the Union is the best way forward. Maybe together we can finally achieve the amicable divorce so many of us want.

 

Thanks for the heads up, but I still have all the lies, spin, false info and scare stories ringing in my head from Brexit.  I think we could get a sensible strategy worked out, but only if we left the press, politicians and bureaucrats out of it