Malky3

Seriously? Offended by a user name? Christ - have a look through the user names. I'd reckon at least 40% - 50% are inappropriate. .

Personally I suspect that most of the Nationalist users on these pages are aliases of the same person. After all I know there's a lot of politically stupid people out there but I have seldom seen such a strong concentration of them all in the one place. I don't need to phone anyone for back up.

I have no opinion on Boris Johnsons deal. I voted to remain in the EU referendum because I believe that there was no credible argument made that suggested we would be better off out than in. Did you actually read the report? Or did you just lift the propaganda and share it to all? The three biggest risks affecting the attractiveness of investing in Europe right now - according to the report - is Brexit, Political Instability, and a rise in nationalism. Do you think Indy Ref 2 would make Scotland more or less attractive than it is now? Later in the report it states Europe has the tax stability that businesses find attractive. Do you think the SNP's increased levy on Scottish workers makes Scotland more or less attractive? And do you think the Nationalists demand for further increases in taxation makes Scotland more or less attractive? In 2019 Scotland was a part of the UK, as it is now. Do you think that Scotland would be anywhere near as attractive for foreign investment if it left the protection of one of the oldest and most successful political unions in the world to throw all the cards up in the air and become a newly independent state?

In yet another poll today - Opinium - shows that despite Boris Johnson winning the General Election, despite Brexit and despite his refusal to grant Scotland a 2nd Independence Referendum, support for the SNP hasn't moved. I'm chuffed about that. Scottish Nationalism is still in the minority.

Not true. He wrote it on Twitter and it was written as I quoted. I agree it's probably what he meant but he hasn't yet apologised for any misunderstanding over how he worded it.

Oh dear! Lets get the facts straight on this one. http://www.parliament.scot/S5_Finance/General%20Documents/Christopher_McCorkindale_and_Aileen_McHarg_sub.pdf In particular to this section The SNP were spoiling for a fight - raised a bill that was outside of the Scottish Parliaments jurisdiction and you recoil in horror when challenged with the cost of the SNP defence of their illegal actions retorting that the Westminster Government would have had costs defending itself from an obvious abuse of power by the SNP! Maybe you care to explain why the SNP failed to follow Scottish Parliament rules which state that any expense over £25,000 should be declared within one month of occurring? Why did the Scottish Government delay submission of the spending document by 8 months? It's notable as well that the SNP have spent nearly double the money - taxpayers money of course - on this court case than they actually did on their EU Referendum campaign!

Did the SNP pay them? If that's true did they use taxpayers money - like they do when they fight all those failed legal cases? And did they pay all the relevant taxes and National Insurance?

Aye the courts - that's the SNP way. Handing taxpayers money over to rich lawyers. After all it's a far better use of money that spending it on public services.

In the news today - apparently the SNP spent £132,000 of Scottish taxpayers money on their failed legal bid last year over the Continuity Bill. Yep, that's right, the party who likes to bemoan the fact that we have so many people using food banks giving yet another huge amount of money to lawyers who are already amongst Scotlands highest earners. And then there's a glorious wee snippet where SNP MSP John Mason has announced - via Twitter - that he "will not be speaking up for constituents who want lower taxes, orange marches, keeping Scotland in the UK, etc". As far as I can make out he's the first constituent politicians who has refused to represent the majority of his constituents which surely makes his position untenable. Of course as is often the case with Mr Mason it may just be a poor choice of words, but having been challenged he's refused to retract them, change them or to apologise to his constituency for they way it's come out.

Apparently you don't think it matters what Scotland thinks either. The majority of Scots do not want Independence. Here's an idea though. If you don't like what the majority have voted for here - why don't you do a Richard Branson and buy yourself your own wee private island where you can declare independence and make up your own laws. Just leave the majority of proud Scots who are happy to stay within the Union to get on with our lives.

Really? Is that not another case of the pot calling the kettle black? After all the Scottish Nationalists were the ones chasing Jim Murphy around in 2014 calling him a "quisling" amongst many, many other names.

I haven't shared my opinion on it. You've just done what most on here do and read into it as you wish. All I have done is simply highlight the lie that Nationalists seem happy to spread that the EU aren't the ones insisting on a hard border in the event of a no deal Brexit.

You seem to have lost the plot in terms of the news. We have a Withdrawal Agreement which outlines the framework for the negotiations for Brexit. We still do not have a deal on what the future trading agreement will be. There is still a very strong prospect of a No Deal Brexit - something the SNP are still scathing about when they talk about Johnsons desire to put a time limit on negotiations at the end of 2020. If there is no trade agreement in place then the EU will demand a hard border in Ireland despite neither the UK or Ireland wanting one. Ireland say they will vote against it, effectively blocking it, but the EU will attempt to force it through regardless.

Oh dear! There is absolutely nothing that is xenophobic, monarchist or little Englander about my posts. Not a thing. But here is what I find incredulous. You are accusing people of doing exactly what your own side does and yet you seem completely blind to it. For example on Thursday night Alyn Smith was down in Liverpool on Question Time trying to tell a UK National audience that the SNP is a friend of England, that Liverpool is practically his home, and that the Scottish NHS is a shining beacon for us all to behold. Fiona Bruce to her credit did call out his lies but no-one really nailed him to the wall like they should have done. It was, ofcourse utter drivel from the Scottish Nationalist. Your final statement about taking great pleasure in things not going was well as they thought it would sums you and a lot of your Nationalist friends up. You wish ill on all who didn't vote your way and that includes countless Scots who the SNP like to kid on they represent at Westminster.

Sorry what! I think this needs fact checked. The SNP has a bigger vote share than Boris Johnson? The SNP vote share in the General Election was 3.9% The Conservative vote share in the same election was 43.6%. Perhaps you are being literal. Maybe you mean over Boris Johnsons constituency where people can actually vote for him versus Scotland where people can actually vote for the SNP? Boris Johnson vote share - 52.6% SNP vote share - 45% Oh dear. Looks like Bula Bairn was spouting a load of shite. Another Nationalist liar

Really? "It is obvious that you will have a hard border" Who said that? Margaritis Schinas - the EU's Chief Spokesman - when asked what would happen in the event of a no deal Brexit. I know some people like to only hear what they want to hear when it comes to politics but the UK and the Irish position on the border is aligned. Neither want it. The ONLY reason there is any prospect of a hard border in Ireland is because the EU are insisting on it in the event of a no deal Brexit.

Aye, you've missed the fact that the EU have demanded a hard border right through the heart of Ireland. The UK didn't want it and Ireland didn't want it. The EU insisted on it.

Petrocelli? Wow, what an old reference - no doubt made by one of the Flower Pot Men. Well his posts make about as much sense as they did..... I'll get my coat.

Prior to the Referendum the European Union Referendum Act of 2015 was debated, and voted into law with 544 MP's voting in favour and only 53 voting against. The rules of the referendum were clearly outlined. All qualifying members of the electorate would have one vote, and the side which won the vote would have it's way. 46,500,001 people were eligible to vote. 17,410,742 vote to leave the EU, 16,141,241 voted to remain in the EU. The turnout of 72.21% was one of the highest turnouts ever in a UK vote. There were no provisions made for regions within the UK to be given different consideration. We were either all in, or all out. The Scottish Nationalists know this, but they cannot accept the democratic will of anyone because the Scottish Nationalist movement is undemocratic.

Well that's nonsense. The Irish have said that a hard border with the UK would mean economic disaster for them - yet the EU block are forcing the Irish into accepting a hard border between it and the UK. But regardless - you are arguing here that a population of 5 million should be able to stop the progress of the majority of the 512 million population across Europe. That isn't a democracy in any meaning of the word. You also want to argue that a minority of people in Scotland should be able to force an Independence Referendum on the rest of us. I honestly do not believe you have any grasp at all of what a democracy actually is.

Thank you. From a Nationalist I take that as a compliment

Yes I cringed all the way through it. For what it's worth though that is not the definition of a Union of equals. When 5 million people can stop the will of 512 million people that is not democratic, equal or fair in any way shape or form and it's one of the reasons why the majority of the UK voted to leave the EU. The definition of "democracy" is - control of an organisation or group by the majority of it's members. You would do well to understand that.

Exactly. If they paid me £40k I'd come up with a statement that said there was good arguments for, but that if they did it would be challenged in court. What a waste of £40,000! If the nationalist movement want to pursue this further then there are going to be a lot of rich lawyers taking money off "poor Scots" who would have been better donating money to charity.

Can't beat a bit of Mhairi Black to make most of Scotland cringe. In full windmill mode today I see.

In this Union of Equals, every qualifying person had one vote in both referendums. The results went the way they did. However the Scottish Nationalists can't handle it when, within the Union, the rest of the us don't see things their way. Bad losers, bad citizens and really bad democrats. I'd never trust my kids future with them.