BILmac1967

Rang-yins are still cheating financially. Park and other directors giving soft loans to the club and getting them back as shares is financial cheating. Meet the new club, same as the old club. (in their dreams)

A big part of this argument is that people with dementia/ younger people with disabilities were looked after by their own families in the 1960's through the 70's but that changed as we became more materialistic, now we dump them on the NHS / "the state" in general. The people I grew up with as "socialists" now also want to have savings as well as keeping property, now we all rage when the gov. can't afford everything.

The people who chased him weren't his audience, they turned up to disrupt an advertised appearance. And you presume that the people who chased him couldn't be wrong?

I never said Farage should get more exposure, I pointed out that when he spoke, he was chased.

So you need to be elected to be on the telly? As an aside, iv;e never seen any of those far right headlines and images anywhere but on here.

Farage was denied free speech. At what point do the people who chased him ever admit they got any part of their argument wrong? I in part refer to a previous poster on here who pointed out that fascists aren't always right wing, but could end up as the same thing when in power.

Self defeating tripe, this could well be a perfect description of ignorance, as if those who regard themselves as tolerant in the first place could never be wrong

Googled it, NO - this presumes that those who regard themselves as tolerant and therefore above question were right in the first place- What was it that the intolerant people couldn;t live with? What makes you presume that the intolerant weren't victims in the first place?

Never heard of it, educate me, briefly.

If Farage held his ground, they would have respected his rights? Same as all the Scots who went to overthrow the elected government at Downing street and got kettled the first time Boris was elected, I suppose that was just high spirits?

He fled at the threat of violence, yes I would compare the two, not that I support Farage.

And yet Scottish nationalists are above question, in their own minds at least. Just like the nats who chased Nigel Farage out of a pub in Edinburgh in order to defend all that is right and good, protecting all of our freedoms by means of denying free speech. My point is that the nats, as well as the left, only ever create a political chasm whilst giving no answers to anything. These last number of pages seem to describe anyone who applies any kind of solution as far right wing, but the opposite, as far as I can see is just anti-political, completely open-ended, as if the UK should have no borders at all.

I seem to remember that Dundee was the only place where people tried to start a riot and looting when the London riots started in 2011, it never really took off though. The press always seemed to report Dundee as a very antisocial place with a big drug problem compared to it's size.

Albas plan is to stand beside the SNP and create a bigger indy vote overall. The conspiracy plan isn't happening fast enough, so a second indy party is created to ultimately get more floating voters to jump. Don't forget the Queen remains our head of state no matter how we vote, the Queen decides on a new referendum as soon as our version of the currency is downgraded and we rage that we've been conned and so we get a new referendum to rejoin the UK without the Barnett formula. It's always been the plan It's why the Queen remains our head of state no matter how we vote. It's also why they won't give us another referendum easily, we have to rage for a few years, convince ourselves independence was always our own idea.

Which party with a manifesto to re-run the referendum, I don't remember that?

You've invented an argument of violence I didn't actually make. The point is that Catalan independence isn't internationally accepted. Our own version of a referendum wouldn't either. Funny how quickly the whole Catalan thing left the news and the world moved on.

If we voted Indy we'd be both out of the EU and the UK, CMIIW, over 92% of our trade with Europe has to travel through English ports I don't see how Independence works in our favour-also there's no guarantee we'd get to rejoin the EU, I believe there's a trial period in which we have to prove our version of a currency, (based on the pound). There's every chance our currency would be downgraded in that time period and we might never get to join the EU as an independent nation. I just don't see where the advantage is for Scotland.

"Dragged out of the EU against thir will" Utter nonsense, we voted as the UK, not as indy Scotland. They want to cut ourselves off from England, our biggest trading partner by far.

as our resources are far too important to them. They will never grant another referendum under any circumstances as they know they would lose. They don't care how we vote or what we want, as we are a de-facto colony. So another way is required. After May when another indy majority is returned a consultative referendum should be held, then the results will probably have to be debated in court. There's no other way. The crux of your point is that only your version of democracy counts, the fact we have won is just ignored. Democracy apparently stops when indy win, not the other way around And didn't the Catalans also hold a consultative referendum, that went well.

Specifically, because referenda on independence would be much more affecting and difficult to reverse under changed economic conditions, if not impossible. In your mind independence would be a final vote, I dont then see why us remainers shouldn't have return referenda as it suits us. you would need to agree to that in principle, it's what you want for yourselves. You just don't accept that you lost.

Then be specific, how far apart should each referendum be, until you get the win you demand? If economic conditions of the future might suit, how soon do the reamainers get another? But in your mind there will never be another, you only see your own point and no-one elses. Also current economic conditions might not be the same 25 years from now, that's why referenda should be a generation apart.

We don't have votes all the time, general elections are every four years. Referenda should be spaced much further apart than that. We can't just leave and rejoin the UK every four years, that would just be ridiculous and impractical. And rejoin under which circumstances? Not unless it's only the Indy vote that counts, the fact that remain won is just what- Scotch mist?

Manifesto pledges are like bubble-gum dabities from the 1970's - free with every mouthful and wear off quickly. There's nothing official about election manifestoes, the lot of them just lie like eff.

Seriously, indy lost both of them, how many referenda do you want and how often? To recast your vote time and time again, you don't see that as a corruption of democracy? I do.

So you constantly re-run the referendum, say once every year until you get the result you want? Do we remainers then get to re-run the ref, again and again when the front page headline on the Daily Record suits us? So do you presume that your vote is just more important than mine?