Goomba

15th alias account? Sorry, you've lost me. Why the name change? Have you gone off Ian Curtis?

Why did you change your name from Day Of The Lords mate?

Many of the posts on this thread are, quite frankly, shameful.

His content is very relevant to me, which is why I take great pleasure in countering every single point. Hopefully he accepts my offer of a wager.

Unless Lichtensteins Monster or any other Nat tackles my points then I’m afraid I’ll be chalking that one up as a win.

You, are thick as f**k #YouYesYet

In response to Lichtgilphead's post on 20/03. The quote function doesn't capture the lot so I've just copy/pasted the last points. You do realise that it's possible to look back up the thread? You specifically said "It's been obvious from the start that no 2nd referendum will take place for the following reasons: - Scots don't want one" you then added some further reasons, but made no mention of "Nicola Sturgeon" or "next year" anywhere in your post. One thing that you appear to have in common with the late unlamented Stormzy is that other posters apparently have to guess what you were meaning. If a post is about Nicola's plan to have a referendum next year, then point that out in your original post. We're not f*cking mindreaders. Of course it's possible to look back up the thread, and contrary to your claim no one has to guess what I mean. I've told them what I mean, which was Sturgeon's timetable. No need for anyone to be a 'f*cking mindreader' (charming) Whilst I acknowledge my rebuttal oversight, it doesn't mean I have peddled misinformation. Nice try though! I never said 'once in a generation' was in the Edinburgh agreement, and am afraid that Scotland didn't sign up to the Good Friday Agreement. Anyway, what it states is that at least 7 years must pass between referendums, which should only be held if there's evidence of the people wanting a United Ireland. Why you'd apply this GFA specific timetable to Scotland is anyone's guess, especially when it ruins your argument i.e. there's no evidence of Scots voters wanting independence anyway, but quite the contrary. Erm, Scotland (as a current part of the UK) did sign up to the GFA. At least 7 years passed since September 2014 in September 2021 (don't you do arithmetic?) My point is that the UK government have defined (at least) 7 years as a political generation in one part of the UK - why is this not applicable elsewhere in the same nation state? Your point about "evidence of the people wanting a united ireland" is risible. One of the ways that this condition would be satisfied would be if parties that supported a referendum won a majority in an election to the NI Assembly. It may have escaped your notice that there is currently a majority of MSP's in favour of a referendum at Holyrood . You've also already conceded the point that polls show that a majority if Scots want a further referendum within a specific timeframe. Obviously I'm not disputing that over 7 years have passed and can do arithmetic just fine (again, charming). The government have not defined at least 7 years as a political generation at all. They've defined it as a political generation, purely in the GFA, which has zero to do with Scotland breaking away from the rest of the country. Also, a majority in the NI Assembly supporting a border poll is not the condition that has to be met. It's about it appearing likely that a majority would vote in favour of the United Ireland in a referendum. That's the condition. It's not my fault that you can't frame your arguments in a coherent manner. As I state above, this reminds me of Stormzy's tantrums when he was corrected and then claimed to have been misunderstood My argument was framed just fine. Bit weird how you keep bringing another poster into this btw.. maybe it's a deflection tactic or something. Similarly, of course, there's been no sustaned evidence of a Yoon lead in the last couple of years. Both sides appear to be at around 50% +/- 5% in the majority of polls Yep, and I never said there was. Hardly the basis for another referendum though, especially when you take into account that the polling figures were generous to the Yes vote compared to the actual result in 2014. Plus, No have mostly been in front anyway. The'35 occasions" were between 5th June 2020 and 29th November 2021. That's a week short of 18 months. The polls were commissioned by: Scot Goes Pop. Business for Scotland, The Sunday Times, The Times, Savanta ComRes, Survation, JL Partners, Progress Scotland, STV, YouGov, The Scotsman, ITV News, Hanbury Strategy, DC Thomson, The Herald, The Daily Express, Sky News, & Believe in Scotland. As far as I am aware, only 4 of these are part of "the independence movement", and they used the standard polling question and had their polling done by respected polling companies. The fact that DC Thomson & the Daily Express are on that list blows your argument out of the water. Can you explain why you consider a poll run by Panelbase on behalf of Scot Goes Pop to be tainted when a Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times (which asks the same question less than a month later) is not? Finally, I would agree that the current 2 most recent polls show a No majority, but I would point out that these figures came out after my previous post. My figures were correct at the time of posting. There were several No leads during that period. Hard lines. I'll respond to this point when you provide some analysis of why you consider these specific polls to be "dodgy for several reasons" and "an outlier". Your bare assertions are not worthy of response. I'm also interested that you choose to ignore the 2 polls in December & January that showed both Yes & No on 50% (excluding don't knows) You also have to remember that we are not as yet into the campaigning period for IndyRef2. The lies from the No side are unlikely to work again. They had dodgy, loaded, leading questions prior to the penultimate 'Do you want Scotland to be an Independent Country?' I'm not about to spend ages going into the polls to check, but I remember analysing them at the time. The 29th November poll is what I described as an outlier, not the run of 30 odd or whatever, and it is, by the very definition of the term. Whilst Scotland has not as yet achieved independence, do you really think that nationalism is "stone dead"? You're deluded. Yes, I do. Another bald statement with no evidence to back it up. Yawn. Wrong again. If you know of something from the UN that contradicts then fire away, but the burden of proof is on you. If you can't find it, then I'm afraid that my stance aligns. We all know that FPTP is undemocratic, but it's only a couple of posts since you were talking about the Tory majority at Westminster being a mandate to resist a referendum. The tories got 43.6% at that election, yet have an 80 seat majority. However, at the last Scottish Parliament Elections, 50.1% voted for SNP, Greens or Alba on the list. That's far more proportional than FPTP, and is a majority. A Tory mandate is indeed a mandate to resist another referendum. Deciding referenda is not a devolved issue, so the devolved assembly results matter not a jot. Very sneaky of you to go by the list vote and not the constituency vote too Anyway, what does this have to do with the Thatcher scenario? Policy has changed since Thatcher, but the basic procedures of Parliament haven't.. well not in the context you mean anyway. It's usually expressed as 55/45. That's less than you claim. However, to get that majority, lies were told & promises made When you actually look at the figures, it was 55.3 to 44.7, which is a 10.6% gap. We can safely round that up to 11%, not 10% Nats told some galling lies and made false promises. The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent - Lie Unfortunately not. It's now permanent. Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU - Lie. No guarantee was ever given that voting No would mean we'd be locked into the EU forever. We knew the EU referendum was on the horizon. Separation would indeed have taken us out of the EU, so the claim was correct. Westminster will not take any powers away from the Scottish Parliament without Holyrood's consent - Lie What power has Westminster taken away from the devolved assembly then? I could give more examples, but these three alone are enough to show that No voters were sold a lie. Things have changed, and as I pointed out before, the current Scottish Parliament has a majority specifically elected on a manifesto for Indyref 2 The examples are false though, unless you provide the goods for the 3rd one, which I highly doubt. The devolved assembly simply has no power to decide referenda, so the supposed manifesto for IndyRef2 holds no weight. You said "The Tories always run on the promise of not holding one" Whilst that doesn't include the word "have", it implies that they have run on the "No 2nd referendum" manifesto promise before. Please provide evidence to back up your claim. That's correct, they've run on it before. 2019 and 2017. The Tories always say it for the devolved assembly elections too. Your inclusion of the word 'have' was indeed sneaky. Can you provide some evidence to back up this view? Yes, the fact that this was the case in 2014. It was up to Parliament to allow it. Can you provide some evidence to back up this view? Same as above Can you provide some evidence to back up this view? Same as above I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make here. Your answer to my statement makes no sense at all. Perhaps you might want to clarify your answer? What don't you get? At this time, the SNP's stated policy is to arrange a referendum in late 2023. Obviously, this means that they believe they have the power to do so with or without Westminster permission. The rest of your reply (re Sturgeon) is pure unsupported speculation. Nope, what it means is that Sturgeon is stringing her voters along. There will be no referendum arranged in 2023 - mark my words. Fancy a wager? As I suggest above, your scrutiny appears to be to regurgitate your unsupported beliefs. Please supply some evidence to back up these claims (if you can). If you can't., I suggest that you give up. I've given evidence for the points that merit it. Now it's over to you to stop the smokescreens and mirrors and start playing with a straight bat.

Unfortunately it seems DOTL prefers trading insults over digesting and reflecting on reasonable points such as the ones you've outlined

These are two totally different concepts. I can only answer what you actually type. As I said above, your original quote was misinformation 'Fraid not. I was referring to the timetable Sturgeon is still pretending to have, which is to have one next year. If I'd said something like 'Scots don't want to ever have one' then you might have a point, but I didn't. -2014 was supposed to be once in a generation. I note that you didn't bother to respond to my rebuttal. In the absence of a response, I make that two pieces of misinformation and counting Whilst I acknowledge my rebuttal oversight, it doesn't mean I have peddled misinformation. Nice try though! I never said 'once in a generation' was in the Edinburgh agreement, and am afraid that Scotland didn't sign up to the Good Friday Agreement. Anyway, what it states is that at least 7 years must pass between referendums, which should only be held if there's evidence of the people wanting a United Ireland. Why you'd apply this GFA specific timetable to Scotland is anyone's guess, especially when it ruins your argument i.e. there's no evidence of Scots voters wanting independence anyway, but quite the contrary. The problem is that you didn't actually say "there is no sustainable evidence of a lead" You said "There's been no sustainable evidence of support" You're scraping the barrel with that one. Just to be clear, when I was talking of support I meant a lead. Support for indepedence was at around 33% in early 2014. It then rose to 45% at the first indyref. Since then, Yes has led by as much as 13% (Oct 2020) and No has led by as much as 8% (May 2021). Obviously, I'm excluding Scotland in Union's attempts to game the system with their ridiculous biased remain/leave question. All your doing here is backing up my assertion that there's been no sustained evidence of an Independence lead. The opinion polls were generous on the lead up to the 2014 referendum too, so you can probably always knock a few percent off the Indy figure to get a more accurate result. The last couple of polls (see previous link) have shown Yes & No to be level.. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Yes has led in the polls on 35 occasions, No has led on 30 occasions and there has been a tie on 8 occasions. The '35 occasions' were largely the result of the Independence movement churning out a shed loads of polls in a relatively short space of time. They hardly commission any now.. because the results won't look as good. The last two polls have shown a lead for No. Please attempt to use more precise terminology in future. There is plenty of evidence that "breakup of the country" is currently supported by a figure somewhere between 46% and 56.5% of Scottish voters (excluding Don't Knows) . This figure has been sustained for a full 2 years. 10/10 for your figure spinning efforts! I'm afraid there's no sustained evidence whatsoever of Scottish voters wanting to break up the country. There hasn't even been a poll with a Nat lead this year.. you have to go back to the outlier of 29th November 2022, which was dodgy for several reasons. Then before that you have to go back to the start of September, which, again, was an outlier. The sustained lead just doesn't exist. Conclusion - reframing your original statement does not change the misinformation originally provided. That's 3 out of 3 bits of misinformation so far! There's been no misinformation from my end. Nice deflection attempt though. Whilst I would agree that power devolved is power retained, I don't support devolution. The only reason that the Westminster Government allowed the limited devolution that Scotland currently has was "to kill nationalism stone dead" (George Robertson - Secretary of State for Scotland - 1995). How's that going? It's going rather well. You're nowhere near breaking up the country for the reasons I've outlined, and then some. If we hadn't had devolution, then you'd probably have a stronger case! However, your view that "people of the potential breakaway area" should have no say in any future decision relating to Scottish independence is in clear breach of the United Nations support for the right to self-determination. Indeed, many leaders of the Tory party have reaffirmed this principle, even though they haven't been consistent in their views. My stance doesn't oppose the right to self-determination of the United Nations at all. It aligns with it it. According to Margaret Thatcher, Scotland only had to elect a majority of SNP MP's to gain independence. That happened, so the goalposts were moved, and we were told that it had to be confirmed through a referendum. It's nothing to do with moving the goalposts, but in politics things change. It would be deeply unfair if Scotland was railroaded into Separation just because of an SNP MP majority via the FPTP system, which they regularly achieve despite most voters voting for parties that don't support Independence. Surely you don't want this either? It would be madness. David Cameron agreed to the referendum, and was quoted as saying: "You might want to think 'well why are we having this referendum, why take the risk?' I think it is the right thing to do for this reason. The Scottish people elected in 2011 a Scottish National party government in Edinburgh with Alex Salmond at its head. One of their policies was to have a referendum on the future of Scotland being a part of the UK. That's correct, and Cameron was referring to 2011. He was in no way insinuating it should happen every time the devolved assembly wants it.. in fact he has actually said the opposite. Both him and Salmond signed the Edinburgh Agreement which would 'deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect'. "I felt, as the prime minister of the UK, I had a choice. I could either say to them 'well you can't have your referendum, it is for us to decide whether you should have one.' I think that would have led to an almighty and disastrous battle between the Westminster parliament and the UK government and the Scottish government and the Scottish first minister. So I did what I thought was the right thing, which was to say 'you voted for a party that wants independence, you should have a referendum that is legal, that is decisive and that is fair.'" Yep, this is beyond dispute. 'Decisive' being the key word. The decision was made.. with a 11% gap. It was emphatic. So, to recap, the Tories have not always run on the promise of not holding a referendum. This has been a recent development, which breaches the UK's treaty obligations and the UN charter. Nice inclusion of the word 'have' here! A word I didn't include. Misleading count? Four out of four. In your dreams. And finally How about some evidence to back up your bald statements? I can categorically state that all my statements have a full head of hair. Here's one view: 1) If a power isn't reserved to the UK government, it is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament The decision on whether to give Scots the choice of breaking away part of the country lies with parliament, not the devolved assembly. 2) Referenda are not listed within the reserved matters. Accordingly, it may be within the power of the Scottish Parliament to introduce a bill The devolved assembly can introduce bills, but ultimate parliament decides whether to allow a referendum. 3) There are a majority of current Scottish MSP's that would support an Independence Referendum Act, so it would be likely tthat the bill would pass and become an Act This would only be relevant if parliament decided to allow a referendum, and the Tories were elected on a mandate of keeping the status quo. 4) However, as part of the bill's procedural route, the Presiding Officer has to state whether or not he considers the bill to be within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This view is not definitive, though. Legislative competence is a complex issue, and can ultimately be determined only by a court It's a matter for parliament then, unless this is changed by a court case (unlikely). 5) As the judiciary have not had this final say, no-one can be certain as to whether the Scottsih Government can pass such a bill They can't pass it. We can speculate as to what the result of a court case could be if one was ever held, but as it stands the matter rests with parliament.. not the devolved assembly. Otherwise they'd just hold one (If Sturgeon really wanted it, which thankfully she doesn't) Accordingly, that's the Yoon Grand Slam. Five misleading statements out of five attempts. A fantastic acheivement for such a novice poster who has definitely not suddenly appeared after a banhammer. Let me congratulate you, sirrah! Grand Slam? Gud'ane. 10/10 for effort though. P.S. Unlike the rest of the Natterati, you actually made some half-decent points. It's just a shame they aren't robust and don't stand up to scrutiny.

Thanks for responding with coherent points. You buck the trend. The majority of Scots voters choosing to favour a referendum within 5 years when answering opinion polls is undoubtedly true. This is a far cry from what Sturgeon was claiming though, which would be to have one next year? Although if you're ITK then you won't be surprised at the latest media priming for this to be kicked into the grass along with previous red herrings. It's a shame Wings Over Bath isn't around to highlight this sort of thing anymore. Opinion polls can't tell the level of apathy, and my gut feeling is that not that many people just are even bothered anymore.. they'd still click or answer 'Yes to a referendum' if asked the question directly though. Even the All Under Five Banners marches get hardly any people now, although they didn't get many to begin with when you look at the actual numbers. Like I say, there's been no sustained evidence of a lead advocating a split. Not sure if your reply was a counter or not, but it doesn't contradict this, so what I say is hardly misinformation. The Tories are indeed the party of government of the UK, and guess what? We are in the UK. My fellow constituents and I are able to elect an MP for our area, same as everyone else across the country from Dover to Dundee, Lerwick to Londonderry and Barry to Brig'ton. Together, we elect the government. Despite Salmond's cheeky renaming of the Scottish Executive several years back, there is actually no Scottish Government in the true sense. There is merely a devolved administration which has been given the ability to rule on certain issues. Power devolved is power retained. The Union is indeed a Union of equals, however the decision on whether to leave is a matter for the the government, not just the people of the potential breakaway area who, as it happens, have already chosen to stay. Every constituency having as much say as any other ensures that we are indeed a Union of equals. The devolved administration absolutely does not have the power to dictate a referendum as such powers have never been devolved to it (thank f**k). I feel sorry for Nats within the echo chamber who get wrapped up in the conspiratorial blogs, facebook pages etc. Many of you genuinely appear to believe that the UK means nothing, and that those who who believe differently are trolls who don't matter. I sense many of you see us as 'the other', and that isn't healthy. Many also think that it's your right to have the country broken up.. like a default setting or something. It's actually not.

It’s been obvious from the start that no 2nd referendum will take place for the following reasons: -Scots don’t want one. -2014 was supposed to be once in a generation. -There’s been no sustainable evidence of support for the breakup of the country. -The Tories always run on the promise of not holding one, and they are the party of government. -The devolved administration does not have the power to dictate a referendum. The latest revelation is only the latest piece of evidence in a long list of obvious indicators as to the SNP’s apathy towards holding another referendum they know they wouldn’t win. As a Yoon, my gut feeling is that the SNP are a safe pair of hands for the Union. I can only hope Nats continue to choose them over Alba.

Pizza and beers have been going down a treat throughout! Glad I took tomorrow off!

What a nasty, twisted thing to say.

I really am. The 2014 referendum was nothing to do with the EU. It was about the UK and the UK only. All talk about EU member states is irrelevant.

I really am. The 2014 referendum was nothing to do with the EU, and I can confidently assure you, contrary to your claim, that the proposed nightmare of partition actually did not go ahead.

I'm correct about the Edinburgh Agreement, and nothing you say about the EU changes the fact that the issue of the proposed nightmare of partition was settled in 2014.

Sturgeon's Goodwillie comments were disingenuous and reek of opportunism, as proven by her recent dreadful treatment of Helene Gray on twitter.

I didn't mention the EU. We said no to partition in 2014 which settled the issue as per the Edinburgh Agreement, also backed up by countless 'Once in a Generation' and 'Once in a Lifetime' promises by prominent members of the Guess Scotland campaign.

It's embarrassing we're still talking about this when it was settled in 2014.

You're club died Your*

The Sturgeon acolytes aren't happy.

Face it, the case for tearing the Nation in two is weaker than it ever has been. The EU wouldn't let us back in without inflicting austerity measures that would make the Tories look like angels. Given that the whole IndyRef2 premise is built on being 'towrn oot the EU against wur will!' then we'd really have to go for that. That's if they even consider letting us back in at all, which is doubtful. It's even worse for the Nats on currency too. At least their previous currency union lie was slightly believable, but it'd just seem utterly ridiculous now. Ditch the Pound and support for Separation would plummet. Anyway, there's no chance of the government allowing an IndyRef when Scots don't want one, don't want independence and largely believe the issue to be settled. The current Tory mandate to say NO to IndyRef2 still applies.

I'm dead against it, just like most Scots. Splitting us from our countrymen and women by creating an artificial border across the Nation seems like an awful idea. We have England to thank for saving us from bankruptcy in the 1700s. Let's stay together.