xbl Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I dont read chicmac's posts... i learned from experience they are always utter garbage. This one will be no different. And yet you felt the need to respond, without even reading? That says so much about you. You know what, I don't believe you for a moment. You quite clearly read it, but can't come up with a decent response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 And yet you felt the need to respond, without even reading? That says so much about you. You know what, I don't believe you for a moment. You quite clearly read it, but can't come up with a decent response. Well, that's rich coming from the poster who refused to read the article I quoted from Matthew Happold, despite being invited to do so several times, as it "didn't interest them" (code : pished on their chips) I have no interest in chicmac's posts. He is a mentalist of Ickelike proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Well, that's rich coming from the poster who refused to read the article I quoted from Matthew Happold, despite being invited to do so several times, as it "didn't interest them" (code : pished on their chips) I have no interest in chicmac's posts. He is a mentalist of Ickelike proportions. Coming from the person who thinks he is more qualified on the subject of international law than that "cretin", "clown", "nobody", and "criminal law specialist" David Scheffer? And who when it was pointed out that this was indeed what you said, hid. And you accuse others of being mentalists? Typical Unionist. Scared to look at the facts, and an almost religious approach to your posting style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Ah good. Lib Dem watch: Ed Davey warns wind farm companies about Scottish independence Argh! What will we do with our energy surplus! As for subsidy, he seems to not realise quite a few key things. Still, good to see that yet again, the Lib Dems are engaged in their "Too Wee, Too Poor" chat. Shock! Horror! Competition! The implication of his warning is that Norway and Ireland as small independent nations have been able to build a renewables capacity that they can subsequently export, so good news for us, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Coming from the person who thinks he is more qualified on the subject of international law than that "cretin", "clown", "nobody", and "criminal law specialist" David Scheffer? I at no point claimed to be more qualified than that moron. I claimed to be more qualified on the subject than you and Vikington, which I well am. Not that this matters - I am no slave to academic qualifications and hierarchy. If someone is talking bollocks, they are talking bollocks. Whatever their qualifications. Professors are no more immune to being wrong than anyone else. Especially when they are contradicted by their more qualified peers. People like James Crawford and Alan Boyle, who are vastly more experienced in this field and more knowledgable than David Scheffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabianKnight Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Ah good. Lib Dem watch: Ed Davey warns wind farm companies about Scottish independence Argh! What will we do with our energy surplus! As for subsidy, he seems to not realise quite a few key things. Still, good to see that yet again, the Lib Dems are engaged in their "Too Wee, Too Poor" chat. What is monkey on about, Scotland through renewables has the potential to provide 24% of Europe's total energy requirements. Thus figure comes from independent assessment, its on the scotgov website, I don't have the link handy as I'm on my phone but I'll edit this post later to provide it. Considering we have the potential to provide this amount of electricity I'm fairly certain any subsidies or investment capital will be provided by private companies wanting a slice of the action Another ludicrous story from the Unionists, is it not correct Scotland already subsidises the National Grid anyway, I'm sure those funds could be used to bring online the massive renewable potential Scotland has. I always find it makes more sense to avoid using the oil as an argument for Independence, if you use the money from oil and Gas to seriously invest in renewables, it would provide a much sounder footing for the future, rather than rely on a finite resource that could have less (or more) worth than we expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I at no point claimed to be more qualified than that moron. I claimed to be more qualified on the subject than you and Vikington, which I well am. Not that this matters - I am no slave to academic qualifications and hierarchy. If someone is talking bollocks, they are talking bollocks. Whatever their qualifications. Professors are no more immune to being wrong than anyone else. Especially when they are contradicted by their more qualified peers. People like James Crawford and Alan Boyle, who are vastly more experienced in this field and more knowledgable than David Scheffer. Right you are. You were proved to be 100% conclusively wrong when it came to your statements. "Criminal Law" specialist is he? "Nobody" is he? And when I called you on it, you hid. Again. And now where you are claiming you never read that post. Well you quite clearly did. Or when did this "I never read his posts" thing start? Today? This morning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 And now where you are claiming you never read that post. What post have I claimed I didn't read? What have I been proven to be "100%" wrong on? I am absolutely calling David Scheffer a clueless moron. I've never said anything other than that. His opinions on this have been utter nonsense. Which is why when the experts considered the subject they came to completely different conclusions and left him high and dry. Sadly, we won't get to see him comprehensively humiliated, as Yes is going to lose. Which is a bit of a shame really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Shock! Horror! Competition! The implication of his warning is that Norway and Ireland as small independent nations have been able to build a renewables capacity that they can subsequently export, so good news for us, then. Indeed. Especially given that we already have a surplus, and as said, we're actually already subsidising the British energy grid. I suspect they haven't thought this one through. What post have I claimed I didn't read? What have I been proven to be "100%" wrong on? I am absolutely calling David Scheffer a clueless moron. I've never said anything other than that. His opinions on this have been utter nonsense. Which is why when the experts considered the subject they came to completely different conclusions and left him high and dry. Sadly, we won't get to see him comprehensively humiliated, as Yes is going to lose. Which is a bit of a shame really. I thought you didn't read Chicmac's posts? And you claimed that David Scheffer's background was criminal law, not international law. As I pointed out immediately before the last time you went into hiding. Which I'm sure was a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I thought you didn't read Chicmac's posts? I don't. I assumed you meant one of your posts. And you claimed that David Scheffer's background was criminal law, not international law. As I pointed out immediately before the last time you went into hiding. Which I'm sure was a coincidence. No I didn't. I reproduced a quote from a British government spokesperson. And it's not criminal law as in defending rapists. It's international criminal law, as in the International Criminal Court Scheffer's background is in International Criminal Law. He teaches International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law. Matthew Happold is an International Constitutional Law specialist. James Crawford has published a book on The Creation of States in International Law. They are experts. David Scheffer is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Scheffer's background is in International Criminal Law. He teaches International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law. You know you said a very similar thing before, but with one key word missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 You know you said a very similar thing before, but with one key word missing. I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to think I meant defending burglars in his local municipal court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I can understand how the international law chat can be boring to most however, and pretty much all that needs to be said on it has been said on this thread and the previous one. Until and unless there is a Yes vote it's all pointless speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Fantastic! I love seeing that utter goon from Northwestern cheerleaded by the Natfuds.... A Scotland Office spokesman said: “Prof Crawford, one of the world’s leading experts on new state formation, has said leaving the UK would see Scotland become a new country, with all the issues that entails.” Referring to Prof Scheffer’s law background, the spokesman added: “It is difficult to argue that the view of a criminal law specialist negates the century worth of hard evidence which supports the UK position.” Telt! Back in your box fool. It's the equivalent of Dr. Nick Riviera lecturing on triple bypass surgery. I'm not a lawyer. That's completely irrelevant though trollface. Most lawyers know nothing about International law. It;s one of a number of possible Honours programmes. Comment on International Law matters. What exactly are your qualifications in the field? Professor Scheffer is an utter moron. Which is why he has been completely put in his place by the actual experts. He is a criminal lawyer, way out of his depth when dealing with constitutional matters. Anyone see any mention of International Law in these posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 The clue should really be in the final sentence you quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 The clue should really be in the final sentence you quote. Yes. It backs up my point about your deliberate omission. Still, I think I've proved my point nicely. Again. Anyway, on to real politics, and even the normally "staunch" Grauniad is stepping quietly away from the new Lib Dem policy (passed unanimously apparently!) of home rule for Shetland... If those elsewhere in the UK were taken aback by these bold assertions, the response in the islands might best be described as restrained bemusement. Eyebrows were raised; heads quietly shaken. Scott has been banging this particular drum for quite some time now – ever since the SNP announced their referendum on Scottish independence, in fact. But this is not a rhythm he learned in Shetland. Nobody here is dancing. The truth is that "home rule" is not a future for which the Shetland public are baying. Nor is it a policy on which Scott was elected back in 2011. It is, purely and simply, a pointy stick that he likes to wave at the government: a threat, cloaked in the nationalists' own language of opportunity and self-determination. Like a smug adolescent, Scott repeats his slogan: "It's not your oil" he says; "it's ours". Of course, Ad Lib will no doubt tell us that it isn't JUST because of the SNP. But lets face it, it is. Not like the Grauniad to allow the breaking of ranks, but there you go. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/shetland-home-rule-tavish-scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Of course, Ad Lib will no doubt tell us that it isn't JUST because of the SNP. Well, it is a logical extension of much of the subject matter of the Home Rule Community Rule report adopted by Conference in the Autumn, but I agree, Tavish's motion was pretty much entirely motivated by the politics of north-sea oil and the independence referendum. I've never suggested anything otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 The clue should really be in the final sentence you quote. Well quite. If you'd said "he's very much out of his depth on international law matters" xbl might have had just a modicum of a point. But you didn't, so he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryHills Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Further 2% cut to the block grant by our London Masters http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21847226 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow-sheep Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Further 2% cut to the block grant by our London Masters http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21847226 Will it? From my limited understanding of the block grant will budgets being preserved in health and education and increased money for infrastructure not effect the impact on the block grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.