MONKMAN Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I used to think this kevthedee chap was a troll. I'm now worried, that he's actually as thick as he's appearing to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You bury your head all you like. Westminster was comprehensively rejected. Only a fool fails to realise this fact. In the meantime the people who want to progress Scotland will get on with the hard work. Bury my head to what?A yes vote would have ment we rejected westminster we did not,a snp vote ment we sent mps to westminster to take part in this next parliament again hardly rejection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 When did we "overwhelmingly reject westminster"it was not in september nor was it voting snp one week ago Some 53% voted for pro-Indy parties last week. The IndyRef itself took the pro-Indy vote from 25-30% up to 45% in two years. I'd say that the momentum is with us. Not only that, but next time the scarestories about 'voting no and then Labour to keep the Tories out' won't wash. Labour have also seen their vote decimated - almost literally - due to their standing with the Tories. Doubt if that will happen again. Not many glum Yessers about. We know it's coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Kev why do you revel in a no vote so much when you're a labour voter It makes no sense Would you rather live under a Tory government forever as part of the uk or in under a labour government in an Indy Scotland? Who said i reveled in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Bury my head to what?A yes vote would have ment we rejected westminster we did not,a snp vote ment we sent mps to westminster to take part in this next parliament again hardly rejection.I'd say Westminster was rejected when devolution was voted in. If people were happy with it why would they need devolution. 55% of people voting to remain in the union does not mean 55% are happy with Westminster. People voted no for a number of reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I used to think this kevthedee chap was a troll. I'm now worried, that he's actually as thick as he's appearing to be. So a no vote was us rejecting westminster was it,interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Bury my head to what?A yes vote would have ment we rejected westminster we did not,a snp vote ment we sent mps to westminster to take part in this next parliament again hardly rejection. 56 MP's who represent a party who are anti Westminster. It isn't a difficult situation to comprehend. Just because they are anti-Westminster doesn't mean that the people of Scotland won't be represented Before devolution it would have pretty much guaranteed independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Who said i reveled in it You did with all your posts FFS lad. What about the question? Tory government in the uk. Labour one in Scotland? What would you prefer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Michael Forsyth banging on about the union being in danger now. They really are terrified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Michael Forsyth banging on about the union being in danger now. They really are terrified Michael who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Quitely Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Michael Forsyth banging on about the union being in danger now. They really are terrified And now Henry McLeish weighing in with utter waffle. Will someone please explain to me just how Labour can ever square the circle of trying to appease the 'aspirational, wealth-creating and hard-working families' of Middle England with the more left-leaning communitarian Scottish ethos ? No, me neither. Just like Neil Findlay earlier this week, McLeish advocates a 'federal' structure. So, future Scottish Labour stands four-square in opposition to Trident renewal, whilst London Labour actively endorses it - just how does that work ? They are fucked up here, Murphy or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 It means they would have to vote differently on occasion. It works with their Northern Irish branch office the SDLP who actively support independence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Quitely Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 It means they would have to vote differently on occasion. It works with their Northern Irish branch office the SDLP who actively support independence Apart from being a piece of hypocritical nonsense, I don't expect the Labour Chief Whip would be fine with that. And with the greatest respect to Northern Ireland, I don't think many Scottish or indeed UK voters would ever look to that political arena for any sort of parallels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 good one golden shoe w****r Not quite getting the hang of this banter thing, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Apart from being a piece of hypocritical nonsense, I don't expect the Labour Chief Whip would be fine with that. And with the greatest respect to Northern Ireland, I don't think many Scottish or indeed UK voters would ever look to that political arena for any sort of parallels. They would have a different whip because they would be separate parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 So a no vote was us rejecting westminster was it,interesting. Somebody mentioned you were either thick or a troll. You could be both. Are you capable of thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Sum burd: Nicola Sturgeon@NicolaSturgeon28 mins28 minutes ago .@osmart thanks so much for sending me this. I will treasure it. pic.twitter.com/ODC2Cxrp2t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow-sheep Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Enjoy, fun starts about 30mins in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Alan Cockrain of the Telegraph slavering utter pish. Too many SNP MPs? 'If only there had been a few more Labour MPs, they might have held the balance of power...'. Alan, what is Cameron's majority again? Time for the glue factory Alan. http://atrueindependentscotland.com/alan-cochrane-on-sky-news-snp-won-too-many-seats/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.