Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Richey Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

Yeah, I read that today and thought the exact same.

It should be instructive to those who badge themselves "unionists" just how little regard some of these people hold Scotland in that they cant even do some decent investigative journalism.

Nick Robinson on R4 yesterday, Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, Iain Hislop on QT (which asked last night for a show of hands on Scottish Independence in that well known hotbed of nationalism.......Rugby last night).

Their common thread is a distinct lack of knowledge about a subject about which they spout on a massive platform.

Scotland actually won Rugby last week and the week before.

[Wee-Bey]

2 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

I’m a right-wing capitalist, although not of the free-market type, which puts me at odds with the government.

What type of 'capitalist' are you then ?

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, renton said:

The sheer breadth of ignorance and arrogance in that article is breath taking.

For me, the two central points he misses are that the Calman commission happened. What we got out of that is what the WM parties could stomach giving us. What we have is the limit of Devolution now, we are at Devo Max.

Second, the simple fact that we would lose our court battles with WM show how the British (read, English) constitution makes Parliament the supreme arbiter of everything. There is no one we can appeal to. Which neatly loops back to point 1.

A third bonus point: all his boviating about our economy is built on GERS 

The central point that he missed is that it was Salmond who pushed for a Devo Max second question in 2014, which was rejected by David Cameron. Which blows up the entire premise of his argument. 

It sums up the nick of the London media that nobody completed an even bare minimum fact-checking exercise before publishing that nonsense. 

[Leith Green]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

The central point that he missed is that it was Salmond who pushed for a Devo Max second question in 2014, which was rejected by David Cameron. Which blows up the entire premise of his argument. 

It sums up the nick of the London media that nobody completed an even bare minimum fact-checking exercise before publishing that nonsense. 

There have always been people who can write but who miss the nuance - a lot of these people have traditionally been kept in check by sub editors and editors who know the subject and would put a line through copy if it was demonstrably shite.

There is little evidence of genuine editing these days, and far too many Comment pieces masquerade as News Stories - sadly many of the readership struggle to see the difference.

[razamanaz]

23 hours ago, Central Belt Caley said:

The silver lining of her standing down is that the dreadful patter of “Nippy Sweety”, “Wee Jimmy Krankie” and “Nicoliar” will hopefully be forgotten about on this forum + social media 

You forgot Elsie McSelfie, hundreds of selfies with the great and the good at conferences she wasn't invited to

[vikingTON]

8 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

There have always been people who can write but who miss the nuance - a lot of these people have traditionally been kept in check by sub editors and editors who know the subject and would put a line through copy if it was demonstrably shite.

There is little evidence of genuine editing these days, and far too many Comment pieces masquerade as News Stories - sadly many of the readership struggle to see the difference.

It is technically a comment piece but he's on the Guardian payroll as a regular contributor. It should still be fact-checked otherwise it's no different from some bloke braying after 7 pints in a pub. 

[renton]

17 minutes ago, virginton said:

It is technically a comment piece but he's on the Guardian payroll as a regular contributor. It should still be fact-checked otherwise it's no different from some bloke braying after 7 pints in a pub. 

There is no way of knowing he didn't compose that mess into his phone, standing at the bar, 5 pints of Barley ale in, in some homes Counties Green King Inn.

[Scary Bear]

3 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Because historically, culturally and in terms of nationhood, I feel British.

I don’t see any need to divide up the country, and am more than comfortable having the same chance as everyone else to vote for an MP, in a system where in terms of population, Scottish constituencies are actually over represented.

I’m a right-wing capitalist, although not of the free-market type, which puts me at odds with the Government.

Anything that’d take us down a more socialist road is a big No No from me.

In the event of an independent Scotland, we’d lose important, long-standing and wholesome traditions, which would break my heart

That seems a reasonable enough explanation to me.

I support independence but I have serious concerns for an independent Scotland if the current MSPs were involved in running it. 
 

[Scary Bear]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Don't forget wholesome.

I think the poster may struggle with that one. Define a wholesome tradition…hmm?

Nah, piece of piss.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Scary Bear

[Wee-Bey]

You will be forbidden to drink tea in the afternoon in an independent Scotland as it's too wholesome and British.

[Richey Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Bodie said:

You will be forbidden to drink tea in the afternoon in an independent Scotland as it's too wholesome and British.

Good.

[Wee-Bey]

1 minute ago, Richey Edwards said:

Good.

These days they arrest you and throw you in jail for being wholesome and British.

[Wingman]

8 hours ago, GTee said:

Maybe No voters on here could say why they are No voters?

Don't recognise Scotland is a country in its own right. 

Prefer to be governed by a larger neighbouring country.

Didn't like Salmond.

Didn't like Sturgeon.

Other reasons.

?

 

 

Simple.

Scotland is part of the UK.

I am British first, Scottish second.

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, Wingman said:

Simple.

Scotland is part of the UK.

 

You are opposed to changing the status quo because... it's the status quo? 'Simple' indeed. 

[scottsdad]

36 minutes ago, Wingman said:

Simple.

Scotland is part of the UK.

I am British first, Scottish second.

4 posts in, and not even subtle.

[Billy Jean King]

50 minutes ago, Wingman said:

Simple.

Scotland is part of the UK.

I am British first, Scottish second.

*******Sock Puppet alert**********

[renton]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

You are opposed to changing the status quo because... it's the status quo? 'Simple' indeed. 

And wholesome.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

I've heard that the SNP plan to ban cheese rolling on independence day. They are also going to block any transmissions of EastEnders.

[alta-pete]

2 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

That seems a reasonable enough explanation to me.

I support independence but I have serious concerns for an independent Scotland if the current MSPs were involved in running it. 
 

This is kind of where I am on it. I'm not really a fan of Holyrood being run as a branch office of any of the UK parties; by default therefore, of the remaining options available, I should probably be an SNP supporter. The problem I've got with them however is it seems to me that the major projects they have tried to undertake they seem to be able to consistently make an utter cack of it; at that point I conclude that at least we've got the safety net of being welded to a neighbour 80% bigger (and therefore more resilient) than us.

If they could somehow prove they were competent at running a bath that would go a long way to winning over the unconvinced (like me) that there's half a chance of having a viable administration in place.

[Anonapersona]

30 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

This is kind of where I am on it. I'm not really a fan of Holyrood being run as a branch office of any of the UK parties; by default therefore, of the remaining options available, I should probably be an SNP supporter. The problem I've got with them however is it seems to me that the major projects they have tried to undertake they seem to be able to consistently make an utter cack of it; at that point I conclude that at least we've got the safety net of being welded to a neighbour 80% bigger (and therefore more resilient) than us.

If they could somehow prove they were competent at running a bath that would go a long way to winning over the unconvinced (like me) that there's half a chance of having a viable administration in place.

I don't think the SNP could do anything to convince people like you. It's just not your thing. Pretending is just pretending.