Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Guest Jedi]

15 minutes ago, sophia said:

I tried to make it simple for you by taking just one of your questions.

Would we be prevented from joining NATO?

We all know the answer so rather than claiming abuse, would you thank those that have had the good grace to help you in your unremitting quest for knowledge?

I am forever in your debt...is that better? And I appreciate you taking the time to b-r-e-a-k   t-h-i-n-g-s    d-o-w-n   f-o-r   m-e and explain them in the necessary terms that a 4 year old could understand.

I am well aware that membership of NATO is a bone of contention within the SNP amongst its membership, hence the question not whether or not Scotland hosts nuclear weapons., but don't let that stop you.

'If's buts, maybe' but's if's' about what the UK would look like, but yet we 'know' what the UK looks like at the moment. Of course people are aware that currency can go up and down in value, as can interest rates, and yes, nobody can predict the wars of the next 10, 20 years.

I don't think that dismisses 'any' questions of how a 'new' (note not current, but 'new') currency in the case of Scotland might work. You are clearly satisfied that the SNP have answered (any) questions you might have had about the mechanics of the post-Independence arrangements for Scotland in all areas. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Jedi

[Antlion]

12 minutes ago, Jedi said:

 

'If's buts, maybe' but's if's' about what the UK would look like, but yet we 'know' what the UK looks like at the moment. Of course people are aware that currency can go up and down in value, as can interest rates, and yes, nobody can predict the wars of the next 10, 20 years.

 

Yes, and it’s dreadful. That you think some woolly possibilities and fantasies about what the UK might look like, maybe, one day (at some point, but you don’t really know) are sufficient to vote for it is baffling.

Using your logic, if you’re uncomfortable voting for independence because you’re unsatisfied with answers about its future composition, and you have no answers beyond vague “ifs” and “maybes” and “could bes” on the UK’s future composition, then unless you find “what the UK looks like at the moment” just perfect, you couldn’t really vote “Yes” or “No”.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Surely if the UK could hold a referendum on EU membership on the basis of a tory majority for 2016 without the EU requiring to say yes, then Scotland as a member of another political union does not require the ‘permission’ of any external state actor for its own referendum? 

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Surely if the UK could hold a referendum on EU membership on the basis of a tory majority for 2016 without the EU requiring to say yes, then Scotland as a member of another political union does not require the ‘permission’ of any external state actor for its own referendum? 

The law of the land as most people understand it is that the Westminster Parliament is sovereign and the Holyrood Parliament only exists due to the Scotland Act which Westminster can change or repeal at any time. 

The Supreme Court may yet interpret the situation differently but it's not the same situation as the UK and the EU.

[Antlion]

6 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Surely if the UK could hold a referendum on EU membership on the basis of a tory majority for 2016 without the EU requiring to say yes, then Scotland as a member of another political union does not require the ‘permission’ of any external state actor for its own referendum? 

If the UK was founded on a modern, democratic constitution, yes. But it doesn’t. Even devolution was designed just to keep us in our box. And we’ve been jolly naughty little Jocks and thundering bad sports to misuse it rather than being dumbly grateful, what.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

It's bizarre reading arch-unionist Detournement criticise Sturgeon because she wouldn't make a UDI.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

17 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The law of the land as most people understand it is that the Westminster Parliament is sovereign and the Holyrood Parliament only exists due to the Scotland Act which Westminster can change or repeal at any time. 

The Supreme Court may yet interpret the situation differently but it's not the same situation as the UK and the EU.

Its recognised that the Scottish people are sovereign. 

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Its recognised that the Scottish people are sovereign. 

Who by?

 

[DAFC.]

They never imagined a pro-indy party could/would ever win elections in this country.

The SNP have totally flipped politics on its head in this country, and the elite/unionists HATE it. They know, unless there is some miraculous drop in appetite for indy in this country, or Labour/Tories decide to jump in to bed with each other at a national level (they’ve already done it during the referendum and at local level anyway, so why not?) it’ll continue to be dominated by SNP ergo indyref soundbites continuing indefinitely.

Based on that would the Unionists in Westminster (whoever is in charge) not be better biting the bullet, sanctioning indyref, and if they win it probably kills it for a good long while? This is going nowhere any time soon. Keep saying “You had your chance in 2014” just doesn’t wash at all.

[Clown Job]

24 minutes ago, Antlion said:

If the UK was founded on a modern, democratic constitution, yes. But it doesn’t. Even devolution was designed just to keep us in our box. And we’ve been jolly naughty little Jocks and thundering bad sports to misuse it rather than being dumbly grateful, what.

Power devolved is power retained 

[BFTD]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

How dare people ask how the Scottish government would pay for a state pension in a foreign currency? Are they that attached to eating and heating?

Aye, those are totally the people that was a reference to.

Surprised you're not on board with the theory that the UK state pension will be wound up in our lifetimes anyway.

[coprolite]

What was that about getting eaten by bees? 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Got to doff my cap to HB's determined and consistent attention-seeking pish btw. 

'Played. 

[Detournement]

10 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Aye, those are totally the people that was a reference to.

Surprised you're not on board with the theory that the UK state pension will be wound up in our lifetimes anyway.

Sterling will be wound up in our lifetime. We will have Central Bank Digital Currency before the end of the decade imo.

I think it's far more likely that the stock market crashes destroying private pension wealth than the state pension gets wound. Hungry people are fine, starving people are a problem.

 

[BFTD]

3 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Sterling will be wound up in our lifetime. We will have Central Bank Digital Currency before the end of the decade imo.

I think it's far more likely that the stock market crashes destroying private pension wealth than the state pension gets wound. Hungry people are fine, starving people are a problem.

That's more like it.

You say "problem", Prime Minister Dorries will say "opportunity". The kind of aspirant working class people she grew up around weren't troubled by trivialities like cannibalism.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

22 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Sterling will be wound up in our lifetime. We will have Central Bank Digital Currency before the end of the decade imo.

I think it's far more likely that the stock market crashes destroying private pension wealth than the state pension gets wound. Hungry people are fine, starving people are a problem.

 

Hmmm, thanks for that.  Anyone looking for a life model ?

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Hmmm, thanks for that.  Anyone looking for a life model ?

You'll be too thin for modelling work by then.

[carpetmonster]

TBF Sterling will be wound up by Christmas the way Truss is going. @P and B Official Hamster, watch yourself, that bugger Edwards will be after your pelt for trading. 

[sophia]

2 hours ago, Jedi said:

I am forever in your debt...is that better? And I appreciate you taking the time to b-r-e-a-k   t-h-i-n-g-s    d-o-w-n   f-o-r   m-e and explain them in the necessary terms that a 4 year old could understand.

My word!

2 hours ago, Jedi said:

I am well aware that membership of NATO is a bone of contention within the SNP amongst its membership, hence the question not whether or not Scotland hosts nuclear weapons., but don't let that stop you.

So you were trolling then

2 hours ago, Jedi said:

'If's buts, maybe' but's if's' about what the UK would look like, but yet we 'know' what the UK looks like at the moment. Of course people are aware that currency can go up and down in value, as can interest rates, and yes, nobody can predict the wars of the next 10, 20 years. 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Perhaps you are directing this to another poster. If so, would you do them the courtesy of quoting them? That would make things nice and clear.

Otherwise, I'm still not sure what you are trying to get across but we sure do know what the UK looks like and it isn't nice.

 

2 hours ago, Jedi said:

I don't think that dismisses 'any' questions of how a 'new' (note not current, but 'new') currency in the case of Scotland might work. You are clearly satisfied that the SNP have answered (any) questions you might have had about the mechanics of the post-Independence arrangements for Scotland in all areas. 

Listen darling, wouldn't have the first idea of when I'm clearly satisfied so don't ever presume that you do.

[Todd_is_God]

22 hours ago, renton said:

That they would claim a mandate to seek negotiation with the incoming UK government regarding making Scotland an independent state.

Which is pretty much exactly the same thing as you'd get from an IndyRef. 

No one is talking about storming Pacific Quay and proclaiming a new Republic  during the weather segment.

SG: We said we'd use this election as a de-facto referendum and we won. Can we be independent now, please?

WM: Lol. No.

Then what?