# General > Politics >  Separatist hypocrisy

## orkneycadian

Whats it with the separatists and their hypocrisy?  When they want something, they run to the courts, right up to the Supreme Court until they get their way, and tell us that "no-one is above the law"

But yet, when their Spanish colleagues feel the hand of the law from their Supreme Court on them, Wee Krankie says its a lamentable and dreadful outcome.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...erms-1-5022877

Suddenly, it seems that supreme court rulings are no longer as fantastic as first thought, and you can try to be above the law - But only if you are a separatist.

Now, how best to get Krankie herself in jail.....  She can keep her former colleague and alleged sex pest company.....

----------


## Gronnuck

> Whats it with the separatists and their hypocrisy?  When they want something, they run to the courts, right up to the Supreme Court until they get their way, and tell us that "no-one is above the law"
> 
> But yet, when their Spanish colleagues feel the hand of the law from their Supreme Court on them, Wee Krankie says its a lamentable and dreadful outcome.
> 
> https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...erms-1-5022877
> 
> Suddenly, it seems that supreme court rulings are no longer as fantastic as first thought, and you can try to be above the law - But only if you are a separatist.
> 
> Now, how best to get Krankie herself in jail.....  She can keep her former colleague and alleged sex pest company.....


Such bile, such hatred, such bitterness….

----------


## Shabbychic

> Whats it with the separatists and their hypocrisy?  When they want something, they run to the courts, right up to the Supreme Court until they get their way, and tell us that "no-one is above the law"
> 
> But yet, when their Spanish colleagues feel the hand of the law from their Supreme Court on them, Wee Krankie says its a lamentable and dreadful outcome.
> 
> https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...erms-1-5022877
> 
> Suddenly, it seems that supreme court rulings are no longer as fantastic as first thought, and you can try to be above the law - But only if you are a separatist.
> 
> Now, how best to get Krankie herself in jail.....  She can keep her former colleague and alleged sex pest company.....



Awwww. Somebody's feeling a wee bit naughty today. Still, if making daft statements and calling folks silly names makes you feel good, you go for it petal. Get it all out your system. Personally I think all you need is a wee cuddle, and you'll feel all better. Mwah.

----------


## orkneycadian

Hmmm, how recently was it that the seperatists, and their supporters went to the court of session to try and get a ruling to have Boris jailed if he did not capitulate under the surrender act? Oh yes, just the other week. 

Fortunately, the judge put them back in their box, but imagine their glee if the ruling was that Boris should indeed be sent to the Tower. The separatists would have loved that. Wonder how they sleep at night harbouring so much bile, hatred and bitterness....

----------


## dozy

Your going to find yourself in trouble as that's NO WAY to talk about women or anyone else ,whatever party they follow.

----------


## Goodfellers

Does that apply to your views on my favorite PM of all time, MrsT?

----------


## orkneycadian

> Your going to find yourself in trouble as that's NO WAY to talk about women or anyone else ,whatever party they follow.


Don't worry, I would speak of wee Krankie the same way if she were a bloke.  My post was completely gender neutral!  And if she wants to make herself look like a woman who makes herself look like a boy, thats perfectly fine by me.

----------


## Goodfellers

I know which one I'd rather spend the evening with :-) I like a woman who can make me laugh! (doesn't help much does it as they both make me laugh for different reasons)

----------


## Corky Smeek

The election campaign hasn't even officially started and already the debate has been dragged down into the gutter by two of the usual suspects. Both of you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. You are helping embolden the nutters who have already threatened physical violence against two senior SNP women. Joanna Cherry has been threatened by a Labour Party candidate who created a Twitter meme showing someone spraying bleach on her - BANG and the TERF is gone. And only today a unionist activist, currently campaigning on Skye, has suggested on Twitter that Nicola Sturgeon be drugged, kidnapped and imprisoned. If these are not matters for the police to investigate I don't know what is.  For goodness sake can we not campaign in a respectful manner. There is still a long way to go until 12 December.

----------


## orkneycadian

For a new member, with a mere 7 posts to your name, it certainly hasn't taken you long to label "the usual suspects"!

But lets not forget that it was the same Joanna Cherry who ran to the Court of Session to try and get a ruling that BoJo would be jailed if he didn't comply with the Surrender Act.  Fortunaelt she was told to get back in her box.  And rightly so, as this only helps embolden the nutters who think that the courts will side with them everytime to help them get their way.  

And finally, when the europhliles create imagery such as;



then they perhaps need to remember the proverb involving glass houses and stones.

----------


## Corky Smeek

Right, so being a new member somehow dimishes the worth of my opinions in your book. In any case, if you had taken the time to look you would have seen that I have been a member for over 2 years and during that time I have had ample opportunity to draw some conclusions about your allegiances.

Secondly, Joanna Cherry et al were testing the law which they were entirely entitled to do.  You even say it yourself - Cherry was trying to ensure the PM obeyed the "Surrender Act" ie the law. Also, you appear unwilling to condemn the threats made to Cherry and Sturgeon. Given the lack of any expression of regret on your part I think we can safely assume that you don't disapprove of such violent tactics.

You really do paint a dystopian picture of a future Scotland that aligns with your stated beliefs - only allowed to have valid opinions if you have been around long enough; denying people the right to seek legal clarification of major issues and to ensure governments obey the law; turning a blind eye towards violence to women especially if they are able, prominent and politically active. Are you reading this everyone else? It's time to start creating a Scotland that those of us who live here want and not one foisted upon us by Governments we never elect.

----------


## orkneycadian

And, Corky Smeek, if you had taken the time to look, at no point did I refer to anything about the length of time you have been a member.  The contents of that part of the post are fully and completely summed up by the tag "New Member" under your name and Posts: 7.  So its not me thats labelled you "New", but this website.

Ms Cherry is indeed entitled to test the law.  But its as much of a waste of time as me taking you to court to see what the sentence would be, on the offchance that you burgled my house.  Or pulled out in front of me at a junction.  Its little wonder the bench told her to get a grip.  And no-one has asked me to condemn any threats made by anyone.  I don't go out of my way to do that, on the offchance that it will keep someone happy.  Do I disapprove of such tactics?  Yes, of course I do.  I disapprove of all the separatist tactics in Ireland, including those that spill over into Central Belt Scotland.  I would rather not see images like 





I would very much not like to see Nazi imagery such as;



and



All on the streets of Govan.  In or very near the constituency of our First Minister.

I would also not like to se Nazi imagery such as 

I note your avoidance in condemning the most immediately above image.  Do you?

----------


## Corky Smeek

Have you heard of Godwin's Law? If not here is a brief summary. 

"_Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches"; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends". 

_Two references to the Nazis in that last post! You lose, I think.

----------


## Goodfellers

Corky Smeek, you really are coming across as a 'sore loser' We voted to stay in the UK. Our government must obey the law (as you rightly say it must). Conservatives are likely to win the GE, Boris has made it clear he will not allow another referendum.

As for "It's time to start creating a Scotland that those of us who live here want and not one foisted upon us by Governments we never elect. " I have included a table of the last GE results.  24.5% of the electorate voted SNP, the rest voted for 'remain' parties (or couldn't be bothered voting). So, until SNP have way more than 50% (the SNP didn't think the EU referendum % was big enough) you have no right to think Westminster is foisted upon us.

Scotland is already a great country, as are it's people. The only thing wrong with it are the fools running Holyrood, who incidentally harp on about Westminster serving London and the SE at the expense of Scotland. The SNP represent the central belt and don't care to much about us in Caithness. Hypocrites (as are just about all politicians of every party).

----------


## Corky Smeek

You bet I am a sore loser. David Cameron has already admitted that the No campaign in Indyref 1 was designed to win at all costs; whatever it took. As a result the Scottish people were lied to and scared into voting No.

I agree that The Tories are likely to win the GE but the notion that he will not "allow" another referendum is scandalous. Just think about the word "allow" and what it means. It means that a PM the Scots did not vote for is the sole decision maker on Scotland's future. It is within his gift to grant or deny Indyref 2. Let that sink in for a minute. Regardless of how many SNP MPs are returned; regardless of the clearly stated wishes of the Scottish people; regardless of the fact that the SNP already has a mandate for another referendum someone we didn't vote for and is deeply unpopular in Scotland gets to decide our future. It is utterly indefensible. It also illustrates just how little Scotland matters to Westminster. We are supposed to be an equal partner in this union yet the other partner has the power to grant or deny our clearly stated wishes. So, to respond to one of your assertions; I do have every right to think Westminster is foisted upon us. 

Your assertion that the SNP need more than 50% of the electorate to vote for them to have an Indyref 2 mandate is interesting. I tell you what; we will apply that logic to whatever government emerges from the GE - probably the Tories. If they don't have more than 50% of the Scottish electorate voting for them then they too have no mandate to deny us a S.30 and a second Indyref. That must sound fair to you as it is, after all, your idea.

You are damn right that Scotland is a great country. It's far too great a country to be kept captive in this Union by a PM with no mandate to govern us. It is also manifestly untrue that the SNP represent the central belt. Even the most cursory glance at the electoral maps after the last two GEs shows that. 

Finally, if you think Westminster does not have a London and SE bias then you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. Johnston stated quite clearly in 2016 that a pound spent in Croydon is worth more to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde. 

It's time to wake up and recognise the reality facing Scotland. If we don't start making our own decisions then Boris Johnston will make them for us and they will not be in our best interests.

----------


## Gronnuck

Good day *Goodfellers*.  I voted to stay in the UK in 2014, I believed then that the union was best for Scotland.  Since then so much has changed, not least Brexit, tory austerity and the vilification of the poor and disabled.  Regardless of your thoughts or views everyone has a democratic right to change their mind.  There are not many people now-a-days who vote for the same political party throughout their lives, they too have a democratic right to change their mind.

FYI Scotland last voted for a Conservative government in 1955 and consistently voted Labour from 1959 to 2010.  In all that time we have endured a tory government that the people of Scotland did not vote for near enough two-thirds of the time since.  So, in my view it is fair to say for those many years the tory government was foisted upon us.

I will agree with you that Scotland is a great country and the people too.  The Holyrood government are right to argue that Westminster serves the London and south-east.  Particularly with projects like London Cross-rail, HS2, London Heathrow expansion that all cost astronomical sums of money and yet of no benefit to Scotland.

If the Holyrood government is not to your liking, use your vote and vote for change.  Perhaps it is time to make voting in Scotland compulsory!

----------


## orkneycadian

> Have you heard of Godwin's Law? If not here is a brief summary. 
> 
> "_Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches"; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends". 
> 
> _Two references to the Nazis in that last post! You lose, I think.


Given the unlimited amount of time, something akin then to the Infinite Monkey Theorem then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

----------


## orkneycadian

> Whats it with the separatists and their hypocrisy?  When they want something, they run to the courts, right up to the Supreme Court until they get their way, and tell us that "no-one is above the law"


Seems they have even more money to waste on lawyers, trying, but failing to get their way.   Complaining that ITV didn't invite them onto their reality game show tomorrow night.  Given that it's a UK wide election, and the separatists are presently getting about 3 or 4% in the opinion polls, then both ITV, and the High Court are quite right to restrict entry to the "serious contenders". 

Now,  can our courts please get on with the job of dealing with all the murderers, rapists, people traffickers and the likes,  and stop pandering to those who didn't get their way in referenda and elections?

----------


## orkneycadian

So, I guess to prempt Wee Krankie being on TV tomorrow evening at 5 past 10, after the exit poll has been unveiled, wittering on about a mandate, its perhaps worth considering what would constitute a mandate.  In this context for the Neverendum that she keeps bleating on about.

To avoid creating double standards, then any mandate for another Neverendum would need to be produced by;

*Each of the 59 constituencies in Scotland would need to have had a greater than 50% share of the vote for separatist parties - So that will be the SNP and the Green Party then -Just to be clear, that means that of all the votes cast in that constituency, more than 50% of them needs to be for the SNP
*The total votes cast in Scotland for the SNP and the Green Party need to be more than 50% of all the votes cast.  It follows that if the above requirement is met, then so will this one be.
* If both of the above are true, then a mandate for another Neverendum is not out of the question.  But should even 1 constituency fail to meet the 50% SNP/Green Party threshold, or if the total SNP/Green party share of the vote in Scotland be less than 50%, then there is no mandate.  No constituency can be dragged along into another Neverndum against their will.  This is one of the basic principles of the SNP and cannot be reversed now.

Now, lets see how many minutes past 10pm tomorrow night Wee Krankie can get to before she tries to claim the opposite.  My money is on her mouth falling open and "mandate drivel" falling out by 13 minutes past 10.

----------


## Oddquine

> Whats it with the separatists and their hypocrisy?  When they want something, they run to the courts, right up to the Supreme Court until they get their way, and tell us that "no-one is above the law"
> 
> But yet, when their Spanish colleagues feel the hand of the law from their Supreme Court on them, Wee Krankie says its a lamentable and dreadful outcome.
> 
> https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...erms-1-5022877
> 
> Suddenly, it seems that supreme court rulings are no longer as fantastic as first thought, and you can try to be above the law - But only if you are a separatist.
> 
> Now, how best to get Krankie herself in jail.....  She can keep her former colleague and alleged sex pest company.....


I have for the last five years ignored your posts, but people will continue quoting them. 

Firstly, WE are not  seperatists...that description belongs fairly and squarely with Unionists chasin Brexit. We are normalists, because it isn't normal for a country which hasn't been militarily beaten into submission to allow another country to dictate its every action, policy and income.  We turn to the courts to CLARIFY what the English, in the guise of the UK Parliament, think the Treaty of Union gave them leave to do, without consultation, as if we were a conquered colony.  

The Catalans are in a different position to Scotland. The Catalans voted for the Spanish Constitution in a referendum in 1978 and that Constitution specifically states in Article 155 _Section 1. If a self-governing community does not fulfil the  obligations imposed upon it by the constitution or other laws, or acts  in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the general interest of Spain,  the government may take all measures necessary to compel the community  to meet said obligations, or to protect the above-mentioned general  interest.__   Section 2. With a view to implementing the measures provided  for in the foregoing paragraph, the Government may issue instructions to  all the authorities of the Self-governing Communities._ Now to the thinking person that makes the Spanish Constitution immoral, unethical, in that it refuses minority ethnic groups in a defined area the ability to choose their own path, and self-serving...but not illegal.....and because it isn't illegal, all that the FM/PM of a country can say is that it is a disgace. What would you have liked her to say?

Scotland was never asked if it wanted to be a member of any Union back in the 18th century...and there is no written UK constitution to be cited as a legal  basis for the treatment of Scotland as one of the two signatories to the Treaty of Union. In fact, if you think about it, the Union between Scotland and England was like the Union between the UK and the other members of the EU in 1973...because of Trade....but while the EU mostly wanted the UK in the EU  for Scottish fishing waters, England wanted Scotland in their thrall so they could dictate who the Scottish monarch was to be, as the main planks of the Union Treaty was a guarantee that the Hanoverian dynasty would succeed Queen Anne to the Scottish crown.....and Scotland, in return, received a guarantee of access to England's colonial market.

What Supreme Court rulings are we contesting?  The one in which the UK Government thinks it has the right to deny the citizens of a country which is NOT constitutionaly bound to stay a part of GB forever, which has elected a government with a manifesto commitment to treat for another referendum if circumstances changed (which they have) and whose legally elected Parliament has passed a law which permits that referendum?  Why wouldn't we, given that if we didn't we would be taken as tacitly accepting that Scotland is no more than a region of Greater England....and then Westminster could , through precedent, shaft us via any orifice they chose. 

Supreme Court rulings are not the end of the line...there is always the European Courts, though it is faiir to say that the Catalonians are in a weaker position than Scotland in them...but there is always the International Court of Justice. 

Your last line....a nasty, ignorant, typical unionist smear, simply for the sake of saying something to give offence,  is not worth any response.

----------


## orkneycadian

Well, I was a bit out with my time, but has wee Krankie said anything other than the word "mandate" for the last 6 hours?

Not sure why - I have not counted up the constituency results in full yet, partly as all I have found so far is an interactive map to show the SNP share of the vote, and not a nice sorted table!  But at first glance is seems that well below half of the Scottish constituencies returned 50% or more of a vote share for the SNP.  Still need to add the share of the vote for their seperatist cohorts, the Green Party, but its nothing like the clean sweep they would need to say hand on heart that every single constituency in Scotland voted in favour of a separatist party, and that no constituency will be dragged along against their will.  Add to that the fact that nationally, the SNP vote share was just 45%, and the Greens, just 1%, then the total separatist vote was just 46%.  If thats taken as the feeling of the Scottish electorate for another Neverendum, then its little different from the 45% Yes result in 2014.  Its not even as high as the nearly 50% national share of the vote that the SNP got in 2015.  So support is lower in 2019, than it was in 2015, and thats reflected in the lower number of seats won.

So nothing to see here - No mandate - The Scottish electorate have spoken, and yet again, less than half of us have a desire for separatism.

Now, Nicola, there are some people in Govan who would really like to you to get on with sorting out their day to day issues, and the real matters that affect them.  Could you maybe start on that and keep your mind focused on it for the next 5 years?

----------


## Goodfellers

Well, well, that was an interesting night.

As Orkneycadian has just pointed out, the SNP received 45% of votes cast.  That's 1.2million votes out of a possible 4.1million.

With those figures I say bring on Indryref2. 

We can then finally put the SNP in their place. (Until the SNP find yet another reason to hold Indyref3 of course).

----------


## dozy

[QUOTE=orkneycadian;1188612]Well, I was a bit out with my time, but has wee Krankie said anything other than the word "mandate" for the last 6 hours?

Not sure why - I have not counted up the constituency results in full yet, partly as all I have found so far is an interactive map to show the SNP share of the vote, and not a nice sorted table!  But at first glance is seems that well below half of the Scottish constituencies returned 50% more of a vote share for the SNP.  Still need to add the share of the vote for their seperatist cohorts, the Green Party, but its nothing like the clean sweep they would need to say hand on heart that every single constituency in Scotland voted in favour of a separatist party, and that no constituency will be dragged along against their will.  Add to that the fact that nationally, the SNP vote share was just 45%, and the Greens, just 1%, then the total separatist vote was just 46%.  If thats taken as the feeling of the Scottish electorate for another Neverendum, then its little different from the 45% Yes result in 2014.  Its not even as high as the nearly 50% national share of the vote that the SNP got in 2015.  So support is lower in 2019, than it was in 2015, and thats reflected in the lower number of seats won.

So nothing to see here - No mandate - The Scottish electorate have spoken, and yet again, less than half of us have a desire for separatism.

Now, Nicola, there are some people in Govan who would really like to you to get on with sorting out their day to day issues, and the real matters that affect them.  Could you maybe start on that and keep your mind focused on it for the next 5 years?[/QUOT
 You come over as someone in the wrong political relationship ,and wrong point of focus for your anger. You have the right to choose and that includes where we live , my neighbor has moved from England because it wasn't for them anymore . He said " it's easier for me to move than try to change the town or country in was in" . It's not right or polite to call people names ,we would tell a child off for name calling . You state that " some people in govan who would really like she to get on with sorting things out" we she could if her hands and funding were not tied to Westminster . Don't blame others that you yourself have hamstrung by your politics and voting .

----------


## orkneycadian

I like where I live Dozy.  In Orkney, which is part of the UK.  What gets very tiresome is the very vocal minority, 45% in 2014, 46% yesterday if you count in the Greens, who keep trying to tell us all that I should live in Orkney, now not part of the UK.  Then they tell us that a union cannot be withdrawn from if it would mean that one subscriber to that union would be dragged out against their will.  But yet, would happily pull Scottish constituencies out of the UK against their will.  Sure, there are some Scottish constituencies that voted more than 50% SNP yesterday.  Even without the Green votes, we have no doubt on what their wishes are on independence.  But that wish is not universal across Scotland, nor is it in the majority.

To coin a phrase from Nicola "Orkney and Shetlands Voice is not being heard in Holyrood", where you can substitute "Orkney and Shetland" with Caithness, any of the other seats that the SNP did not win last night.  You can even substitute the constituencies that elected SNP, but with less than 50% share of the vote.

This is where Nicola, and all her supporters, need to get into their thick skulls, that whatever argument she makes regards Scotland and Westminster, works just as well for Scottish regions and Holyrood.

BTW, whats happened to the sock puppet twins?  Neither have been logged into this site since the 9th.  One at 22:25, the other at 16:32.  Most odd........  Almost as odd as them both joining up 11 days apart a few years ago.

----------


## dozy

> I like where I live Dozy.  In Orkney, which is part of the UK.  What gets very tiresome is the very vocal minority, 45% in 2014, 46% yesterday if you count in the Greens, who keep trying to tell us all that I should live in Orkney, now not part of the UK.  Then they tell us that a union cannot be withdrawn from if it would mean that one subscriber to that union would be dragged out against their will.  But yet, would happily pull Scottish constituencies out of the UK against their will.  Sure, there are some Scottish constituencies that voted more than 50% SNP yesterday.  Even without the Green votes, we have no doubt on what their wishes are on independence.  But that wish is not universal across Scotland, nor is it in the majority.
> 
> To coin a phrase from Nicola "Orkney and Shetlands Voice is not being heard in Holyrood", where you can substitute "Orkney and Shetland" with Caithness, any of the other seats that the SNP did not win last night.  You can even substitute the constituencies that elected SNP, but with less than 50% share of the vote.
> 
> This is where Nicola, and all her supporters, need to get into their thick skulls, that whatever argument she makes regards Scotland and Westminster, works just as well for Scottish regions and Holyrood.
> 
> BTW, whats happened to the sock puppet twins?  Neither have been logged into this site since the 9th.  One at 22:25, the other at 16:32.  Most odd........  Almost as odd as them both joining up 11 days apart a few years ago.


Nice to know ,drop in next time your going through St Margaret for the ferry . I've always got the kettle on ,we can swap stories. 

It only took 37% for Brexit and that agenda was written on the back of a Boris condom packet. Therefore it may be better to ask this question to Holyrood " what would you do to make things better for us , don't answer in the whole just about the place where in live". Orkney makes great use of what it has to offer in many ways ,but I do feel that choosing the Lib dem may work more against than for ,sometimes you have to pick someone that has the ear of those in power ,than picking more to spite.  . Let's ask the big questions for our political contenders ,on all levels and see what they have to say.  
I personally don't fear independence ,I would rather trust those around me. Than those who see me has a person from a lower partner in a failed contract ,written 300 years past. Any Scottish government has to show " It will listen and take what the local community sees as a priority" .  What if all those on the Org agree to put questions to our political masters and see what the results come from it . There's plenty we agree on and for the bits we don't ,compromise is an option . Let's ask the questions of them and not each other.

----------


## Oddquine

> Well, well, that was an interesting night.
> 
> As Orkneycadian has just pointed out, the SNP received 45% of votes cast.  That's 1.2million votes out of a possible 4.1million.
> 
> With those figures I say bring on Indryref2. 
> 
> We can then finally put the SNP in their place. (Until the SNP find yet another reason to hold Indyref3 of course).


Mibbes aye mibbes naw.   Bear in mind that EU citizens and 16 and 17 year olds don't get to vote in UK General Elections...but do in Scottish elections and referendums, so 45% without their votes is a good start. Better than the 20 odd percent we started with at the first indyref.

----------


## Fulmar

Which was meant to be a 'once in a generation' vote, remember?!

----------


## Oddquine

> Which was meant to be a 'once in a generation' vote, remember?!


That was simply Salmond's personal opinion, not any kind of official political statement by the SNP at any time  And the wider pro-independence movement has never given any indication that that was their thinking.  How long is a generation anyway? Since the 2014 vote, my family has added another generation; a political generation is five years..or the length of time between elections, so since 2014, we are now in a third political generation.  If we hadn't had the two elections post 2015, we'd have been having one  in 2020 anyway...so by the time there is any chance of another indyref,  it _will_ be a political generation later. 

As has been said innumerable times since 2014, if the status quo had been improved on the lines offered by the VOW, something produced in defiance of the purdah rules, AND the promises made by the Better Together mouthpieces had come to fruition, things may well have been different. The desire for independence will never go away, it is as old as the Treaty of Union, but it may well have been sidelined for another generation...but that wasn't how Westminster and the Unionist Parties wanted to play it....something they made very clear when, the day after the vote, Cameron stuck two fingers up at us and announced EVEL.  

So we have had five years of broken promises since 2014, and I can list them if you like, culminating in Brexit, which made a mockery of " EU membership is only guaranteed with a No vote" and which has drastically changed the status quo to the extent that it is now considered necessary to implement a referendum mandate already voted for in accordance with the UK rules, in order to ascertain if the voters of Scotland have changed their minds, as those in a democracy are entitled to do (else it isn't a democracy, but a dictatorship)

----------


## Fulmar

Ok, so in future, whenever Nicola Sturgeon says something important, I'm to regard it as just her personal opinion! Rubbish! Everyone understood that 'once in a generation' meant a human generation in the universally understood meaning of the term.
Fine, bring on your vote, Oddquine and if you lose again, then what. A 3rd referendum, a 4th until you get what you think is the right response? Even Ms Sturgeon acknowledges that not all who voted SNP this time want another independence referendum and as things stand right now, 55% of people voted for parties other than the SNP as opposed to 44% who did.

----------


## Headwark

If there is ever to be another indyref , would it only be fair that the whole of the UK take part in a vote that will affect everyone.

----------


## Oddquine

> Ok, so in future, whenever Nicola Sturgeon says something important, I'm to regard it as just her personal opinion! Rubbish! Everyone understood that 'once in a generation' meant a human generation in the universally understood meaning of the term.
> Fine, bring on your vote, Oddquine and if you lose again, then what. A 3rd referendum, a 4th until you get what you think is the right response? Even Ms Sturgeon acknowledges that not all who voted SNP this time want another independence referendum and as things stand right now, 55% of people voted for parties other than the SNP as opposed to 44% who did.


If she says something new and important, she does it officially...(more on the lines of May or Johnson making an announcement to the press at a podium in front of 10 Downing Street and the gathered press, a statement in Parliament or a speech at some conference or another)....not as an comment at an interview on the BBC on SNP policy or intentions after a particular incident before having any discussions with colleagues or the wider party. For your information and edification , here is a link to the bit of that interview which shows that "once in a generation" was Alex Salmond's personal opinion and not SNP policy.  https://twitter.com/angusmacneilsnp/...735040?lang=en. 

He also said, that  "the only circumstance for another referendum would be an "extra mandate at a subsequent general election"...which the SNP has, in case you didn't notice...so even if he HAD said once in a generation, he _also_ said that a change in circumstance with a fresh mandate would warrant another attempt.  

In my opinion, there probably will be other independence referendums at some stage in the future until independence is achieved, given there will always be people who think the Union has served any purpose it ever had (which was mainly trade with the colonies for Scotland, a settled Protestant succession for the English monarchy and taxes from Scotland to help pay England's National Debt and fund England's wars ,without the money having to be asked from and approved by the Scottish Parliament).  However, as I am in my seventies, I suspect that if we don't win this next indyref, given the current circumstances in the UK, there won't be another one before I die...but I am hoping that, if we don't vote for independence next time, I die before there is another General election in the UK, because I really really don't like being shackled to what what England has become.

----------


## Goodfellers

As Fulmar pointed out, the majority of Scots are happy with the current situation.

The SNP need to produce a financial forecast removing any oil/gas revenue as they are going to become negligable in the very near future.

They will need to convince the working population that they will not be the ones paying for all the SNP promises. This was a big problem for Jeremy Corbyn...free stuff is great, but someone has to pay for it.

And as I've pointed out there was virtually no appetite for independance until the mid 60's when oil and gas was discovered. Do your research before making blanket statements.

----------


## Fulmar

It is categorically not a mandate when 55% of the votes cast were not for it- and we all know what the SNP stands for and were under no illusions about that. Sure, they got more seats but not more votes- face it. Do you ever go to England Oddquine? Funnily enough,it's a country full of diverse folk just the same as in Scotland and with similar range of opinions, some good some bad.

----------


## orkneycadian

> How long is a generation anyway?


According to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation _"It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own".

_That doesnt mean a generation is the gap in time between an expectant mother checking in to the maternity unit, and checking out again, a few days later, babe in arms.  No, a generation would be the time period between a mother checking into the maternity unit, and her daughter doing the same, many years later.

Of course, Alex Salmond has an altogether different concept of a generational period, but then, this is the man who is awaiting trial for over a dozen alleged sexual offences.

If Salmonds claims of "once in a generation" are to be dismissed, then what else was said?

Here we have the then deputy first minister in 2013 - Fast forward to 4:42 in the video clip to avoid the stuck record syndrome

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...evolution-vote;

Where she clearly says in a BBC interview, outside Holyrood;

"The SNP have always said that in our view, these kind of referendums are *once in a generation* events, this is probably a *once in a lifetime* opportunity for Scotland......"

So, there we have the then deputy leader of the SNP, deputy first minister of Scotland stating in an extensive interview with the BBC, outside Holyrood that the SNP (not her, not Salmond) have always said that *in their view* that this is a once in a generation event, probably a once in a lifetime opportunity.  Not a throwaway personal opinion she joked about when half cut in the Holyrood bar, but a very clear statement.

Now, Wee Krankie is not awaiting trial on alleged sexual offences, so we can only assume that her understanding of the definition of the word Generation, is more closely aligned to that in the wiki article above, and how the rest of us understand it.  But she goes further and uses the words "once in a lifetime opportunity".  Given that those who were aged 16 and 17 were given that opportunity in 2014, then I guess she needs to wait another 70 plus years for her words to be true.  Otherwise, it would be a twice in a lifetime opportunity.  And we are supposed to believe what she says, aren't we?

----------


## orkneycadian

> So we have had five years of broken promises since 2014, and I can list them if you like, culminating in Brexit, which made a mockery of " EU membership is only guaranteed with a No vote"......


Didn't Krankie herself say, just a few days ago, according to https://www.theedinburghreporter.co....-of-number-10/

_"In Scotland the SNP is the only party strong enough to stop Boris Johnson."_
So that's what she said.  But yet, even if every voter in Scotland voted SNP on Thursday, Boris would not have been locked out of no 10.  So what she said was untrue.  I wonder how many hapless souls in Scotland were sucked in by that lie, voting SNP, only to find they had been led up the garden path by Krankie.

----------


## orkneycadian

> It only took 37% for Brexit .....


Not quite.  Well, you're right in that 37% of the registered electorate voted for Brexit - 17,410,742 Leave votes out of 46,500,001 registered electors.  But 12.9 million of them didn't vote at all.  Fair enough, its their prerogative.  But when counting votes, in all referendums, elections, votes, whatever you want to call them, then the norm is to count the votes as a fraction of the total votes cast - Not as a fraction of the total electorate.  All you do by doing the latter is diminish the share for the vote for all voting options.

In 2016, 17,410,742 Leave votes were cast out of a total number of votes cast of 33,577,342.  Giving a Leave share of the vote of 51.89%.  That could have been higher had the 12.9 million others turned out, but conversely, it could also have been lower.

----------


## Goodfellers

> I like where I live Dozy.  In Orkney, which is part of the UK.  What gets very tiresome is the very vocal minority, 45% in 2014, 46% yesterday if you count in the Greens, who keep trying to tell us all that I should live in Orkney, now not part of the UK.  Then they tell us that a union cannot be withdrawn from if it would mean that one subscriber to that union would be dragged out against their will.  But yet, would happily pull Scottish constituencies out of the UK against their will.  Sure, there are some Scottish constituencies that voted more than 50% SNP yesterday.  Even without the Green votes, we have no doubt on what their wishes are on independence.  But that wish is not universal across Scotland, nor is it in the majority.
> 
> To coin a phrase from Nicola "Orkney and Shetlands Voice is not being heard in Holyrood", where you can substitute "Orkney and Shetland" with Caithness, any of the other seats that the SNP did not win last night.  You can even substitute the constituencies that elected SNP, but with less than 50% share of the vote.
> 
> This is where Nicola, and all her supporters, need to get into their thick skulls, that whatever argument she makes regards Scotland and Westminster, works just as well for Scottish regions and Holyrood.
> 
> BTW, whats happened to the sock puppet twins?  Neither have been logged into this site since the 9th.  One at 22:25, the other at 16:32.  Most odd........  Almost as odd as them both joining up 11 days apart a few years ago.


Call me a big cynic, but I notice an account that has been dormant since mid 2017 has joined the board. ……..Mid 2017 was when the lovely pair of Corky and Maggie created accounts. Now they have gone quite and Odd starts up. I'm guessing Old hasn't blocked you, and as Corky has, he must have been getting frustrated at not being able to comment....Just my thoughts, I'm sure Odd/Corky/Maggie will set me straight......How many accounts has he got?

----------


## orkneycadian

Doesn't the admin of this forum have any control over sock puppet accounts?

----------


## Gronnuck

IMO In all your posts and from the beginning of this thread *Orkneycadian* you have disparaged the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon despite the fact that this party has been re-elected time and time again.  Your posts are continually confrontational and bitter.  You may call us ‘seperatists’ but many of us would consider ourselves ‘normalists’ for it is not normal in the 21st century for one country to be ruled by another, regardless of its history.
I haven’t read all of your posts so I have yet to find your suggested alternative way forward.  Boris Johnson and the conservatives?  Labour and who?  You’re obviously a unionist so please tell us why you are so enamoured by parties working from London and explain how and why they are so supportive of Orkney.  I am genuinely interested.  
FYI Boris and his conservatives won 43.6% of the UK vote and claim a mandate to govern.  Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP won 45% of the Scottish vote and so are entitled to claim the right for a referendum and allow the people of Scotland to choose their way forward.  What is there to be worried about?  
I don’t want to read another bitter malevolent rant otherwise I will consider this all a waste of my time.

----------


## orkneycadian

I think you overread things a bit there Gronnuck.  I guess before I reply, you're not part of the Corky Smeek / Oddquine / Maggie747 franchise are you?  Just checking.....

Scotland is not ruled by another country - Its part of the UK, and Scotland has its fair share of representation in that union.  59 seats out of 650.  Whats not proportional is that 80% of those 59 seats are filled by SNP MPs who collectively only took 45% share of the vote.  But that's just a quirk of our election system, and one we are all used to.

You enquire as to my political allegiances.  Well, I can tell you this - I did not vote Conservative, nor did I vote tactically to keep the SNP, or any others "out".  I voted for who I thought was the best person to represent Orkney's interests.  The rest is between me and the ballot box, but the above perhaps busts a few more myths you have developed in your mind.

You enquire why I am supportive of being in the UK.  Well, from the wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland 

_"Scotland still conducts the majority of its trade within the UK: in 2014, Scotland's exports totalled £76 billion, of which £48.5 billion (64%) was with constituent nations of the UK, £11.6 billion with the rest of the European Union (EU), and £15.2 billion with other parts of the world."

_The rest of the UK is our biggest trading partner, by a long shot.  We export more than 4 times the value of products and services to the rUK than we do to the EU.  And we export 31% more to the rest of the world than we do to the EU.  In return, we see terrible governance from the EU.  Its the EU who dictate things like our agricultural and fishing policy, to the detriment of so many Scottish communities.

Regards the elections.  What we are being forced to do is try and defend the misinterpretation of previous elections and referendums, and the SNP are undoubtedly the main protagonists of that.  I would be quite happy to accept that in 2016, the whole of the UK voted to leave the EU, with 52% support for, 48% against.  But the SNP are not happy with that.  They try to twist and turn the result to their own ends by saying "Scotland didn;t vote to leave".  Sorry, but the ballot paper asked if the UK should leave.  I don't recall a ballot paper asking if Scotland should leave.  Its this twisting and turning of results that caused so much division, and the SNP are primarily responsible'

What we should have, SNP arguments excluded is;

*2014 - Scotland voted, as a whole, to stay in the UK - Case closed
*2016 - The UK as a whole voted to leave the EU - Case closed
*2019 - UK constituents in Scotland elect 47 or 48 SNP MPs to send to Westminster.  Case closed

That's how it should be.  And I would be happy with that.  Instead, we have the SNP twisting and turning the results again for their own gain.  The election on Thursday was solely to elect MPs for Westminster. That's all.  Nothing more.  Then, those MPs should go to Westminster for the next 5 years and represent their constituents - Not their party whips, but their constituents.  But somehow, the SNP are turning that election of MP's into some kind of mandate for the next chapter of the Neverendum.  Eh?

So that's where we have to come out on the defensive and point out all these errors, and highlight that only 45% voted for the SNP and 1% for the Scottish Greens.  46%.  No mandate.  But then, that question wasn't even on the ballot paper.

Nicola and all her friends really need to try and separate elections for MPs with constitutional matters.  It is true that Boris has a mandate to govern with just 43.6% of the vote.  But that's the same quirk that allows Nicola to grab a selfie with 80% of the Scottish MPs with just 45% of the vote.  That's a quirk of the constituency election system and the SNP have come out handsomely on it.

But constitutional matters we settle by referendums - Like those in 2014 and 2016.  And in those, we don't have the first past the post quirk.

So read this if you wish.  But in doing so, take a look at the SNP and what they are trying to achieve.  Forcing through a constitutional matter that wasn't even mentioned on the ballot paper last week, on the strength of a 45% vote.  If that doesn't make Scotland Afraid, Very Afraid, then I don't know what does.

----------


## orkneycadian

> It is categorically not a mandate when 55% of the votes cast were not for it- and we all know what the SNP stands for and were under no illusions about that. Sure, they got more seats but not more votes- face it.


Alas, Krankie just cant get her head around it;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50799613

Scotland "cannot be imprisoned in the union against its will" by the UK government, Nicola Sturgeon has said.


Don't worry Nicola, no majority of people are being "imprisoned" against their will.  55% of us indicated we were happy with the arrangement back in 2014, and 54% of us reaffirmed that contentment on Thursday.

----------


## Fulmar

I see that Scottish Labour have said that there should be another referendum.

----------


## Goodfellers

I know this should be in the joke section .........

----------


## orkneycadian

> I see that Scottish Labour have said that there should be another referendum.


I guess they need to be seen to be doing something after Thursdays disastrous showing for them.

----------


## Fulmar

Yes, but I think that they will rebuild and come back. I certainly hope so. Feel I've seen it all before and what goes round comes around etc.

----------


## orkneycadian

Lots of separatist hypocrisy going on here.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJhWLfEXnME

----------


## orkneycadian

And a bit more here.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-sco...-oath-in-scots

Do you think she speaks like that at home?  Or in Tescos?  Nah, just a show to try and suggest that Scotland is different, when really all she is doing is speaking English with a Weegie accent.

Now, if Scotland really was different, then this would all be done in Gaelic.  But I doubt that any of the politicians who are pushing all the Gaelic roadsigns down our throats, can actually speak Gaelic themselves, Krankie included.  So speaking English with a thick accent seems to be the next best option to be "non English".

----------


## aqua

A Weegie accent? Get yer ears waxed biy! ‘At’s an Ayrshire accent if ever I heard one. They all speak lek ‘at doon ‘ere biy.

----------


## orkneycadian

Anything south of Pitlochry is Weegie.  Just the same as when the separatists moan about Westminster, anything south of Watford is fair game.

----------


## Shabbychic

> And a bit more here.....
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-sco...-oath-in-scots
> 
> Do you think she speaks like that at home?  Or in Tescos?  Nah, just a show to try and suggest that Scotland is different, when really all she is doing is speaking English with a Weegie accent.
> 
> Now, if Scotland really was different, then this would all be done in Gaelic.  But I doubt that any of the politicians who are pushing all the Gaelic roadsigns down our throats, can actually speak Gaelic themselves, Krankie included.  So speaking English with a thick accent seems to be the next best option to be "non English".



Wow, you really hate the Scots and anything Scottish, don't you. (We should all just get back in our box, dae whit wir telt, and cease to exist.)


Have you ever heard of History? Google? Have you ever checked out why most Scots stopped speaking Gaelic?


Did you know there are many English speaking countries in the world that certainly don't class themselves as English?


There are 3 languages spoken in Scotland today......English, Gaelic and a recognised Scottish language which has various distinctive, local varieties, containing many Scottish words that are certainly not English. How many English people visit Orkney and understand everything being said, for example? Do the folk there just speak English with a thick accent? (but never at home or in Tesco of course.)


Gaelic is actually on the rise again in Scotland, just in case you're interested.

----------


## orkneycadian

Not at all Shabbychic.  We here in Orkney, Caithness, Shetland and everywhere else in the UK have our own distinct dialects.  But, and there is a big but, when we all need to, we revert to a more common accent.

Take Phil Goodlad as an example in the following video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrLjsCCGnuo

For the first 1 minute and 50, he is messing around with Michael Collins, speaking in a way which he knows the American viewers will make nothing of.  Then at 1 minute 50, he puts on his BBC Scotland accent that is "tame enough" for most to understand.  He does the same on Radio Scotland each weekday morning when giving the Weegies their sports updates every 20 minutes (who needs sports updates every 20 minutes at 7 in the morning anyway?).  If Phil gave his reports in the same accent he uses in Shetland, then all the Weegies would be mightily confused at breakfast.

Westminster is a UK wide parliament, and the swearing in ceremony is, whilst a bit of pomp, the occasion where MPs swear their allegiance, not just in front of themselves, but of the general public, watching from the Gallery or on TV.  The parliament website says this can be done in Welsh, Scottish Gaelic or Cornish;

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/...ng/swearingin/

It does not recognise Scots as a language.  (Cue separatists telling us there is the problem.....)  In listening to the first 1 minute 50 of Phil, I understand virtually all of what he says,  - Not because I speak Sheltie, but because Phil is essentially speaking English, with a Sheltie accent.  Same with the MP.  I don't speak Scots, but I know what she is saying, because she is simply speaking English with an accent.

That, and the other MP holding up crossed fingers whilst being sworn in just shows the contempt that these MPs show for the parliament they so despise, but yet, are so keen to get into.

----------


## aqua

I travel to many parts were in of England; both for work and to visit the “friends and aqua” diaspora. In my honest opinion, both personal opinions and culture have changed for the worse in the last ten years, so much that England feels like a very foreign country in many ways. There is more little Englander-ism, more overt racism, and more nonsense spoken about how we get everything for free in Scotland, all in my personal opinion and experience of course.

----------


## orkneycadian

> and more nonsense spoken about how we get everything for free in Scotland,


This alas is the result of the SNPs constant banging on about how Scotland needs to split off from the rest of the UK.  Its a shame, as its making everyone in Scotland out to be English hating.  ::

----------


## Gronnuck

orkneycadian - The independence movement is a bit more than just the SNP.  A myriad of groups came together to form All Under One Banner.  A lot of these groups disagree with some of the SNP’s policies but recognize that the People of Scotland should be the final arbitrators of their future.
The union, of which you are an avid supporter, is suppose to be a union of equals, I see no equality.  You only have to look at Westminster to see the hate and derision cast upon Scotland’s MPs.  You only have to read the main stream media to witness the hatred directed at Scotland and its people.
The loathing that you speak of is of the Westminster/Eton/London centric elite who have no interest in the rest of the UK.  Many people in England feel the same way.

----------


## Fulmar

Can you please post an example of the 'hatred' only I have never ever encountered it.

----------


## Shabbychic

> Can you please post an example of the 'hatred' only I have never ever encountered it.


Find any article about the SNP in any of the Unionist rags....The Express, The Daily Mail and the ilk, then read the comments. You'll feel the love.

----------


## Goodfellers

I too have never experienced, or witnessed 'hatred' directed towards Scots (MP's or otherwise), by any English person. I have however, witnessed plenty of dislike of the English by Scots, many clinging to the past. Time and history have moved on.

All under one banner? Is that the group that employ Diane Abbott to do the protester count :-)  Pick a number, any number then muliply by three!

Ps I'm fairly sure I can trace some ancestry back to the Vikings. Why are the road signs around here not in Runes as this language pre dated Gaelic, an Irish import.

----------


## orkneycadian

> orkneycadian - The independence movement is a bit more than just the SNP.  A myriad of groups came together to form All Under One Banner.  A lot of these groups disagree with some of the SNPs policies but recognize that the People of Scotland should be the final arbitrators of their future.
> The union, of which you are an avid supporter, is suppose to be a union of equals, I see no equality.  You only have to look at Westminster to see the hate and derision cast upon Scotlands MPs.  You only have to read the main stream media to witness the hatred directed at Scotland and its people.
> The loathing that you speak of is of the Westminster/Eton/London centric elite who have no interest in the rest of the UK.  Many people in England feel the same way.


Whilst there will inevitably be some exceptions, I suspect that the vast majority of SNP voters are pro Scexit, and the vast majority of Scexit supporters are pro SNP. Sure, the Greens are pro Scexit, but I think even Diane Abbot could accurately count how may Scexit supporters voted Lib Dem or Scottish Conservative and Unionist.

But if it helps, I'll try in future to refer to them as Scexiteers rather than the SNP.  

The hatred and dislike being sent from South of the border it's largely inflicted on us courtesy of the Scexiteers. A regular comment these days in the context of Scexit is "Lets have the referendum.  But we in England should get the chance to vote too. Then we can be rid of the moaning, whingeing Jocks who just won't give up on bloody Scexit"

----------


## Shabbychic

Originally Posted by *aqua* 
_and more nonsense spoken about how we get everything for free in Scotland,_





> This alas is the result of the SNPs constant banging on about how Scotland needs to split off from the rest of the UK.  Its a shame, as its making everyone in Scotland out to be English hating.


Ach, yer bum's oot the windae as usual. ( please note...I said that well known English saying in a thick weegie accent  :Grin: ) Anyway, it has nothing to do with the SNP or splitting from the UK. For many years now Unionist MPs backed up by the media have been screaming from the rooftops about how Scotland is subsidised by the English taxpayer, and everything we get, they pay for. Instead of giving those south of the border the same benefits we get, they turn it round and make out we are the scroungers.

And I don't know where this idea comes from that the yessers, or Scooters as they are sometimes known, hate the English. They hate Westminster and it's politics, not England or the English.

Ever applied to work for the Daily Mail? You'd be a natural.  :Smile:

----------


## orkneycadian

> And I don't know where this idea comes from that the yessers, or Scooters as they are sometimes known, hate the English. They hate Westminster and it's politics, not England or the English.


Just a minorly inconvenient fact that 533 of the Westminster MPs are elected by (mainly) English voters living in England.  Its those MPs who form the Government, the Cabinet and are most able to shape the policies.  That makes it rather hard to hate the politicians without implicating the electorate that put them there.

----------


## Gronnuck

> Just a minorly inconvenient fact that 533 of the Westminster MPs are elected by (mainly) English voters living in England.  Its those MPs who form the Government, the Cabinet and are most able to shape the policies.  That makes it rather hard to hate the politicians without implicating the electorate that put them there.


Strange isn't it that if Scotland is heavily subsidised by England and our people are hated as whingeing Jocks, not one of those English MPs has raised the question of separation.....

----------


## Goodfellers

That's because most English MP's care about the union and are quite compasionate. Why 'kick out' a member country just because it costs slightly more per head? 

Before someone says 'English MP's only want us for our oil tax'....remember the several hundred years *before* we had oil, there was no call to 'throw' Scotland out....or any call from Scotland to be independant. 

I still have not seen any proof that the English consider us 'whinging jocks'. Some links to articles would be good. Serious articles please, not comedy sketch links. Thanks.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Before someone says 'English MP's only want us for our oil tax'....remember the several hundred years *before* we had oil, there was no call to 'throw' Scotland out....or any call from Scotland to be independant.


Is that the same oil that mainly lies off Orkney and Shetland, but yet the central belters claim is theirs?  Have you ever seen an oil rig on Sauchiehall Street or Princes Street?  Have you seen how many of them are in Scapa Flow these days?

----------


## Shabbychic

> That's because most English MP's care about the union and are quite compasionate. Why 'kick out' a member country just because it costs slightly more per head? 
> 
> Before someone says 'English MP's only want us for our oil tax'....remember the several hundred years *before* we had oil, there was no call to 'throw' Scotland out....or any call from Scotland to be independant. 
> 
> I still have not seen any proof that the English consider us 'whinging jocks'. Some links to articles would be good. Serious articles please, not comedy sketch links. Thanks.



There are so many of your posts, that are really quite incredible. (sterilisation and population management and bringing back a modern version of the Victorian workhouse, for example) Your views at times are totally outlandish. Now there are Westminster MPs who are mostly compassionate, no proof we are classed as whinging Jocks, and the daddy of them all in this particular post.....nobody ever wanted Scottish Independence before we found oil. (tell that to The Bruce and Wallace, and all those who fought and died for that very reason throughout the centuries)


As far as *only* wanting Scotland for our oil, (which they do want actually.....the English edition of the Tory Telegraph) you appear to be one of those with the archaic view that all Scotland has to offer is oil, shortbread and the Loch Ness Monster. Scotland's wealth is so much more than that, and Westminster knows it even if you don't. You probably still believe we are subsidised by England.


Thing is, your mind is totally made up, because you know best, and no matter what argument is put forward, you are right. You don't really want links to any articles for enlightenment, just links to ridicule the sources. As I stated elsewhere, go to any unionist rag, pick any article about the SNP or Scottish Independence, read the article and then read the comments from the average punters who read these papers. You'll find much worse than "whinging Jocks". If you were really that interested you would google these things yourself anyway.


Tell you something else, I at least have principles, and have never ever voted for a political Party I do not support, for tactical purposes. I'm sure the wee Tory candidate who stood, up here at the recent election, was well chuffed with that, and Jamie Stone must be so proud.

----------


## Fulmar

And there is plenty of blatant, racist, anti-English sentiment expressed in Scotland as well- as described in last Friday's 'Groat! Sadly this goes on everywhere and against many or any identifiable group of people that the perpetrators do not like and are ready to blame. It needs to be challenged when it rears it's ugly head wherever and whenever.

----------


## Goodfellers

Shabbychic...

Let's look at 'The daddy of them all'.....Let's look at SNP votes over the last hundred years. I wonder why there was a surge in SNP votes about the time gas then oil was discovered? A mere coincidence?

1935  25,652
1945  30,595
1950  9,708
1951  7,299
1955  12,112
1959  21,738
1964  64,044
1966  128,474
1970  306,802
1974  633,180
1974  839,617
1979  504,259
1983  331,975
1987  416,473
1992  629,564
1997  621,550
2001  464,314
2005  412,267
2010  491,386
2015  1,454,463  (Took most of the Labour vote)
2017  977,569
2019  1,242,380

I think you will find that about 10% of the electorate voted tactically. It's a sensible thing to do. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-

Even your beloved leader encouraged it https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...rity-1-5057779

I'm not ashamed or embarrassed about my other statements. If every benifit/disability claim was genuine, then there would be no need to think about 'modern workhouse'. But we all know so0 many claims are fraudulent, if there was no cash involved, these people wouldn't claim. Simple really.

Top scientists now agree that population is the biggest threat to the planet, so population control is worth thinking about. Come up with a good workable solution and I'll listen. But you wont. You just like to belittle anyone that thinks too 'right wing' for your tastes. Sour grapes because my tactical vote made a difference maybe?

----------


## Goodfellers

Must ask shabbychic....what's your relationship with Corky/Maggie/Odd?

I only ask, as when you look at the pattern of posting, all of you seem to be active/inactive  in quite a telling pattern. One account is very active, then goes quiet and so on. Could just be my suspicious mind, but very coincidental, especially as you all seem to have the same views on just about everything.

Why not just stick to one user name?

----------


## Shabbychic

> Must ask shabbychic....what's your relationship with Corky/Maggie/Odd?
> 
> I only ask, as when you look at the pattern of posting, all of you seem to be active/inactive  in quite a telling pattern. One account is very active, then goes quiet and so on. Could just be my suspicious mind, but very coincidental, especially as you all seem to have the same views on just about everything.
> 
> Why not just stick to one user name?


I'm afraid you have a very active imagination. I have no idea who Corky/Maggie/Odd is or are. In fact I am quite insulted by your insinuation. You check with the moderator on here, and get them to run a check on my IP address. Then I expect an apology. Why on earth would I want to have numerous accounts? Do I really sound like somebody who has to hide behind different identities? Get real!!

----------


## Goodfellers

You have been dormant for quite a while as had ODD, now Corky/Maggie stop posting you start up, spouting the same rubbish they did. Must just be a coincidence. You will not get an apology, as this forum is annonymous, you cannot prove you do not have a connection. I admit the evidence is circumstantial, but never the less, all a bit too suspicious for my liking.

----------


## Goodfellers

I personally think everyone should have to use something like Government Gateway ID to create any online username. Admin would then know exactly who you were and you could only have one ID. It would make trolling redundant overnight.

----------


## Shabbychic

> Shabbychic...
> 
> Let's look at 'The daddy of them all'.....Let's look at SNP votes over the last hundred years. I wonder why there was a surge in SNP votes about the time gas then oil was discovered? A mere coincidence?
> 
> 
> I think you will find that about 10% of the electorate voted tactically. It's a sensible thing to do. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-
> 
> Even your beloved leader encouraged it https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...rity-1-5057779
> 
> ...



What has the SNP got to do with your statement that " for several hundred years before we had oil, there was no call for Scotland to be independant.".  The SNP wasn't even mentioned in your original claim. Nor did you discuss any surge in SNP votes when oil and gas was discovered. That's a whole different discussion.


I don't care if as much as 50% of the electorate voted tactically, it is not something I agree with. It makes a mockery of the whole voting system. And for your information, I do not have a beloved or any other kind of leader. I'm my own person, so to speak, and I decide things for myself, and I am not a member of any Party....so don't assume.


I never asked you to be ashamed or embarrassed about your statements, I said they were incredible and outlandish, but are totally your prerogative.


Regarding the so many fraudulent benefit claims that we all know about, only 2% of the whole benefit system is due to fraud *and* government error. Now tax fraud....that's where the real money lies.


Population control is not something I have really thought about much, but am open to a reasonable discussion on the topic. What I don't like though is talk of compulsory sterilisation programmes. That is the start of the path leading to eugenics and to me, that's a big no no.


I am not in the habit of attempting to belittle anyone, no matter what type of "wing" they are. I'll take people to task if I disagree with them, and expect them to, as you have just done, come back at me for further discussion, but that is not the same as belittling someone. And I can promise you, I don't do "Sour Grapes".

I am not letting that other matter go btw.

----------


## Goodfellers

On 'the other matter', you have clearly been following these threads to know what I have been posting, yet you claim you do not know who Corky?Maggie or ODD are?? Or are you only stalking me?

----------


## Shabbychic

> On 'the other matter', you have clearly been following these threads to know what I have been posting, yet you claim you do not know who Corky?Maggie or ODD are?? Or are you only stalking me?


Why would I stalk you?  I do follow things on the forum from time to time, but don't always comment. Your workhouse comment was so outrageous at the time, I remembered it. Can't even remember what thread it was on.

Regarding your "dream team", yes I have seen some posts from the Corky person, although I don't really remember any from the Maggie one, and I haven't a clue who ODD is, but I do not know who they are.

It really is a sad day though, when you attack people who have the cheek to question your views.

----------


## Goodfellers

I've just gone back to re-read my 'outrageous' workhouse post

_"I know this suggestion will not be popular, but I think the government should bring back a modern version of the Victorian workhouse.

Everyone is guaranteed a roof over their head, three meals a day and warmth in winter This is in exchange for all benefits. There should be the ability to earn a small amount each week for personal items, be that cigarettes, alcohol or other treats._Now I will await the backlash. "

I am suprised you managed to contain your 'outrage' and not post, as you clearly remember it so well.

I still stand by it.

I know that there are many people struggling to keep a warm house at the moment. I bet if this was offered some would take it up willingly.

----------


## Gronnuck

> Shabbychic...
> 
> Let's look at 'The daddy of them all'...……………..Let's look at SNP votes over the last hundred years. I wonder why there was a surge in SNP votes about the time gas then oil was discovered? A mere coincidence?
> 
> 1935  25,652
> 1945  30,595
> 1950  9,708
> 1951  7,299
> 1955  12,112
> ...


The wish for Scotland to be an independent country and free of Westminster rule predates the birth of the SNP in the 1930s.  You appear to be lacking in any depth of knowledge of Scottish History.

----------


## Goodfellers

Obviously....

The figures just show how little appetite there was until the mid 1960's.

Do you want me to list all the results pre the formation of the SNP for you?

----------


## Shabbychic

> I've just gone back to re-read my 'outrageous' workhouse post
> 
> _"I know this suggestion will not be popular, but I think the government should bring back a modern version of the Victorian workhouse.
> 
> Everyone is guaranteed a roof over their head, three meals a day and warmth in winter This is in exchange for all benefits. There should be the ability to earn a small amount each week for personal items, be that cigarettes, alcohol or other treats._Now I will await the backlash. "
> 
> I am suprised you managed to contain your 'outrage' and not post, as you clearly remember it so well.
> 
> I still stand by it.
> ...


You wonder why I remembered your post? Do you actually even know what a workhouse, or as they were called in Scotland, a poorhouse, was?


Well I used to work in what had previously been a poorhouse, and had access to many of the original records, and trust me, it was not a nice comfy place to live. The conditions and rules these poor souls, who were classed as paupers, had to live and work in, were atrocious. Many, many "inmates" (as they were called) died there, and were not even given a proper funeral. The were buried in a small field at the back of the institution, in paupers graves, with no markers or anything, and are still there to this day, in two grassed over, walled off areas. No proper figures were kept of how many.


Families were split up, and lived in designated dorms. The women were only allowed to keep any children under 2 with them. The men spent their days doing things like breaking up rocks, for their keep, not for extra pocket money, because they didn't get any, and they were actually punished for any hammers they broke while carrying out their tasks.


I remember reading about a young woman, in the "Punishment Book", who attempted to run away, but she was reported to the police, brought back, and charged with theft. Do you know what she stole? The petticoat she was wearing. It had been supplied to her by the home and was classed as their property.


So don't tell me how wonderful a workhouse or poorhouse would be for those in poverty at the moment. It's a decent government that is needed. One who works for the people, makes sure they have decent wages and homes to live in, and not just to line their own pockets, or those of their cronies.

----------


## Shabbychic

> And there is plenty of blatant, racist, anti-English sentiment expressed in Scotland as well- as described in last Friday's 'Groat! Sadly this goes on everywhere and against many or any identifiable group of people that the perpetrators do not like and are ready to blame. It needs to be challenged when it rears it's ugly head wherever and whenever.


I take it you are referring to the article about Struan Mackie? I find it totally unacceptable for anyone to be treated like that. By all means take them to task on their policies and political views, politicians must expect that, but race and personal threats should never come into it. As he said in the article, it is happening to those of all Parties across the board. Apparently some female politicians are having a particularly hard time at the moment, causing many to leave politics altogether. It's not right.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Population control is not something I have really thought about much......


Where have you been up till now?  The world population has doubled in the last 50 years.  It took 350,000 years for the population of homo sapiens to reach 1 billion.  Nowadays, we add a billion every 11 or 12 years.




> .... but am open to a reasonable discussion on the topic.


Feel free to contribute.  But to set the scene, world overpopulation is not Westminsters fault, nor will it be solved by Scexit.




> What I don't like though is talk of compulsory sterilisation programmes. That is the start of the path leading to eugenics and to me, that's a big no no.


Do then give us your thoughts.  I listed mine in another thread, and they primarily revolve around education.  Lets not have folk harp on about climate change all the time, without also discussing the underlying reason - The population emergency.  

As you have come into it late, maybe a good place to start would be to research the 1972 Club of Rome report "Limits to Growth".  To whet your appetite, below is a chart from that report, which was one of the first uses of computer modelling;



Interesting that the 1972 simulation accurately predicted things going to rats in the noughties.  And according to the simulation, somewhere about now, the death rate is due to start rising.

----------


## Goodfellers

> You wonder why I remembered your post? Do you actually even know what a workhouse, or as they were called in Scotland, a poorhouse, was?
> 
> 
> Well I used to work in what had previously been a poorhouse, and had access to many of the original records, and trust me, it was not a nice comfy place to live. The conditions and rules these poor souls, who were classed as paupers, had to live and work in, were atrocious. Many, many "inmates" (as they were called) died there, and were not even given a proper funeral. The were buried in a small field at the back of the institution, in paupers graves, with no markers or anything, and are still there to this day, in two grassed over, walled off areas. No proper figures were kept of how many.
> 
> 
> Families were split up, and lived in designated dorms. The women were only allowed to keep any children under 2 with them. The men spent their days doing things like breaking up rocks, for their keep, not for extra pocket money, because they didn't get any, and they were actually punished for any hammers they broke while carrying out their tasks.
> 
> 
> ...


All that you have stated is irrelevant. 

I'm suggesting a '*modern*' version. NOT reverting to a Victorian style system.

Have you heard of Chelsea pensioners. The ex service chaps in bright red coats? They give up their service pension to live in rent free heated accommodation with three meals a day. I suppose that too is 'outrageous' as it is very similar to what I'm suggesting. Let's start a petition to get this outrageous outdated system abolished!

----------


## Goodfellers

Shabbychic....you say


"What I don't like though is talk of compulsory sterilisation programmes. That is the start of the path leading to eugenics and to me, that's a big no no."

I suggest a way of helping to solve the world crisis we are heading towards, yet you see me perhaps advocating 'eugenics'  This article is talking about the USA, but might be worth reading.....last line from it below...https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...ility/climate/

and *long-term population  reduction* to ecologically sustainable levels will solve the global warming  crisis and move us to toward a healthier, more stable, post-fossil fuel,  post-growth addicted society

This is another interesting read https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/climate-change

Line from document...…  The study identified family planning and educating girls as among the top 10 workable solutions to combat climate change available today

And another article written last month, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-climate-alarm

The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food and economic policy. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control...…..

This article tells of 11,000 scientist signing agreeing that population needs to be reduced to save the planet. It's not just my personal opinion, it's the worlds top scientific minds.

So, I'd appreciate it if you didn't paint a picture of me as some kind of monster in your head, I'm suggesting things to maybe help the planet long term.

----------


## Shabbychic

> All that you have stated is irrelevant. 
> 
> I'm suggesting a '*modern*' version. NOT reverting to a Victorian style system.
> 
> Have you heard of Chelsea pensioners. The ex service chaps in bright red coats? They give up their service pension to live in rent free heated accommodation with three meals a day. I suppose that too is 'outrageous' as it is very similar to what I'm suggesting. Let's start a petition to get this outrageous outdated system abolished!


Chelsea pensioners? Right. That's they over 65, single, retired army people, who live in regimented conditions. Get you now.


So, the government will build large institutions all over the country, and fill them up with families, the sick and disabled, and single people of all ages.  Then they will all hand in their benefits in return for a heated room and 3 meals a day, What about clothes and shoes, toiletries, baby stuff, toys, transport costs if they have to go anywhere and things like that? Will they have to wear uniforms or can they pick stuff out of catalogues? How will it work regarding the small amount they will be allowed to earn , that you mentioned, for their personal items and wee treats like their fags and bevvie and stuff? Will these earnings be restricted to certain amounts? Will this work be in-house or outsourced? What about the sick and disabled? What will they do for their wee treats if they can't work? Just off the top of my head, is this the kind of thing you mean?


Yes, that sounds like a great idea. I can see that working. I think it's back to the drawing board on that one, eh?

----------


## Shabbychic

Regarding the topics of workhouses and climate change and population control, and all the other world problems being discussed here, this thread is supposed to be about the hypocrisy of those who want Independence. Don't you think those other things should have their own threads? Just a suggestion.

----------


## Goodfellers

Whatever you say Corky

Or Maggie

or even Odd

Take your pick

----------


## Goodfellers

> Regarding the topics of workhouses and climate change and population control, and all the other world problems being discussed here, this thread is supposed to be about the hypocrisy of those who want Independence. Don't you think those other things should have their own threads? Just a suggestion.


Perhaps you should have thought about that before posting #64...just a suggestion.

----------


## Shabbychic

> Whatever you say Corky
> 
> Or Maggie
> 
> or even Odd
> 
> Take your pick



Oh for goodness sake....Grow Up. You're acting like a petulant 5 year old.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Regarding the topics of workhouses and climate change and population control, and all the other world problems being discussed here, this thread is supposed to be about the hypocrisy of those who want Independence. Don't you think those other things should have their own threads? Just a suggestion.


No issue with the topics drifting about a bit - Thats the way conversation and debate goes in the real world.  But don't worry, as sure as night follows day, some seperatist will soon be hypocritical again, and the thread can meander back onto topic.

----------


## orkneycadian

Well, whattaya know.  You just need to wait a few days, and sure enough, along comes some more seperatist hypocrisy;

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i...tion-kzwb72mth

*Ian Blackford: SNP was systematically omitted by BBC during general election*


Deary me.  Maybe Ian Blackford is feeling upstaged that during the Westminster election, for which he is the SNP leader, Wee Krankie kept stealing his limelight, despite the fact she wasn't even standing in the election.  Aside from that;

_"The party issued a demand to broadcasters last month to “rigorously scrutinise” the Conservatives’ “undemocratic and untenable assertion” that the SNP did not have a mandate for a second referendum__."_

Correct Mr Blackford.  45% of the votes going to the SNP does not constitute a mandate. Conversely, 55% of the votes support a mandate for no further referendum.

----------


## orkneycadian

And another hypocritical separatist comes along.....

https://www.thenational.scot/politic...ms-snp-policy/

*Kenny MacAskill should keep SNP policy criticisms to himself*


Where do you start with that man and hypocrisy?  Cabinet Secretary for Justice?  Then lets out a mass murderer after serving just 11 days for each life he took?  

Then, the separatist rag says.....

_"As a new MP I believe he has a collective responsibility to the party and his fellow MPs to ensure that his opinions and criticisms of SNP policy and in fact anything which, in general, creates mixed messages about SNP policy are kept in check and remain part of party discussion."

_Now you see the separatists in full flow.  No, Dan Wood of Kirriemuir, Kenny MacAskill has a collective responsibility to his constituents.  A concept I believe which is quite alien to the SNP, but one upon which our parliamentary system is supposed to be based on.  Of course, with the SNP, that's something that can be conveniently ignored.  Have you ever seen the SNP MPs in Westminster do, say or vote on anything in anything other than a contiguous block of one?  No, didn't think so - What the High Priestess of Holyrood tells them to do is much more important than whatever their constituents tell them.

----------


## Oddquine

> Call me a big cynic, but I notice an account that has been dormant since mid 2017 has joined the board. ..Mid 2017 was when the lovely pair of Corky and Maggie created accounts. Now they have gone quite and Odd starts up. I'm guessing Old hasn't blocked you, and as Corky has, he must have been getting frustrated at not being able to comment....Just my thoughts, I'm sure Odd/Corky/Maggie will set me straight......How many accounts has he got?


Just having a wee peek at the org....don't come on much now,as I no longer live in Caithness, having given up being a "white settler" in my mother's home county and gone back to my own one...and noticed this. I tend mostly nowadays to stick to reading the Genealogy forum, but do have a look on this one from time to time.

I am assuming that, by Odd, you mean me....and if so, then I haven't a scooby as to who Corky or Maggie are (and having read through the thread, and before you ask, I don't know who  shabbychic is either.)  And I have blocked orkneycadian...I have since the run-up to the last indyref....whether Corky has, I couldn't say...but I wouldn't blame him/her if he/she had. 

To be fair, I wouldn't post at all on this political forum if so many of you didn't talk such utter ignorant Britnat cobblers.  But kudos to you...querying the provenance of posters who post with opinions different to yours is a clever  way to get attention  when you run out of  anything remotely political, and to the point, to say.  

I could fill a whole thread with posts querying the provenance of posters....for example, are you and orkneycadian the same person as you both appear to hold much the same opinions?

----------


## Fulmar

*To be fair, I wouldn't post at all on this political forum if so many of you didn't talk such utter ignorant Britnat cobblers.*  *But kudos to you...querying the provenance of posters who post with opinions different to yours is a clever way to get attention when you run out of anything remotely political, and to the point, to say.**
*
But this is you doing exactly that, belittling those who do not agree with you! The idea on here is surely to discuss matters from all points of view without name calling and thinking that you are somehow superior because you have , in your own estimation, the only 'right' point of view.

----------


## Oddquine

> *To be fair, I wouldn't post at all on this political forum if so many of you didn't talk such utter ignorant Britnat cobblers.*  *But kudos to you...querying the provenance of posters who post with opinions different to yours is a clever way to get attention when you run out of anything remotely political, and to the point, to say.**
> *
> But this is you doing exactly that, belittling those who do not agree with you! The idea on here is surely to discuss matters from all points of view without name calling and thinking that you are somehow superior because you have , in your own estimation, the only 'right' point of view.


But how else do you respond to a pointless, and verging on the paranoid, post insinuating, for no reason at all, that I am on this forum under multiple personalities in a nice manner which isn't going to offend somebody, even individuals to whom the post was not addressed?  I have belittled nobody of the opposite opinion to mine one iota more than they belittle, with regular monotony, everybody with a different opinion to theirs.

----------


## Goodfellers

Feel free to offend me, I've got skin thicker than a heifer.

When someone user the same expressions, same grammar, same content and exactly the same style I become suspicious. Especially when the accounts log in and out at similar times. you can protest as much as you like, the circumstantial evidence suggests to me that you have at least three accounts. You can do nothing to change my mind. 

Contact admin and complain about me if you like, but I believe you are one and the same.

Ps I must say, you have a remarkable memory. 

You blocked Orkneycadian before Indyref, so early 2014? I didn't really post anything political before May 18. Amazing, you'll have to tell me your secret to have such a retentive memory

----------


## Oddquine

I've been a member of the org forums since I moved up to Caithness in January 2006. I'd be interested to be informed which posts you consider illustrate that all the people you think are me use the same expressions, same grammar, same content and exactly the same style. And explain to me how that means that we are all the same person and not just people who are intelligent enough not to waste our time getting our opinions from watching the BBC or reading the likes of the Daily Fail or the Hootsmon, but do our own research and come to our own conclusions, rather than being spoon-fed by the MSM.

If you really think I am posting using multiple identities on this forum, and you aren't just bumping your gums for the sake of saying something...then I would advise you to get in touch with admin, give him a list of those of the org members you think I am operating as.....and have him look into it and do something about it.

----------


## orkneycadian

> for example, are you and orkneycadian the same person as you both appear to hold much the same opinions?


Who was it I was meant to be last time?  Oh yes, thats right - Boris Johnson's long lost cousin.  Damn, rumbled again!  My Goodfellers sock pupperty has been exposed!  :: 

Or maybe, could it just about be possible, that not everyone in Scotland subscribes to the seperatist view?  And that, from time to time, 2 non seperatists just happen to come together in some place - Be it a pub or a discussion forum.  Might it also be possible that those 2 people hold the same view on other things as well, i.e. climate change, the population emergency, etc?  

Right, now that I have been exposed as both Boris Johnson's long lost cousin, and Goodfellers, I am off to create another sock puppet alter ego.   :Wink:

----------


## Fulmar

*not just people who are intelligent enough not to waste our time getting our opinions from watching the BBC or reading the likes of the Daily Fail or the Hootsmon, but do our own research and come to our own conclusions, rather than being spoon-fed by the MSM.
*Perhaps others are also highly intelligent and able to conduct their own research and come to their own conclusions! But it may just so happen that their conclusions differ from those of your good self. You clearly think so highly of yourself and by inference, you denigrate others and it seems that you don't even know that you are dong it. It has to be your opinion or it does not count.

----------


## Oddquine

> *not just people who are intelligent enough not to waste our time getting our opinions from watching the BBC or reading the likes of the Daily Fail or the Hootsmon, but do our own research and come to our own conclusions, rather than being spoon-fed by the MSM.
> *Perhaps others are also highly intelligent and able to conduct their own research and come to their own conclusions! But it may just so happen that their conclusions differ from those of your good self. You clearly think so highly of yourself and by inference, you denigrate others and it seems that you don't even know that you are dong it. It has to be your opinion or it does not count.


I don't think that highly of myself...but I think even less of people who have nothing to say, so proceed to denigrate others by saying, more than once, that people who don't make posts with which he/she agrees are all the same person.  This isn't the first time it has happened...it was a regular occurrence prior to and during the last indyref...when all of those extolling the virtues of remaining in the Union, and screaming SNP BAD, then and now, COULD be telling us how we benefit from the Union, with facts and figures to try to make some kind of a case to combat what those of us who think differently say.   

If people would just admit they would vote no regardless of any consequences to come, and don't want to hear about Westminster's lies, broken promises, obfuscations, manipulation of figures etc and the MSM regurgitating of Westminster propaganda...then just say you will vote NO in a second referendum and don't want to discuss any other option....and I'll add you to my ignore list. My older cousins and I do not agree over independence for Scotland, so we agree not to discuss politics at all. The ignore option is the equivalent, imo, of agreeing to disagree on a forum (as long as others don't quote the ignored person's posts and they are too nasty to be ignored).  But it seems to me that an argument for or against a proposition needs an exchange of facts and figures and the interpretation each party puts on them, to have something to discuss...there is no discussion when the original post is pure bile and nastiness..as it was in this thread.

----------


## Fulmar

It seems to me that most of what you are referring to is in the past and the past is done and dusted.
Then there are 'lies, damned lies and statistics' and all of this was and is very much to the fore so that an ordinary person has to wade their way through and make some sense of it. To suggest that one side was and is all right and the other all wrong is plainly well, wrong.
I personally think that there is no point just now in re-opening the Independence debate but if others wish to then so be it. I'm surprised however, that in your family that rules out any discussion of politics at all. There is plenty of politics to discuss, I think.
I have been interested and informed by the discussions on climate change on here and to me, that is far and away the issue and to resolve it in any way necessitates all countries and nations working together and not falling apart.

----------


## Oddquine

> It seems to me that most of what you are referring to is in the past and the past is done and dusted.
> Then there are 'lies, damned lies and statistics' and all of this was and is very much to the fore so that an ordinary person has to wade their way through and make some sense of it. To suggest that one side was and is all right and the other all wrong is plainly well, wrong.
> I personally think that there is no point just now in re-opening the Independence debate but if others wish to then so be it. I'm surprised however, that in your family that rules out any discussion of politics at all. There is plenty of politics to discuss, I think.
> I have been interested and informed by the discussions on climate change on here and to me, that is far and away the issue and to resolve it in any way necessitates all countries and nations working together and not falling apart.


The past is never done and dusted, it just gets called history and is ignored by some, remembered by others and lessons are not learned from it by anybody.

I don't see my cousins that much, so we generally have more to talk about than politics when we do meet, but we do talk about aspects of political ideology on Westminster/Holyrood laws on longer visits...just not on the merits/demerits of independence. 

I do not think the Independence debate has ever been closed since the signing of the Union Treaty, however much some people would like it to have been.  It is just more organised in these days of easier communication.  Giiven the UK we voted to stay in in 2014 no longer exists, there is now no status quo on offer for any citizen of the union called the United Kingdom...and it wasn't killed off by Brexit, imo...that was simply the last straw...the first was EVEL announced on September 19th 2014...which illustrates that the "Don't leave us, lead us" cry by Better Together supporters meant no more to Westminster than Alex Salmond's opinion that the vote was "once in a generation " meant to the Scottish Government or pro-independence supporters. 

As Brexit is now a done deal, and will go through with whatever kind of a pig's ear the Westminster Government makes of it, there will never be a better time to have another Independence Referendum, because the whole political/economic set-up in the UK is going to change anyway on the whim of Westminster on the back of the Tory Majority elected by England....with only 20 out of 365 Tory MPs elected in the rest of the UK.  So, as change is going to happen anyway, with the pension age going to be raised, workers rights decimated, devolution rolled back etc, and with the uK security blanket now so full of moth holes, that it seems illogical not to choose certain change which allows us to make a kirk or a mill of our own country for ourselves, rather than choose certain change imposed on us, whether we like it or not, by a Westminster Government controlled by the votes of English MPs.

I agree with your last sentence, re climate change, btw, but Westminster has never shown itself to be a team player....so good luck with expecting it to "work with all nations" to combat climate change, when it couldn't even work with Scotland over changes to support for the renewables sector.

----------


## Fulmar

If there is another indy ref, what do you do if you don't win it?

----------


## Oddquine

> If there is another indy ref, what do you do if you don't win it?


Carry on voting SNP, solely on the principle of independence, until the consequences of Brexit start to bite, enough 16/17 year olds start voting and older people of my age group stop voting, so Scotland's future path can be chosen by more of the people who will be walking along it for much of their lives, rather than by those of us who are heading towards the exit.  If we don't win this one, I'm hoping there's another one before I head for the exit myself, but I won't be holding my breath in that expectation. however the appetite will never go away among Scots, any more than it ever has since the Union Treaty was first signed.

----------


## Fulmar

Thanks, that's clear enough then.

----------


## Goodfellers

As you've moved South you no longer get a vote, therefore one less SNP supporter to persuade the Union is still the best option. Although, to be fair I doubt anyone has ever switched vote based on posts on this particular forum.

Odd, do you think it's right that Caithness is governed by the SNP despite the majority of voters repeatedly voteing Lib Dem? Or do we just have to accept that fact, because that's how democracy works?

Interested to know what you mean when you say there has always been an appetite for independance. Looking at historical voting records, I can't find anything to back up that claim. Do you have some facts, proof, to back up that claim? And I don't count the less than 1% who voted snp prior to the oil/gas boom as Scotland having an appetite, unless it's a real tiny appetite.

Hope you settle well in England, it's a great country and lovely people (much like the vast majority of Scots).

----------


## Oddquine

> As you've moved South you no longer get a vote, therefore one less SNP supporter to persuade the Union is still the best option. Although, to be fair I doubt anyone has ever switched vote based on posts on this particular forum.
> 
> Odd, do you think it's right that Caithness is governed by the SNP despite the majority of voters repeatedly voteing Lib Dem? Or do we just have to accept that fact, because that's how democracy works?
> 
> Interested to know what you mean when you say there has always been an appetite for independance. Looking at historical voting records, I can't find anything to back up that claim. Do you have some facts, proof, to back up that claim? And I don't count the less than 1% who voted snp prior to the oil/gas boom as Scotland having an appetite, unless it's a real tiny appetite.
> 
> Hope you settle well in England, it's a great country and lovely people (much like the vast majority of Scots).


Has somebody moved South to England and doesn't get a vote?  Who? 

You are comparing apples and oranges again. There is, believe it or not, a difference between a county/region of a country and a country. If you had asked if I thought the electoral system for Westminster and Holyrood was democratic, I'd have to say that anything using FPTP as a basis can never be democratic. I haven't a clue if Caithness votes the LibDems in a majority of the popular vote for Holyrood or not, because there are no figures I can find for Caithness specifically, but as far as I can see the LibDems have never had a majority of the popular vote in the constituency which includes Caithness, even when they won the seat. Perhaps you can provide a breakdown of the Caithness voting for me to form a considered response. 

I'll get back to you on the historical attempts to get Scotland, if not completely out of the Union, at least Home Rule.  I could have sworn I had posted on here about that at some time, but so far haven't found it, but I do know the first attempt to get out of the Union was in the House of Lords in 1713, but the bill for dissolving the Union lost by just 4 votes.  

How come you are back at the end posting to somebody who is settling in England. Weird kind of post which starts off  referring to someone who isn't me...directly references me in the middle, and bows out referring  to somebody who isn't me.  I'm confused.

----------


## Fulmar

If you live in England, how did you manage to vote SNP in the last election or in ones to come? Do you retain a Scottish address and postal vote?

----------


## Goodfellers

My mistake Odd. you referenced yourself as a 'white settler' We all know that is a unplesant term for an Englishman, fortunately no long used. I then read country for county.

As for thinking you may be someone else. Look at it from my point of view. Corky has been a very prolific poster (backed up by Maggie). As already mentioned posting almost identical content to you. Both accounts go quiet at the beginning of December. Shabbychic then takes up the reigns, despite having been a dormant account since early 2017, again posting almost identical content as Corky and Maggie. Shabbychic even commented on this thread, now Shabby has gone quiet and yet another dormant account from early 2017 takes up the reigns. I would also point out both Corky and Maggie's accounts were created at about the time you and Shabbychic went dormant. Just a massive set of coincidences then?

----------


## Shabbychic

Sorry to disappoint, but I do not have the time to spend all day, every day on the org. In the words of Boy George, "I come and go...." Perhaps you will now accept I do not have Multiple Account Disorder (MAD).

I also now understand who ODD is. I have seen the name Oddquine over the years, and it just so happens our political views are much the same. It happens.

----------


## Goodfellers

Oh how I laughed when you posted!

----------


## Shabbychic

Why would that be?

----------


## Oddquine

> My mistake Odd. you referenced yourself as a 'white settler' We all know that is a unplesant term for an Englishman, fortunately no long used. I then read country for county.
> 
> As for thinking you may be someone else. Look at it from my point of view. Corky has been a very prolific poster (backed up by Maggie). As already mentioned posting almost identical content to you. Both accounts go quiet at the beginning of December. Shabbychic then takes up the reigns, despite having been a dormant account since early 2017, again posting almost identical content as Corky and Maggie. Shabbychic even commented on this thread, now Shabby has gone quiet and yet another dormant account from early 2017 takes up the reigns. I would also point out both Corky and Maggie's accounts were created at about the time you and Shabbychic went dormant. Just a massive set of coincidences then?


You might know that it is an unpleasant term for an Englishman, but I don't. It is a historic term for Englishmen and Scotsmen etc who moved into the colonies and proceeded change the way of life, the language etc  of the natives.  As far as I'm concerned, a white settler is. like the colonialists who invaded far countries, simply an incomer to a district. Every white settler is different...it's an attitude thing, not a nationality thing. If you are an arrogant entitled pig to start with, moving to another area isn't going to change your mindset..and if you are the kind of person who simply wants to get along, then you'll try to fit in.  I could give you a few examples of the first type and a lot more examples of the second...but like everything else in life, the few who make their presence felt are taken to epitomise the whole demography. That's why there is a growing tendency to view people on benefits as scroungers/chancers.....because that is how they are portrayed as the only ones we hear about are the ones who are chancers/scroungers. 

I was a prolific poster on many forums prior to and just after the first indyref....I even had forums of my own...but since then, FaceBook has pretty much taken over my poiitical outpourings, and I now only read three forums, this one, a football one, where I mostly post in the political part, and an American political one, and I only post in them from time to time, when a thread title catches my eye and I think I have something to add or dispute.  This forum, however is the only one in which members are assuming that anyone with a life outsde the org is all the same person posting under multiple identities....the others assume I am who I say I am and let me get on with it, despite the fact that there are many people posting on those other forums who have joined since I did and only post sporadically as well.  

Shabbychic has been a member of the org since 2005 and obviously has more to do with her time than hang about here responding to posts...as do most of us... and I'm sure you will find that there are times in the past when we are both posting around the same time.  FYI, I went  dormant, as you put it, probably before 2014, as I wasn't living in  Caithness after the end of 2013 and after that only frequented the  genealogy and political forums....and in those forums from 2015,(which is as far back as the political forum archives go) I made  about 51 posts.....so if I had intended coming up with a different  persona...why would I wait until 2017 to do it, and why would I bother anyway?   Also  FYI, I have ignored so many rabid unionists since the last indyref, that there are some threads I can't post on because they are pretty much a lovefest by ignored unionists, responding to each other, with just the occasional interjection by anyone else.  I suspect that my ignored list is going to expand a bit shortly, so I anticipate my posts on this forum aren't going to increase any time soon, and may well decrease even further given my propensity to ignore the kind of unionists who raise  my blood pressure....but hey, maybe some of the surnames I'm researching will come up in the genealogy forum.

----------


## orkneycadian

Some more separatist hypocrisy;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-51112821

COP26: Climate summit may cost 'several hundred million pounds'

Keen for the kudos of Glasgow to be on the world stage, but would like Westminster to pay for it.

----------


## Goodfellers

As a UK tax payer, I don't mind paying in principle, provided Nicola Sturgeon makes it clear, this is a UK funded event, and doesn't try to take all the credit for hosting it. 

If only some techie could come up with a system whereby people all around the world could communicate on big screens without leaving their office. Oh wait, they can already you say. World leaders give up on a jolly, not a chance. It's only the public that have to make changes to save the planet, not our leaders....or the rich apparently, they can still sign up for space tourism, but we are expected to stay local to save the planet!  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50929064

----------


## Oddquine

> As a UK tax payer, I don't mind paying in principle, provided Nicola Sturgeon makes it clear, this is a UK funded event, and doesn't try to take all the credit for hosting it. 
> 
> If only some techie could come up with a system whereby people all around the world could communicate on big screens without leaving their office. Oh wait, they can already you say. World leaders give up on a jolly, not a chance. It's only the public that have to make changes to save the planet, not our leaders....or the rich apparently, they can still sign up for space tourism, but we are expected to stay local to save the planet!  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50929064


It would be much the same situation as the London Olympics, then, wouldn't it... all parts of the UK paying and London taking the credit. Different story with the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, where Scotland footed the whole bill itself.

----------


## Shabbychic

> Some more separatist hypocrisy;
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-51112821
> 
> COP26: Climate summit may cost 'several hundred million pounds'
> 
> Keen for the kudos of Glasgow to be on the world stage, but would like Westminster to pay for it.



Hypocrisy you say?  I think you'll find it is *Boris Hypocrisy*.

----------


## orkneycadian

No, that all looks quite reasonable. If Krankie wants it to be a SNP fest, then fair enough, the SNP can pay for it. Oh, hang on a minute. We're skint, and she can't even arrange to have the bins collected in Govan.

So if the UK can afford to host the event, but Scotland cannot, what does that tell us about Scexit?

----------


## Goodfellers

The whole of the UK benefited from the 2012 Olympics, including Scotland https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...iness-18685352 

What economic benefit will be seen in London (or the rest of the UK) from this cop26 conference? What will be the long term economic benefit to Scotland of this conference?

Both the 2012 Olympics and the Glasgow Commonwealth games brought actual benefits to the UK. 

We all know Nicola will try to take as much credit politically from this event as possible, there will be no mention of Westminster funding, it will all be down to her personally. We all know how it works, anything bad, blame Westminster, anything good, credit to the wonderful job the SNP do.

----------


## Shabbychic

> No, that all looks quite reasonable. If Krankie wants it to be a SNP fest, then fair enough, the SNP can pay for it. Oh, hang on a minute. We're skint, and she can't even arrange to have the bins collected in Govan.
> 
> So if the UK can afford to host the event, but Scotland cannot, what does that tell us about Scexit?


And.....there we have it. The sheer lack of understanding the Unionists have in what Independence is all about, Why are we skint? Why can Scotland not afford things? Why? Because Westminster takes control of our finances, and we have to wait and see what the pittance will be that we get back! *As is happening right at this moment*. Why do you think they won't let us go? The simplified version is, they need our money and resources. And, don't quote GERS. That was never meant to be realistic.

Take Holyrood right now, it consists of 5 Parties. Out of that, only 2 are Scottish Parties. The rest take their orders from Westminster. Does that seem right? It is supposed to be a Scottish Government. Let's not forget the fact that many things are not even devolved, and we are at the mercy of Westminster on too many issues. (although the Scottish Government get the blame of their failings anyway)

Then we have the local councils. In many instances the SNP have the most seats, but along come the Independents, the Tories and Labour and all band together to take over, but who in the end gets the blame for everything that goes wrong? Three guesses.

Independence is not about waving flags, wearing kilts, skipping gaily through the heather shouting freedom and hating everybody else, as some Brit Nats seem to think. It's all about being in charge of our own Country and monies, and using it for Scotland and the Scottish people. It's not about the SNP, it's about standing on our own feet and facing the world on equal terms.

Nobody claims it will be easy to start with, but at least we will be doing it for ourselves, and we won't have to put up with all the disdain, and downright lies, thrown our way, from Westminster and the MSM at every turn. We might even be able to afford things without having to go cap in hand for every penny, that was ours to begin with. We are actually a rich wee Country.

----------


## Goodfellers

"It's not about the SNP"...If only that were true. If all the political parties supported it, maybe a few more voters would get behind independance.

Scotland is a rich wee country...Really? where are you getting your figures from? I would like to see some actual evidence for that statement. This is what Bloombergs have to say https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ancial-hurdles

Full fact article https://fullfact.org/electionlive/20...-fact-checked/

Another Full fact check https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/

Another article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ence-dont-add/



The SNP know they can't win on the financial case for independance, so they will go for the 'bad Westminster' case, make Boris out to be a monster and quietly brush aside the fact the country is likely to be financially worse off.....Exactly their argument for stopping Brexit, but clearly doesn't apply to an independant Scotland...as the thread says hypocrisy.

I'll sit here and wait for a proper financial argument backed up with facts, not emotions.

----------


## Goodfellers

Shabbychic/Oddquine.

Very recently you've 'both' used the term MSM....no one else has ever used that term, could 'either' of you tell me what it is an acronym for?

----------


## Shabbychic

> "It's not about the SNP"...If only that were true. If all the political parties supported it, maybe a few more voters would get behind independance.
> 
> Scotland is a rich wee country...Really? where are you getting your figures from? I would like to see some actual evidence for that statement. This is what Bloombergs have to say https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ancial-hurdles
> 
> Full fact article https://fullfact.org/electionlive/20...-fact-checked/
> 
> Another Full fact check https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/
> 
> Another article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ence-dont-add/
> ...




You can sit there till the coos come home, for all I care,  I don't have to justify or back up anything to you. You already know everything anyway, and as you have mentioned, posting on here won't change anyone's mind, especially yours, but that wasn't my intention.


I certainly won't be taking many facts from Tory run websites, but just a few wee pointers. They are using figures that deal with Scotland being part of the UK. They also don't take into account the "non-identifiable spending" like Big Ben, the London Sewer System, Trident and things like that, which we are paying into. It all adds up when someone else is spending your money for you, whether you like it or not. (hence our part of the UK Debt) There are also other things that would be different in an Independent Scotland. (like the extra money needed at present for mitigation of things like the Bedroom Tax)


Regarding it not being about the SNP.....it's not. Don't you get it? The other Parties at Holyrood are run from Westminster, and therefore not allowed to support Independence. Scottish Labour have hinted at changing their views a few times, but are always, swiftly brought to heel from their Westminster bosses. 

The Snp, helped by the Scottish Greens, is the only Party big enough to get us through Independence. Once we get that, the SNP may even disappear as we will have other Scottish Parties to run Scotland, or at least be more committed to Scotland, be they Labour, Tory, Lib Dems, Greens, even a Scottish Raving Loony Party if need be.


Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, Boris *is* a Monster.


MSM means Mainstream Media, and is widely used online.


I'm off now to have more "Emotional Moments". I'm like that.

----------


## Gronnuck

> You can sit there till the coos come home, for all I care,  I don't have to justify or back up anything to you. You already know everything anyway, and as you have mentioned, posting on here won't change anyone's mind, especially yours, but that wasn't my intention.
> 
> 
> I certainly won't be taking many facts from Tory run websites, but just a few wee pointers. They are using figures that deal with Scotland being part of the UK. They also don't take into account the "non-identifiable spending" like Big Ben, the London Sewer System, Trident and things like that, which we are paying into. It all adds up when someone else is spending your money for you, whether you like it or not. (hence our part of the UK Debt) There are also other things that would be different in an Independent Scotland. (like the extra money needed at present for mitigation of things like the Bedroom Tax)
> 
> 
> Regarding it not being about the SNP.....it's not. Don't you get it? The other Parties at Holyrood are run from Westminster, and therefore not allowed to support Independence. Scottish Labour have hinted at changing their views a few times, but are always, swiftly brought to heel from their Westminster bosses. 
> 
> The Snp, helped by the Scottish Greens, is the only Party big enough to get us through Independence. Once we get that, the SNP may even disappear as we will have other Scottish Parties to run Scotland, or at least be more committed to Scotland, be they Labour, Tory, Lib Dems, Greens, even a Scottish Raving Loony Party if need be.
> ...


*Shabbychic*  I've had similar debates with Goodfellers, so this argument is just going around in circles.  Goodfellers and orkneycadian are familiar with the term MSM; theyre just a pair of windup merchants repeating the same negative mantra.  Ive yet to hear them express anything positive about any political movement.

Regarding Scotlands deficit.  This has been debunked many many times.  Scotland cannot have a deficit since its borrowing capability is restricted.  The deficit arises because Westminster proportions its debit to it.  The same tactic was used over India prior to its independence in 1948.
An analogy;  You earn £10 and are forced to give your neighbour eight of those pounds.  Being a magnanimous neighbour they give you back four pounds and then spend two pounds buying a lawn mower for you to use, despite the fact that you dont have a garden or a lawn.

----------


## Goodfellers

> You can sit there till the coos come home, for all I care,  I don't have to justify or back up anything to you. You already know everything anyway, and as you have mentioned, posting on here won't change anyone's mind, especially yours, but that wasn't my intention.
> 
> 
> I certainly won't be taking many facts from Tory run websites, but just a few wee pointers. They are using figures that deal with Scotland being part of the UK. They also don't take into account the "non-identifiable spending" like Big Ben, the London Sewer System, Trident and things like that, which we are paying into. It all adds up when someone else is spending your money for you, whether you like it or not. (hence our part of the UK Debt) There are also other things that would be different in an Independent Scotland. (like the extra money needed at present for mitigation of things like the Bedroom Tax)
> 
> 
> Regarding it not being about the SNP.....it's not. Don't you get it? The other Parties at Holyrood are run from Westminster, and therefore not allowed to support Independence. Scottish Labour have hinted at changing their views a few times, but are always, swiftly brought to heel from their Westminster bosses. 
> 
> The Snp, helped by the Scottish Greens, is the only Party big enough to get us through Independence. Once we get that, the SNP may even disappear as we will have other Scottish Parties to run Scotland, or at least be more committed to Scotland, be they Labour, Tory, Lib Dems, Greens, even a Scottish Raving Loony Party if need be.
> ...


Of course you wont provide me with any facts! I didn't expect you to, you know as well as I do, you can't (apart from pro independance websites)

As for me getting 'my' facts from Tory run sites...Forum Admin on here actually agree Full fact is an independent source (and I'm convinced they are pro independance minded like you). But don't let that get in the way.

Only the snp and greens support independence, the other parties are run by Westminster. You do know that the Westminster parties got a combined total of 1484740 votes, that's more than 210,000 than the snp and greens combined. Can you see why I'm not too worried at the moment?

Thank you for pointing out what msm means. It may be widely used on the internet, but I've only seen it used twice on this forum, as mentioned.

----------


## Shabbychic

> As for me getting 'my' facts from Tory run sites...Forum Admin on here actually agree Full fact is an independent source (and I'm convinced they are pro independance minded like you). But don't let that get in the way.


Not everyone *agrees with that*. (please note....not a Pro-Independence website)

Then there is the *Charitable Status* of Full Fact. The main man is involved in an awfie lot of charities, (as well as director of various companies, 17/18 at present I believe....a *very* busy man), with not a lot of details of what they actually do, nor actual remunerations of those involved. Charity begins at home methinks.

So no, I don't fully trust that source, but also, as I tried to point out, there are many things they do not take into consideration in their calculations regarding Scotland.

And if you are so friendly with Forum Admin, they must surely have informed you by now that I only have one account on here, or have you been given carte blanche to throw accusations at members as you please?

----------


## orkneycadian

> Goodfellers and orkneycadian are familiar with the term MSM; theyre just a pair of windup merchants repeating the same negative mantra.  Ive yet to hear them express anything positive about any political movement.


Now now Gronnuck, remember the last time you embarrassed yourself making statements like that; - http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...62#post1188462




> @ 0122 24/11/19, in the thread "Thank You"
> 
> @ 2228 4/12/19, in the thread "Thank You"
> 
> @ 1127 on 5/12/19
> 
> I guess you don't read all the threads then?


You would think you would have learned;




> Much as it pains me to say it, Jo Swinson came across about equal as Nigel is at the moment. The only thing I can differentiate them on is that Nigel isn't slouching in the chair like Jo was.





> So, I think the top prize of the night goes to Jo Swinson. She did very well, even though her views oppose mine.

----------


## orkneycadian

> And if you are so friendly with Forum Admin, they must surely have informed you by now that I only have one account on here, or have you been given carte blanche to throw accusations at members as you please?


Personally, I find it a bit tricky, but not impossible to stay one step ahead of the forum admin with my various sock puppet accounts.  When I am Boris Johnson's long lost cousin, I have to remember to use the mobile on the 4G.  That gives this site a different IP address to when I am Orkneycadian on the laptop on the broadband.  Just need to remember what device to use depending on which persona I am using.....

----------


## Shabbychic

> Personally, I find it a bit tricky, but not impossible to stay one step ahead of the forum admin with my various sock puppet accounts.  When I am Boris Johnson's long lost cousin, I have to remember to use the mobile on the 4G.  That gives this site a different IP address to when I am Orkneycadian on the laptop on the broadband.  Just need to remember what device to use depending on which persona I am using.....


Well good for you. You find the situation highly amusing and I don't. People should not be accused of things merely on an egotist's outrage at being spoken back to on a public forum. If someone does not wish to be questioned on the content of their posts, they should not be on a forum to start with. They obviously don't understand the concept.


If said person has proof of something, then by all means bring it up and confront the guilty party, but if their evidence is solely based on a temper tantrum feeding grandiose delusions, with no evidence to back up their claim, then they should keep their mouth shut, and maybe have a go at anger management, and a long, hard look at themself.

----------


## Goodfellers

Dear me Shabby! You really need to chill.

There has been no 'outrage' or 'temper tantrums' and certainly no 'grandiose delusions'.  I find it almost amusing (the four accounts acting as one, that is). We only need Maggie to re-enter the fray to have the full set!

I have stated the 'evidence' is circumstantial. I think I even said it could never be proven.

As Orkneycadian  mentioned, your IP address proves nothing. You only need an email address to get an account on here, BT give me six, I've no idea how many gmail or yahoo addresses you can have. I have a network watcher on my pc so I can see everything logged into my wifi. I have a work phone, a personal phone, an ipad and this desktop, they all have a different IP address. Download it and have a look, useful to see if any of your neighbours are using your wifi! https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wirele...k_watcher.html 

As the circumstantial evidence mounts (it's very difficult to maintain four slightly different styles, over time you revert to type without being aware) with each post, I will continue to believe the accounts are linked.

Now, anyone know of any 'anger management' classes  :Grin:

----------


## orkneycadian

Ah Goodfellers, you're obviously not a very seasoned sock puppeteer. The IP address that counts is your public one, which unless you have a very fancy set up, will be the same for all the devices in your house. You are looking at the local IP addresses on your network. All probably starting with 192.168.x.x They get translated in your router to your public IP address.

----------


## Shabbychic

> I find it almost amusing (the four accounts acting as one, that is). We only need Maggie to re-enter the fray to have the full set!
> 
> I have stated the 'evidence' is circumstantial. I think I even said it could never be proven.
> 
> As the circumstantial evidence mounts (it's very difficult to maintain four slightly different styles, over time you revert to type without being aware) with each post, I will continue to believe the accounts are linked.


As I said, since your evidence is purely circumstantial, (all in the mind) you should keep you mouth shut. You seem to think your fantasies are worthy of note to everyone on this forum, but harassing people, and having wee digs constantly, is just wrong. What gives you the right to keep this going? I have attempted to carry on as normal, but you just keep up the innuendos. 

You're probably sitting there right now with a big grin on your face, basking in your thoughts of how wonderful you are. when you are really just a sad little nonentity, who sits behind a wee keyboard trying to feel important. (probably in holey underpants and string vest, Rab C. style) :Wink:   Now, I don't have any actual evidence of this, and in your own words "it could never be proven", but it will give forum members a wee giggle, visualising you, every time they see your name. (just like your implication that I am a sock puppet)

----------


## Goodfellers

Orkneycadian.....You clearly know more than me! It wont be a problem for me as I only have one account :-)

Shabby.....I love the image you have of me! Not too far from the truth. Here is a picture of me just about to go for a dip off Thurso beach :-)

----------


## Shabbychic

> Shabby.....I love the image you have of me! Not too far from the truth. Here is a picture of me just about to go for a dip off Thurso beach :-)


Fantasyland here, eh? There is no way I imagined you looked like this Hunky, Chunk of whatever it is. I was thinking more of Steptoe.......Senior. :Wink: 


Mind you, I was in Tesco last week and overheard one of the assistants saying, "Do you think this Good Feller needs some help?" ::  ::

----------


## Goodfellers

> Fantasyland here, eh? There is no way I imagined you looked like this Hunky, Chunk of whatever it is. I was thinking more of Steptoe.......Senior.
> 
> 
> Mind you, I was in Tesco last week and overheard one of the assistants saying, "Do you think this Good Feller needs some help?"



I'll let you into a secret, My handle is more to do with my taste in music...look them up and have a listen, esp their take on 'Streets have no name' it is epic.

----------


## orkneycadian

You would certainly have a blue grass going dipping in Thurso bay dressed like that

----------


## Shabbychic

> I'll let you into a secret, My handle is more to do with my taste in music...look them up and have a listen, esp their take on 'Streets have no name' it is epic.



Never actually heard of them before. In that sort of musical area I'm probably more Blues,(B.B. King, Tom Waits, Gary Moore, etc.,) than Bluegrass. They certainly look the part of their name though.


Since we are on the subject of music, and it's a lazy Sunday afternoon, see if you can guess what kind of Bands I like. Clue...I started off with the likes of Scottish band *Beggars Opera*. (Now you know my age range)

----------


## Goodfellers

That sounds like very early Genisis to me, so guessing they are from early 70's (I know I could google it, but I haven't) So I guessing you were born early to mid fifties (I hope I haven't offended by that).

----------


## Shabbychic

> That sounds like very early Genisis to me, so guessing they are from early 70's (I know I could google it, but I haven't) So I guessing you were born early to mid fifties (I hope I haven't offended by that).


You almost have it right, and don't worry about offending me with age.

Am rather fond of the Original Genesis with Pete Gabriel, but they lost it for me when he left. They went too commercial and pop for my liking. Could never take to Phil Collins.

That, of course was my quiet listening. To stir my blood I like things a little heavier.

----------


## orkneycadian

Krankie seems to be popular amongst the Scottish separatists this morning.....

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-betrayer/

*The Betrayer*

----------


## Goodfellers

> Krankie seems to be popular amongst the Scottish separatists this morning.....
> 
> https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-betrayer/
> 
> *The Betrayer*


Well written piece. 

Early in the year I did suggest that BJ should have given the SNP the referendum they wanted, but to be held straight away, not at some point in the future. Indy2 needed putting to bed asap so 'normal' Scots can get on with living. 

As a 'reasonably happy' chap, reading that increased my wellness a few % points. Thanks for posting :-)

----------


## orkneycadian

Interesting reading all the comments on the above article. Not many singing the praises of Krankie, nor the present incarnation of the SNP. Are we witnessing the beginning of its implosion?

----------


## Gronnuck

Interesting read, and yes the SNP leadership appears to have ‘run into the buffers’.  Yet we would be fools to believe that Boris Johnston and his conservative party are going to sponsor a new political dawn across Scotland any time soon.
I can hope that *Goodfellers* and *orkneycadian* can offer me some measure of positive hope and reassurance....

----------


## Goodfellers

Gronnuck...you have to have faith. Dominic Cummings know what he is doing!  :Smile:  Take heart from the fact neither of us has packed our bags and heading south. We know it will all continue to be fine.

----------


## Shabbychic

> Interesting reading all the comments on the above article. Not many singing the praises of Krankie, nor the present incarnation of the SNP. Are we witnessing the beginning of its implosion?


You do realise this is all about timing and temper tantrums?


This whole issue is about not getting his own way. The Rev Stu wanted to start a second Independence Party in Scotland, to back up the SNP, and Nicola didn't agree with him, but, you are not allowed to disagree with him. He doesn't like it. So, knowing the usual dummy throwing brigade were wanting Nicola to call UDI in her speech on Friday, and knowing this was not going to happen, he prepared this article to coincide with all the disappointment.....and Hey Presto, an orchestrated reaction. This is not an implosion though, much as you would love that, it will disappear once they have all settled back down. (as they always do) If Nicola contacted him tomorrow and said she now backed his plans, an entirely different article would suddenly appear.


Now, *Pete Wishart* has caused real anger among the troops, and I don't blame them.

----------


## Goodfellers

> Interesting reading all the comments on the above article. Not many singing the praises of Krankie, nor the present incarnation of the SNP. Are we witnessing the beginning of its implosion?


Only just read the comments section. I hadn't thought about Blackford and his troops seduced by Westminster and the pay packet, but it makes sense!

----------


## Gronnuck

> Gronnuck...you have to have faith. Dominic Cummings know what he is doing!  Take heart from the fact neither of us has packed our bags and heading south. We know it will all continue to be fine.


Yes but..., no but..., we've had little encouragement from the tory party over the last ten years.  What positive things can we expect from their majority administration now?

----------


## Corky Smeek

> Gronnuck...you have to have faith. Dominic Cummings know what he is doing!  Take heart from the fact neither of us has packed our bags and heading south. We know it will all continue to be fine.


I think we are all still waiting for any BritNat on this forum to provide any sort of evidence that things "will continue to be fine".  Even taking IndyRef2 out of the equation it would be interesting to hear any justification for that quote.  What do you know that the rest of us don't?

----------


## orkneycadian

> Now, *Pete Wishart* has caused real anger among the troops, and I don't blame them.


That then just highlights how out of touch "the troops" are with Scotland.  BASC here is being portrayed as a gang of wildlife criminals, when nothing could be further from the truth.  I guess "the troops" don't even realise the C stands for Conservation.  But then again, they have probably realised that the B stands for British, and on that grounds alone, it must be despised..... ::

----------


## orkneycadian

> Gronnuck...you have to have faith. Dominic Cummings know what he is doing!  Take heart from the fact neither of us has packed our bags and heading south. We know it will all continue to be fine.


Yup - In the last 300 or so years, we have been in the UK.  Its only more recently that things have been less than ideal.  Perhaps co-incidentally its also only (relatively) recently that we joined the EU and have witness the rise of Scottish Nationalism.

----------


## Shabbychic

> That then just highlights how out of touch "the troops" are with Scotland.  BASC here is being portrayed as a gang of wildlife criminals, when nothing could be further from the truth.  I guess "the troops" don't even realise the C stands for Conservation.  But then again, they have probably realised that the B stands for British, and on that grounds alone, it must be despised.....


No, it just highlight how out of touch Pete Wishart and BASC is with the mood in Scotland, as he found out today. As far as I'm concerned BASC *are* a gang of wildlife criminals, with all the wildlife they destroy, just to keep conditions perfect for the birds they rear for the sole purpose of shooting them. The "C" may stand for Conservation, but Conservation of what? A way of life for the gun brigade? The word British has nothing to do with it. It's all about Blood Sports and the fun they have killing things.

----------


## Corky Smeek

> No, it just highlight how out of touch Pete Wishart and BASC is with the mood in Scotland, as he found out today. As far as I'm concerned BASC *are* a gang of wildlife criminals, with all the wildlife they destroy, just to keep conditions perfect for the birds they rear for the sole purpose of shooting them. The "C" may stand for Conservation, but Conservation of what? A way of life for the gun brigade? The word British has nothing to do with it. It's all about Blood Sports and the fun they have killing things.


Aye, the "S" stands for shooting. How can you shoot things to conserve them?  Also, rather worrying that John Swinney was there.  I'd  thought better of both of them.  

I see another correspondent is claiming that the EU is to blame for the rise of Scottish Nationalism. Is there nothing he won't blame the EU for? The 300+ years of colonial rule from Westminster have nothing to do with it, of course.

----------


## orkneycadian

> No, it just highlight how out of touch Pete Wishart and BASC is with the mood in Scotland, as he found out today. As far as I'm concerned BASC *are* a gang of wildlife criminals, with all the wildlife they destroy, just to keep conditions perfect for the birds they rear for the sole purpose of shooting them. The "C" may stand for Conservation, but Conservation of what? A way of life for the gun brigade? The word British has nothing to do with it. It's all about Blood Sports and the fun they have killing things.


You had better go and complain to the police about what RSPB and SNH are doing in Orkney then under the guise of conservation;

https://www.nature.scot/professional...ldlife-project

They are using *lethal* traps to intentionally trap and kill all stoats on Orkney.  No chance of non lethal traps being used to make live captures, with releases in Scotland - Nope, the RSPB and SNH are out to kill.  In your book then, they too are just out for the fun of killing stoats?

----------


## orkneycadian

And further to the above, I understand that SNH and the RSPB have "accidentally" killed over 550 rats, in their pursuit of mass stoat murder.  I think alongside the 550 rats accidentally murdered, they have so far only intentionally murdered about 22 stoats.  Poor peedie things.

----------


## Shabbychic

> You had better go and complain to the police about what RSPB and SNH are doing in Orkney then under the guise of conservation;
> 
> https://www.nature.scot/professional...ldlife-project
> 
> They are using *lethal* traps to intentionally trap and kill all stoats on Orkney.  No chance of non lethal traps being used to make live captures, with releases in Scotland - Nope, the RSPB and SNH are out to kill.  In your book then, they too are just out for the fun of killing stoats?
> 
> And further to the above, I understand that SNH and the RSPB have "accidentally" killed over 550 rats, in their pursuit of mass stoat murder. I think alongside the 550 rats accidentally murdered, they have so far only intentionally murdered about 22 stoats. Poor peedie things.


That is a totally different thing, and fine well you know it. As my auld granny used to say,"you'd cause a fight in an empty hoose."


What they are attempting with the stoats,* is* "Conservation" I don't believe they are trying to save the local wildlife so they can later shoot them for fun, and make a profit for the privilege. Whether I agree with their methods or not is neither here nor there, but, since they have killed so many rats, one wonders just how much damage *they* have done and blamed it on the stoats?

----------


## orkneycadian

Shabbychic, can I enquire if you come from a more urban upbringing rather than a rural one?  Its just that your views seem to be more aligned with urban dwellers rather than those of us that have lived and worked the countryside all our lives.

You also assume that BASC conservationists only conserve animals to later shoot them.  Oh dear......

Even your beloved SNP "led" Scottish Government, based in the big smoke of the Southern Belt have different views;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51295296

Here we see the townies saying that deer must be culled, as, amongst other reasons, they eat the bark off trees, stunting and killing them, and give rise to the use of "ugly and restrictive deer proof fencing" which impedes the ramblers when out on their Sunday trips to the playgrounds around their big cities.  

However, the Association of Deer Management Groups - The landowners and estates whom you might suggest would be all in favour of "blood sports" as you call them are much less in favour.

So thats a bit of a paradox for you to solve.  The ramblers want the deer killed so they can wander the playgrounds, fence free, with much less chance of their urban dogs catching ticks.  The estates are happy with leaving the existing deer management arrangements as they are, even though they could argue that the deer ticks can affect grouse chicks.

Will we see shooters then going out and shooting all the trees that the deer cull has saved?

I rather doubt it......

----------


## orkneycadian

https://youtu.be/26-Ko0y3V48

----------


## Goodfellers

It was specially converted to only run on hot air....

As always, it's the plebs who have to change their ways, not the 'elite'.

----------


## Corky Smeek

Please don't tell me you want to get into a, "your hypocrites are worse than our hypocrites" discussion!  That is not an argument any of us can win.  Being a hypocrite seems to be part of the person specification for any aspirant parliamentarians regardless of party.

----------


## Fulmar

I happen to think that all of them right now are behaving well in incredibly difficult circumstances and also, they are all (I mean in the different governments) now pulling together and trying to do their best. This is what I've longed for but a shame it took this crisis to knock their collective heads together to bring it about. What we face now is above politics and involves all of us as human beings.

----------


## orkneycadian

> It was specially converted to only run on hot air....


Wow!  It'll go some then!  Should be good for a ton 90 with all that fuel aboard.

----------

