SNP are lying b******s as well !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

If making comparisons with other independent nations, it might be more helpful and persuasive to provide some stats to gain more insight. For example can you list the income tax rates in Denmark, Norway and Ireland, the amount of workers in their population who pay income tax, the percentage of workers who are public sector workers and the percentage of the population reliant on welfare payments. I'd find that information interesting and informative. TIA.

---

I will try to dig that out when I’m on my computer on Monday, but the article Ozy has shared is a brilliant insight in to this.

Norway has one of the highest income tax rates in the world, but their level of public service is phenomenal and wages as a whole are a lot higher. This article explains

https://frifagbevegelse.no/foreign-workers/norway-does-not-have-a-common-minimum-wage-for-all-workers-here-we-explain-why-6.539.832584.eb1e6e70f1

A cleaner in Norway can expect a minimum wage of £16 per hour, with extra payment outside conventional hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

I can't help thinking you must have stronger arguments than the above for being so anti-independence surely, HH?

"those who appear to deem true 'Scottishness' to be dependent on supporting independence" Who are these people? I've still never encountered them.

"many who just don't see why we're so different from folk living in all parts of the UK" I guess it depends on what you mean by different. We don't, as a country vote tory, and we didn't vote for Brexit for example?

"What I also feel is overlooked by the nationalists is that for many their preference to remain British is irrespective of politics" Okay, but a decision on independence is very much a political one. And if our argument was that we just want to be 'Scottish' and not 'British' regardless of politics, we'd be scorned at with quotes of 'Braveheart' and 'anti English'

"Governments come and go." They do, but they are most often Tory, and never the one Scotland votes for.

"the SNP personify the worst traits of the stereotypical Scot (dour, humourless and with an incessant chip on their shoulder)" I won't entertain this with a retort about the traits of people like Boris and Jacob RM:greengrin

---

This is kind of what I was alluding to in my earlier post when I referred to independence supporters finding it hard to fathom why those who voted no could possibly feel that way. There's a sense that we need to be schooled in the error of our ways.

I don't think I need 'stronger' arguments. As John Curtice has pointed out British identity was 'key to the 2014 referendum'. Commenting on the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, he adds: "In so far as the independence debate is about identity, it is the intensity of people's British identity that matters, not that of their Scottish identity. Scottish identity is a near ubiquitous attachment that unites rather than divides most people in Scotland. It is how British they feel that divides them, and is reflected in differing attitudes in the independence debate."

Sure, the debate is about more than identity, but that's the crux of it for me and I think that's a reasonable and honest stance to take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

No probs, just think if you and other posters are going to make continual comparisons with other similarly sized nations, you might make a more persuasive case by providing some stats to back it up.

Re: your 2nd question, why would I, what purpose does it serve? We've voted already and the majority were happy to retain the current political set up.

---

Have I made continual comparisons?

Anyway what would make Scotland so unique that it couldnt go along similar lines to other successful small Nations?

You don't think its odd that you can't name a similar set up outside the UK?

If it's the gold standard why isnt it mirrored elsewhere?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

This is kind of what I was alluding to in my earlier post when I referred to independence supporters finding it hard to fathom why those who voted no could possibly feel that way. There's a sense that we need to be schooled in the error of our ways.

I don't think I need 'stronger' arguments. As John Curtice has pointed out British identity was 'key to the 2014 referendum'. Commenting on the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, he adds: "In so far as the independence debate is about identity, it is the intensity of people's British identity that matters, not that of their Scottish identity. Scottish identity is a near ubiquitous attachment that unites rather than divides most people in Scotland. It is how British they feel that divides them, and is reflected in differing attitudes in the independence debate."

Sure, the debate is about more than identity, but that's the crux of it for me and I think that's a reasonable and honest stance to take.

---

Absolutely is reasonable and I appreciate your honesty 👍 I was being genuine when questioning if you had other reasons, as I assumed you would likely have some political reasons for your choice as well as the above.

Why is it that your arguments are reasonable and honest stances but when someone from the independence side puts their part of the debate over, they’re attempting to school you?

Do you therefore, based on the above, concede that you don’t see any political reason for us to remain part of the union, should there be another political referendum, and you’d be voting purely because you prefer to be identify as British than Scottish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

We've voted already and the majority were happy to retain the current political set up.

---

It's a fair point, but what bothers me is the terms the last referendum were fought on. e.g. more powers for Scotland (remember Gordon Brown?) , a 'choice' on EU membership.

The first never happened (and there seems to be pressure from the incumbent government to go the other way) and the second didn't feel like much of a choice to me.

Things have changed considerably (including the EU's attitude towards an independent Scotland) since 2014.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callum_62

Have I made continual comparisons?

Anyway what would make Scotland so unique that it couldnt go along similar lines to other successful small Nations?

You don't think its odd that you can't name a similar set up outside the UK?

If it's the gold standard why isnt it mirrored elsewhere?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

---

I did add other posters...it's not the first time these comparisons have been made.

To my knowledge Scotland has a fairly lowish percentage of workers who pay any income tax, we also have a fairly high percentage of public sector workers. Add to that people who are dependent on welfare payments and that adds up to a fair amount of revenue paid out and not so much recouped via the employment sector.

I don't think it's odd, because it's not me that's questioning it. Who said it's a gold standard btw?

I'm interested in more detail. Thanks Jones28 (don't know how to multiquote) an easy to read breakdown would be useful. Ozy's link is easy for most to understand I would imagine, your average voter wants easy to read and understand stats to make quicker comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McSwanky

It's a fair point, but what bothers me is the terms the last referendum were fought on. e.g. more powers for Scotland (remember Gordon Brown?) , a 'choice' on EU membership.

The first never happened (and there seems to be pressure from the incumbent government to go the other way) and the second didn't feel like much of a choice to me.

Things have changed considerably (including the EU's attitude towards an independent Scotland) since 2014.

---

I understand that. The problem the SNP have with the EU argument being the main reason for another referendum is, a fair number of Labour and Tory voters, voted to remain, some of the Labour vote may still favour re-joining the EU over remaining in the UK. I don't see many Tory voters dong that. Also nearly a third of the leave voters are SNP voters and then there's the 30% who weren't even bothered enough to vote. On that basis I think they have a job on their hand making this the main reason to vote for Indy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

This is kind of what I was alluding to in my earlier post when I referred to independence supporters finding it hard to fathom why those who voted no could possibly feel that way. There's a sense that we need to be schooled in the error of our ways.

I don't think I need 'stronger' arguments. As John Curtice has pointed out British identity was 'key to the 2014 referendum'. Commenting on the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, he adds: "In so far as the independence debate is about identity, it is the intensity of people's British identity that matters, not that of their Scottish identity. Scottish identity is a near ubiquitous attachment that unites rather than divides most people in Scotland. It is how British they feel that divides them, and is reflected in differing attitudes in the independence debate."

Sure, the debate is about more than identity, but that's the crux of it for me and I think that's a reasonable and honest stance to take.

---

I agree with this. If you feel British then that’s the single best reason to vote for the union. It’s an honest stance to take.
Luckily for us supporters of Indy, every new generation feels less and less British.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

I did add other posters...it's not the first time these comparisons have been made.

To my knowledge Scotland has a fairly lowish percentage of workers who pay any income tax, we also have a fairly high percentage of public sector workers. Add to that people who are dependent on welfare payments and that adds up to a fair amount of revenue paid out and not so much recouped via the employment sector.

I don't think it's odd, because it's not me that's questioning it. Who said it's a gold standard btw?

I'm interested in more detail. Thanks Jones28 (don't know how to multiquote) an easy to read breakdown would be useful. Ozy's link is easy for most to understand I would imagine, your average voter wants easy to read and understand stats to make quicker comparisons.

---

If its not the gold standard why would anyone vote for it to remain in place?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callum_62

If its not the gold standard why would anyone vote for it to remain in place?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

---

A multitude of reasons would be my guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I agree with this. If you feel British then that’s the single best reason to vote for the union. It’s an honest stance to take.
Luckily for us supporters of Indy, every new generation feels less and less British.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I don’t feel particularly British and I am definitely Scottish first. I maybe feel more British when there is an olympics taking place but that’s it.

My reasons for preferring remaining in the UK are that for all its faults, and there are many, Scotland as a nation and the Scottish people are better served being in the UK.

I do find the position on the EU to be a new dynamic. I think we do 60% of our trade with the UK but we may be aiming to create a border that will make trade more difficult and then try to change the nature of our trading relationships. I also agree with an earlier poster that not all independence supporters see the EU as the way forward and if comes to the crunch there may be another big divide at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I agree with this. If you feel British then that’s the single best reason to vote for the union. It’s an honest stance to take. Luckily for us supporters of Indy, every new generation feels less and less British.

---

It is an honest stance to take, you're right.

My issue is that in 2022 being British means you need to align yourself with the far right English Tory party who wants a low tax, low benefits, everyman-for-himself economy, a country where immigrants are not valued, where zero hours contracts prevail and workers' rights don't exist, where food standards and environmental standards are diminished, and there is no NHS. If that's the sort of country you want to live in, stick with the union.

That's not for me.

It doesn't look like many of the British nationalists on here have been persuaded yet. Many of them seem happy enough with what they have. The Scottish Parliament being bypassed by the UkGov in devolved areas. That's ok though, as long as we feel British. Whatever the next referendum brings, a targeted approach to the waverers is where we'll win, along with the youth vote. This thread has really just highlighted in a few posts how the British nationalists feel about Scotland.

Where's your money tree.

Prove you can be as good as other small nations.

Whilst being accepting of the current regime in London.

When we win the pensioners, we win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

My reasons for preferring remaining in the UK are that for all its faults, and there are many, Scotland as a nation and the Scottish people are better served being in the UK.

---

You were posting at the same time as I was so I didn't see this.

I understand where you're coming from, but for the reasons stated in my previous post, I don't believe we are "better served being in the UK". The UK - or rather England - is lurching in a very unsavoury direction and we'll be far better served outside of it, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

I don’t feel particularly British and I am definitely Scottish first. I maybe feel more British when there is an olympics taking place but that’s it.

My reasons for preferring remaining in the UK are that for all its faults, and there are many, Scotland as a nation and the Scottish people are better served being in the UK.

I do find the position on the EU to be a new dynamic. I think we do 60% of our trade with the UK but we may be aiming to create a border that will make trade more difficult and then try to change the nature of our trading relationships. I also agree with an earlier poster that not all independence supporters see the EU as the way forward and if comes to the crunch there may be another big divide at that time.

---

Your second para. What's the evidence for this? Where are we being better served?

Quote from an old Private Eye article.

The whole way politics is conducted in Scotland has changed beyond recognition and anyone deluded into believing there is anything liberal or progressive about that should consider the case study of Blackford versus Kennedy. They might be reminded that other people’s Nationalisms invariably look more attractive from a safe distance. Charles Kennedy, the good man, died three weeks after losing his seat. The poison of the campaign did not kill him but it robbed him of peace and dignity in the last months of his life. Democratic politics need never be like that. As one of Charles’s staff, David Green, told the programme: ‘Because you don’t believe in a certain constitutional outcome for the country you deeply care about, that doesn’t make you a Quisling or a traitor… It just means you have a different viewpoint.’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

It doesn't look like many of the British nationalists on here have been persuaded yet. Many of them seem happy enough with what they have. The Scottish Parliament being bypassed by the UkGov in devolved areas. That's ok though, as long as we feel British. Whatever the next referendum brings, a targeted approach to the waverers is where we'll win, along with the youth vote. This thread has really just highlighted in a few posts how the British nationalists feel about Scotland.

Where's your money tree.

Prove you can be as good as other small nations.

Whilst being accepting of the current regime in London.

When we win the pensioners, we win.

---

British nationalists is exactly why it’s impossible to have any sensible debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

British nationalists is exactly why it’s impossible to have any sensible debate.

---

Their really isn't anything wrong with it. Scottish nationalist, British nationalist. English nationalist, they're all used in the free British press.

What's wrong with it?

Go and have a look at the latest piece from David leask, a respected journalist. He's covering British nationalism in one of his pieces.

.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I don't think I need 'stronger' arguments. As John Curtice has pointed out British identity was 'key to the 2014 referendum'. Commenting on the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, he adds: "In so far as the independence debate is about identity, it is the intensity of people's British identity that matters, not that of their Scottish identity. Scottish identity is a near ubiquitous attachment that unites rather than divides most people in Scotland. It is how British they feel that divides them, and is reflected in differing attitudes in the independence debate."

Sure, the debate is about more than identity, but that's the crux of it for me and I think that's a reasonable and honest stance to take.

---

The result of the forthcoming census will be a good indication of what people think, whether they identify as Scottish, British or something else is one of the questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

Quote from an old Private Eye article.

The whole way politics is conducted in Scotland has changed beyond recognition and anyone deluded into believing there is anything liberal or progressive about that should consider the case study of Blackford versus Kennedy. They might be reminded that other people’s Nationalisms invariably look more attractive from a safe distance. Charles Kennedy, the good man, died three weeks after losing his seat. The poison of the campaign did not kill him but it robbed him of peace and dignity in the last months of his life. Democratic politics need never be like that. As one of Charles’s staff, David Green, told the programme: ‘Because you don’t believe in a certain constitutional outcome for the country you deeply care about, that doesn’t make you a Quisling or a traitor… It just means you have a different viewpoint.’

---

I haven’t seen anyone called a quisling or a traitor on these boards for probably about 7-8 years. What’s the relevance of the part in bold to what has been a pretty respectful discussion over the last few days by both sides of the debate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapitalGreen

I haven’t seen anyone called a quisling or a traitor on these boards for probably about 7-8 years. What’s the relevance of the part in bold to what has been a pretty respectful discussion over the last few days by both sides of the debate?

---

It's a quote from the article?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

It's a quote from the article?!

---

I know it is, I’m just not sure of it’s relevance and why the part in bold has been highlighted during what has been a respectful debate unless someone felt they were being called a quisling or a traitor.

I see that loathsome Patrick Harvie has attempted to liken Ukraine's plight to that of Scotland ahead of the Greens' party conference, despite Sturgeon distancing the Scottish government from similarly crass comments by Mike Russell last week. It's bampots like him who will hopefully help to erode confidence in what an independent SNP/Greens government might look like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I see that loathsome Patrick Harvie has attempted to liken Ukraine's plight to that of Scotland ahead of the Greens' party conference, despite Sturgeon distancing the Scottish government from similarly crass comments by Mike Russell last week. It's bampots like him who will hopefully help to erode confidence in what an independent SNP/Greens government might look like.

---

Who has suggested there will be a SNP/Greens government in an independent Scotland?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I see that loathsome Patrick Harvie has attempted to liken Ukraine's plight to that of Scotland ahead of the Greens' party conference, despite Sturgeon distancing the Scottish government from similarly crass comments by Mike Russell last week. It's bampots like him who will hopefully help to erode confidence in what an independent SNP/Greens government might look like.

---

Lucky being part of the UK means we never have loathsome idiots running the country.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Lucky being part of the UK means we never have loathsome idiots running the country.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I agree, but that does not mean we don’t have loathsome idiots running Scotland. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapitalGreen

I haven’t seen anyone called a quisling or a traitor on these boards for probably about 7-8 years. What’s the relevance of the part in bold to what has been a pretty respectful discussion over the last few days by both sides of the debate?

---

Apologies, I'll try again. Didn't mean to cause any disrespect. This was the part that struck a chord with me.

Because you don’t believe in a certain constitutional outcome for the country you deeply care about, It just means you have a different viewpoint.’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Absolutely is reasonable and I appreciate your honesty 👍 I was being genuine when questioning if you had other reasons, as I assumed you would likely have some political reasons for your choice as well as the above.

Why is it that your arguments are reasonable and honest stances but when someone from the independence side puts their part of the debate over, they’re attempting to school you?

Do you therefore, based on the above, concede that you don’t see any political reason for us to remain part of the union, should there be another political referendum, and you’d be voting purely because you prefer to be identify as British than Scottish?

---

Again with the yes, but...:wink:

Fair enough, all I meant was I'm just putting my point of view across and that view really is as straightforward as it appears.

FWIW though, in the event of another referendum my 'political' stance would be that because I don't agree with the SNP's raison d'etre (ie the break-up of the UK) I could never vote for it. Like many others, I identify as Scottish AND British so yes I'd prefer to remain that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

FWIW though, in the event of another referendum my 'political' stance would be that because I don't agree with the SNP's raison d'etre (ie the break-up of the UK) I could never vote for it. Like many others, I identify as Scottish AND British so yes I'd prefer to remain that way.

---

So you'll be happy with the privatisation of the NHS then? Because that's what you'll get.

We're no longer in the EU but I still feel I'm part of the wider Europe and would class my self as European in certain circumstances.
I'm guessing if we're ever independent I'll still feel British as well.


With regards to any iScotland government my mum and dad will revert back to Labour and Tory so will cancel each other out and let in the snp! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

Who has suggested there will be a SNP/Greens government in an independent Scotland?

---

A constant refrain from the opposition supporters!! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Again with the yes, but...:wink:

Fair enough, all I meant was I'm just putting my point of view across and that view really is as straightforward as it appears.

FWIW though, in the event of another referendum my 'political' stance would be that because I don't agree with the SNP's raison d'etre (ie the break-up of the UK) I could never vote for it. Like many others, I identify as Scottish AND British so yes I'd prefer to remain that way.

---

The raison d'etre of the SNP is self determination. The UK would still exist, it would just be all the poorer for it :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Their really isn't anything wrong with it. Scottish nationalist, British nationalist. English nationalist, they're all used in the free British press.

What's wrong with it?

Go and have a look at the latest piece from David leask, a respected journalist. He's covering British nationalism in one of his pieces.

---

I think it's fair to say that the phrase British nationalism conjures up associations with the BNP/extreme right. Not unreasonable to take exception to being described that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I think it's fair to say that the phrase British nationalism conjures up associations with the BNP/extreme right. Not unreasonable to take exception to being described that way.

---

Not in the context of my post. Nothing from that could be construed to mean as much.

Maybe the poster just doesn't like being asked questions which have to be backed up.:dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I think it's fair to say that the phrase British nationalism conjures up associations with the BNP/extreme right. Not unreasonable to take exception to being described that way.

---

It's an interesting point....

So...

What does someone who supports the union as it is just now want to be called?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

It's an interesting point....

So...

What does someone who supports the union as it is just now want to be called?

---

A proud Scot with a different view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

A proud Scot with a different view.

---

That works!... but in terms of a wee discussion surely we can't be typing that out every time! :greengrin

No voter then :-)

Although I expect in the event of another referendum it will not be a yes no answer. Happy to be a remainer then

So its Nats vs proud Scots with a different view

[emoji106]

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

No voter then :-)

Although I expect in the event of another referendum it will not be a yes no answer. Happy to be a remainer then

---

Lol... I get where you're coming from... i seem to remember that using the word 'no' was an issue as it implied a form of negativity!


What's in a name... :-)
Johnson (and the Tories in general) are really good at trolling the snp in Westminster...
Every time they mention it, it's the Scottish NATIONALIST Party.

(Appears to really rip Blackfords knitting when it's brought up!)

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

Lol... I get where you're coming from... i seem to remember that using the word 'no' was an issue as it implied a form of negativity!


What's in a name... :-)
Johnson (and the Tories in general) are really good at trolling the snp in Westminster...
Every time they mention it, it's the Scottish NATIONALIST Party.

(Appears to really rip Blackfords knitting when it's brought up!)

:greengrin

---

To be fair getting any partys name right should be a given as showing a modicum of respect in the house

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callum_62

To be fair getting any partys name right should be a given as showing a modicum of respect in the house

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

---

Bozo Probably thinks Murray Ross is the leader of the Scotland Nationalistic Party.


He does like a good party, legal or otherwise.


Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

Bozo Probably thinks Murray Ross is the leader of the Scotland Nationalistic Party.


He does like a good party, legal or otherwise.


Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

---

Wonder what would happen if Blackford started calling them the ****servatives

[emoji848]

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callum_62

Wonder what would happen if Blackford started calling them the ****servatives

[emoji848]

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

---

Nasty party seems to strike at a nerve down here.[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

A proud Scot with a different view.

---

😂

Now you're back on. Care to answer the questions on the thread asked of you. 👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

No voter then :-)

Although I expect in the event of another referendum it will not be a yes no answer. Happy to be a remainer then

---

How about 'Remoaners'?


:duck:





:greengrin

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...oves-scotland/

A hatchet job to some extent but I was bemused by her comments re a no fly zone and indeed the 'pardon' for alleged witches (of whom, as is pointed out, some 15% were men).

The dilution of her daily covid update platform does seem to have left her at a bit of a loose end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...oves-scotland/

A hatchet job to some extent but I was bemused by her comments re a no fly zone and indeed the 'pardon' for alleged witches (of whom, as is pointed out, some 15% were men).

The dilution of her daily covid update platform does seem to have left her at a bit of a loose end.

---

I can't read the whole article but ever since day one I've thought why are we publicly saying what we will and won't do?

Ruling out completely and publically a no fly zone - why?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callum_62

Wonder what would happen if Blackford started calling them the ****servatives

[emoji848]

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

---

I don’t know but I’m certainly going to start calling them that! 😂👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Again with the yes, but...:wink:

Fair enough, all I meant was I'm just putting my point of view across and that view really is as straightforward as it appears.

FWIW though, in the event of another referendum my 'political' stance would be that because I don't agree with the SNP's raison d'etre (ie the break-up of the UK) I could never vote for it. Like many others, I identify as Scottish AND British so yes I'd prefer to remain that way.

---

Yes, but?

Again - why is it not okay when someone questions or challenges a view from the other side. Should it be end of debate every time you post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...oves-scotland/

A hatchet job to some extent but I was bemused by her comments re a no fly zone and indeed the 'pardon' for alleged witches (of whom, as is pointed out, some 15% were men).

The dilution of her daily covid update platform does seem to have left her at a bit of a loose end.

---

Great headline. Scotland not ready for independence. Like we are children. Guess it’s how they think of us.
Next week’s telegraph article on how Nicola Sturgeon’s choice of shoes show Scotland is not ready for independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Great headline. Scotland not ready for independence. Like we are children. Guess it’s how they think of us.
Next week’s telegraph article on how Nicola Sturgeon’s choice of shoes show Scotland is not ready for independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The telegraph, not like them to have slightly Conservative bias, or be part of the Nasty party gravy train.....https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...82132404a7.jpg

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Next week’s telegraph article on how Nicola Sturgeon’s choice of shoes show Scotland is not ready for independence.

---

The Telegraph calling a politician childish while idolising that other politician with the toddler haircut. Such a rag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

The telegraph, not like them to have slightly Conservative bias, or be part of the Nasty party gravy train.....https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...82132404a7.jpg

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

---

This was when Boris Johnson was being paid £200,000 a year for a weekly column, in which he called the EU Nazis and blamed NATO for RU's invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

This was when Boris Johnson was being paid £200,000 a year for a weekly column, in which he called the EU Nazis and blamed NATO for RU's invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

And that's one of the more transparent features of his life...

Maybe one day we will find out about his aide free sessions with ledbedev and others in Perugia?

Russia, Russians, Russian money does seem to be a constant thread though. It seems the Conservative Friends of Russia group has been disbanded suddenly, a great shame when you consider one of the attendees was one Carrie Symonds when it was set up.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

And that's one of the more transparent features of his life...

Maybe one day we will find out about his aide free sessions with ledbedev and others in Perugia?

Russia, Russians, Russian money does seem to be a constant thread though. It seems the Conservative Friends of Russia group has been disbanded suddenly, a great shame when you consider one of the attendees was one Carrie Symonds when it was set up.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

---

Now that that source of dirty cash has gone, he’ll need to find another. Coincidently, he’s off to Saudi Arabia this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Now that that source of dirty cash has gone, he’ll need to find another. Coincidently, he’s off to Saudi Arabia this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Keeps the ties with despotic undemocratic tyrants going then....

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Yes, but?

Again - why is it not okay when someone questions or challenges a view from the other side. Should it be end of debate every time you post?

---

Not at all. I respect your opinion and your right to question mine. It's just that on this particular question I don't really see further mileage in it. You asked if my primary basis for opposing independence was because I retain a strong British identity and I confirmed that was the case.

I guess that having spent a sizeable chunk of my life in various parts of the UK has shaped that identity, but I certainly feel that the melting pot of culture, geography, history, sport...you name it...forms a collective nation I'd be very sorry to no longer be part of. Politics runs a poor second in that respect and it depresses me the way things have polarised over the last decade. I wouldn't describe myself as a 'British nationalist', a 'Unionist' or indeed 'Tory' but because I have no interest in seeing the UK broken up it seems now to follow that I must be labelled as one or all of these things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I wouldn't describe myself as a 'British nationalist', a 'Unionist' or indeed 'Tory' but because I have no interest in seeing the UK broken up it seems now to follow that I must be labelled as one or all of these things.

---

You're pretty fond of labels for others though, "odious", "loathsome" etc...argue the points if you don't want labelled.



...


Most of my English pals see themselves as English. The whole British thing being tainted with Empire and BNP type connections. They have no need for the British tag as its too convoluted a pose, they have their parliament in England serving England. That said they all hate the Tories anyway and when it boils down to it just see themselves as human beings rather than some chappy political label.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Not at all. I respect your opinion and your right to question mine. It's just that on this particular question I don't really see further mileage in it. You asked if my primary basis for opposing independence was because I retain a strong British identity and I confirmed that was the case.

I guess that having spent a sizeable chunk of my life in various parts of the UK has shaped that identity, but I certainly feel that the melting pot of culture, geography, history, sport...you name it...forms a collective nation I'd be very sorry to no longer be part of. Politics runs a poor second in that respect and it depresses me the way things have polarised over the last decade. I wouldn't describe myself as a 'British nationalist', a 'Unionist' or indeed 'Tory' but because I have no interest in seeing the UK broken up it seems now to follow that I must be labelled as one or all of these things.

---

That's a good explanation and makes a lot of sense, I've family with that view.

I'm actually interested in how you view Scots that think along the same lines that want to vote for independence as a result... often they get the braveheart thing thrown at them.

I’m comfy with people saying that they feel British and that’s why they don’t want Indy. What I find a little strange is that they don’t fight harder for more devolution of the economic levers that could help Scotland match the like of Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Iceland etc etc.
The current offer is stay British even though you will be a bit poorer than you could be, it’s worth it. I’m not sure how strong a case that is in the long run, especially as the next generation already feels less British.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I certainly feel that the melting pot of culture, geography, history, sport...you name it...forms a collective nation I'd be very sorry to no longer be part of. Politics runs a poor second in that respect and it depresses me the way things have polarised over the last decade. I wouldn't describe myself as a 'British nationalist', a 'Unionist' or indeed 'Tory' but because I have no interest in seeing the UK broken up it seems now to follow that I must be labelled as one or all of these things.

---

:top marksAgree with all of this.

Another SNP lying B*****d.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...on-msp-3610894

Robertson claim Britain refused to take Jewish refugees in the 30’s before the Second World War.

Britain actually took 40,000 adults plus another 10,000 children on the kinder transport scheme.

That is a large proportion of the Jews who left mainland Europe, others going to US , South America , and Jordan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Another SNP lying B*****d.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...on-msp-3610894

Robertson claim Britain refused to take Jewish refugees in the 30’s before the Second World War.

Britain actually took 40,000 adults plus another 10,000 children on the kinder transport scheme.

That is a large proportion of the Jews who left mainland Europe, others going to US , South America , and Jordan.

---

He doesn't say that at all, he says they were largely refused.

Whilst Britain did take the numbers of refugees you state around 10 times that number were refused entry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Another SNP lying B*****d.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...on-msp-3610894

Robertson claim Britain refused to take Jewish refugees in the 30’s before the Second World War.

Britain actually took 40,000 adults plus another 10,000 children on the kinder transport scheme.

That is a large proportion of the Jews who left mainland Europe, others going to US , South America , and Jordan.

---

Thousands were refused entry. Every child who came to the UK required a sponsor and a £50 payment to HM Govt. Three and half grand in today's money. Drop the charge and thousands who were turned away could have been saved.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Thousands were refused entry. Every child who came to the UK required a sponsor and a £50 payment to HM Govt. Three and half grand in today's money. Drop the charge and thousands who were turned away could have been saved.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

After Germany annexed Austria the British government actually tightened the immigration laws to make it more difficult for them to gain entry.

I seem to remember reading that there were over half a million case files held by British Jewish associations on those that had been refused entry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Thousands were refused entry. Every child who came to the UK required a sponsor and a £50 payment to HM Govt. Three and half grand in today's money. Drop the charge and thousands who were turned away could have been saved.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Bit like Ukraine. Refugee response slow but military response superb. If it wasn't for the allies there wouldn't be a Jewish race in central Europe and the *******s wouldn't stop at the jews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by degenerated

After Germany annexed Austria the British government actually tightened the immigration laws to make it more difficult for them to gain entry.

---

Probably a policy led by the fascist traitors in Parliament and the racist press.

Being Anti anti-Semitic was a fashion among the upper classes only once the atrocities of the holocaust were revealed post-war.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Y

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Thousands were refused entry. Every child who came to the UK required a sponsor and a £50 payment to HM Govt. Three and half grand in today's money. Drop the charge and thousands who were turned away could have been saved.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...ndertransport/

The only children requiring a £ 50 payment were the small proportion who didn’t ha a UK guarantor.

The £ 50 was required cover returning home costs and was paid for by charities.

But just keep banging on with your made up stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Another SNP lying B*****d.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...on-msp-3610894

Robertson claim Britain refused to take Jewish refugees in the 30’s before the Second World War.

Britain actually took 40,000 adults plus another 10,000 children on the kinder transport scheme.

That is a large proportion of the Jews who left mainland Europe, others going to US , South America , and Jordan.

---

The SNP should keep quiet about that particular war. You know, considering their plan at that time….

https://www.scotsman.com/news/mi5-fi...an-2512735?amp

King's college says 80,000 Jewish refugees came to Britain in the 1930s. It wasn't as easy as it is now to travel great distances and people were much poorer in general


During the early 1930s, it was easiest for the wealthy to leave Germany and travel to Britain as these individuals had private means and good international contacts while those without these benefits found it more difficult to leave Europe. Britain, like the rest of the western hemisphere, was still recovering from the effects of the Great Depression and was reluctant to encourage immigrants who might challenge the British workforce for employment

Under these methods, by the end of 1938, approximately 30,000 refugees had entered Britain

In response to this surge of violence (in 1938) it became clear to the British government that anyone to whom they offered visas would likely remain in the country. The British Jewish community quickly pushed for further assistance to help Jewish refugees escape from Nazi oppression and many rescue operations were launched with the Kindertransport and Kitchener Camp rescues being the largest.

In total, nearly 10,000 children travelled to Britain as part of the Kindertransport scheme

Altogether, the lives of some 4,000 refugees were saved by the Kitchener Camp rescue.

It is impossible to know the exact numbers who found refuge in Britain even if only temporarily while en route to another nation but somewhere in the vicinity of 80,000 refugees arrived in Britain during the 1930s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

The SNP should keep quiet about that particular war. You know, considering their plan at that time….

---

That's pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

The SNP should keep quiet about that particular war. You know, considering their plan at that time….

https://www.scotsman.com/news/mi5-fi...an-2512735?amp

---

I don't even need to open that to know you will be talking about Arthur Donaldson. A man who never faced any charges whatsoever from the British state. It is a story largely made up and wholly debunked many times over. But it is a good one to keep the Brits warm and cosy while ignoring the Russian assets currently in government. Actually part of the government!! Get your head round that one. Also if its Nazi sympathisers your looking for you can start at tye very top of Engkish society with the Royal family

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

I don't even need to open that to know you will be talking about Arthur Donaldson. A man who never faced any charges whatsoever from the British state. It is a story largely made up and wholly debunked many times over. But it is a good one to keep the Brits warm and cosy while ignoring the Russian assets currently in government. Actually part of the government!! Get your head round that one. Also if its Nazi sympathisers your looking for you can start at tye very top of Engkish society with the Royal family

---

Go on then, debunk it.

“The Brits” [emoji28]

Edit: just realised you are maybe Irish given the username.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

That's pathetic.

---

Is it aye? Why’s that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Go on then, debunk it.

“The Brits” [emoji28]

---

In that article that you linked:-

"The fact that even Tom Johnston, the secretary of state at the time, dismissed the story and released Mr Donaldson from internment speaks volumes for the veracity of this far-fetched tale,"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

In that article that you linked:-

"The fact that even Tom Johnston, the secretary of state at the time, dismissed the story and released Mr Donaldson from internment speaks volumes for the veracity of this far-fetched tale,"

---

That’s not debunking it. I could start linking lots
of other articles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

That’s not debunking it. I could start linking lots
of other articles.

---

So the Secretary of State dismissing the story is not enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Go on then, debunk it.

“The Brits” [emoji28]…. you are one mate!

---

No evidence has ever been produced to substantiate the claims against Donaldson and he was NEVER charged with any offence. I'm fact he was interred on the word of one man with no corroborating statements from anyone.

I actually read the link you posted and this is the last paragraph.
"The fact that even Tom Johnston, the secretary of state at the time, dismissed the story and released Mr Donaldson from internment speaks volumes for the veracity of this far-fetched tale."

The report you linked also said this
"His internment was widely believed to be a result of his pacifist policies, and he was released without charge after six weeks in Barlinnie prison"
So hardly the smoking gun or the definitive case for him being a Nazi sympathisers you think it is

Oh, by the way what about that English Royal family though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

That’s not debunking it. I could start linking lots
of other articles.

---

Actual ones that prove your point? I don’t think you could, as I reckon you would have already done so if that was the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So the Secretary of State dismissing the story is not enough?

---

It’s evidence that maybe it didn’t happen but it’s not debunking anything.

Donaldson set up the Scottish Neutrality League… he was at least happy for Scotland to avoid fighting the Nazis. His pal Hugh McDiarmid, the nationalist hero, said he thought the axis powers invading would be good for Scotland.

Linking people's politics of the 30s to 80 years later is daft, whether that's to shame snp, uk government or the royals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

It’s evidence that maybe it didn’t happen but it’s not debunking anything.

.

---

So the senior politician in Scotland says it didn't happen, and you say that's "not debunking anything."

2 questions:-

1. what would be enough for you to believe that it didn't happen?

2. do you have proof that it did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Linking people's politics of the 30s to 80 years later is daft, whether that's to shame snp, uk government or the royals

---

I am not for one second suggesting that the Royal family of today would indulge in anything like that. But I was trying to show that what the unionists try to do with Donaldson, with absolutely no proof can be done with the highest of the English classes but there is actual evidence. I have seen the Donaldson story many many times from anti SNP sorts to try to show some sort of right wing Nazism but there is no corroborated proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

No evidence has ever been produced to substantiate the claims against Donaldson and he was NEVER charged with any offence. I'm fact he was interred on the word of one man with no corroborating statements from anyone.

I actually read the link you posted and this is the last paragraph.
"The fact that even Tom Johnston, the secretary of state at the time, dismissed the story and released Mr Donaldson from internment speaks volumes for the veracity of this far-fetched tale."

The report you linked also said this
"His internment was widely believed to be a result of his pacifist policies, and he was released without charge after six weeks in Barlinnie prison"
So hardly the smoking gun or the definitive case for him being a Nazi sympathisers you think it is

Oh, by the way what about that English Royal family though?

---

He wasn’t charged, doesn’t mean it never happened. He set up the Scottish neutrality league, that in itself tells you his feelings towards the war and what Scotlands role should be. The SNP have a sketchy record around that time, no doubt about that - that was my only point.

What about the Royals? [emoji23] This is an SNP thread and I’m not a supporters of the royal family. I don’t know why you have come to that conclusion?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So the senior politician in Scotland says it didn't happen, and you say that's "not debunking anything."

2 questions:-

1. what would be enough for you to believe that it didn't happen?

2. do you have proof that it did?

---

1. Don’t know
2. I never said it did and no I don’t have proof. I, on balance, believe it probably did. That’s all.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

I am not for one second suggesting that the Royal family of today would indulge in anything like that. But I was trying to show that what the unionists try to do with Donaldson, with absolutely no proof can be done with the highest of the English classes but there is actual evidence. I have seen the Donaldson story many many times from anti SNP sorts to try to show some sort of right wing Nazism but there is no corroborated proof.

---

It's not worth the effort it's bizarre to link the shame if there was any, to the current snp.

It's like saying Donald Trump and the Republicans should be loved by African Americans now, because Lincoln a Republican done so much for the slaves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

It's not worth the effort it's bizarre to link the shame if there was any, to the current snp.

It's like saying Donald Trump and the Republicans should be loved by African Americans now, because Lincoln a Republican done so much for the slaves

---

Yeah well, that was actually my point in the first place. The SNP accusing Britain of not taking in enough Jewish refugees, 80 years ago, is pathetic and unfounded.

So I brought up something that is also unfounded (although I suspect may well be true) about the SNP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Yeah well, that was actually my point in the first place. The SNP accusing Britain of not taking in enough Jewish refugees, 80 years ago, is pathetic and unfounded.

So I brought up something that is also unfounded (although I suspect may well be true) about the SNP.

---

Agree the Robertson article was pish in using the horror of the war to hit the current tory gov

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Yeah well, that was actually my point in the first place. The SNP accusing Britain of not taking in enough Jewish refugees, 80 years ago, is pathetic and unfounded.

So I brought up something that is also unfounded (although I suspect may well be true) about the SNP.

---

What makes you suspect it is true? What is your research on this, what evidence have you seen that others may not have? What is it that you have seen that the might of the British state and their security services didn't and led them to release Donaldson with no charge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

1. Don’t know
2. I never said it did and no I don’t have proof. I, on balance, believe it probably did. That’s all.

Cheers.

---

Would it be fair to say the “on balance” but isn’t really what you mean, and you just want to believe it happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

1. Don’t know
2. I never said it did and no I don’t have proof. I, on balance, believe it probably did. That’s all.

Cheers.

---

This all sounds very familiar.

What was your previous user name again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Would it be fair to say the “on balance” but isn’t really what you mean, and you just want to believe it happened?

---

Mostly, Proud Scots with an alternative view couldn’t care less whether it’s true or not, it’s a great smear.

Bit like all the Big Jock Knew stuff.

Trolls.back out from.under.its Bridge it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

What makes you suspect it is true? What is your research on this, what evidence have you seen that others may not have? What is it that you have seen that the might of the British state and their security services didn't and led them to release Donaldson with no charge?

---

As I said above, I made the point after reading about the SNP claiming Britain didn’t take in enough Jewish refugees, 80 years or so ago. So I made a similarly unfounded point.

Whether I believe it to be true or not is my personal opinion.

Mainly its due to Donaldson and the SNP’s sympathies of the time, MI5 clearly believing it and deciding he needed interned, the informant who said it happened, the quotes from Donaldson at the time (“ The government would leave the country and England’s position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on Germany. Scotland, on the other hand, has great possibilities”) and my total disdain for the SNP in general. To be clear, I’m not saying it happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiber-nation

This all sounds very familiar.

What was your previous user name again?

---

Haha - nope not me! I presume it’s someone else you didn’t agree with?

I have been a member on here for a few weeks after being a long term reader of the main forum. Think I will just stick to that one going forward[emoji106]

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

As I said above, I made the point after reading about the SNP claiming Britain didn’t take in enough Jewish refugees, 80 years or so ago. So I made a similarly unfounded point.

Whether I believe it to be true or not is my personal opinion.

Mainly its due to Donaldson and the SNP’s sympathies of the time, MI5 clearly believing it and deciding he needed interned, the informant who said it happened, the quotes from Donaldson at the time (“ The government would leave the country and England’s position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on Germany. Scotland, on the other hand, has great possibilities”) and my total disdain for the SNP in general. To be clear, I’m not saying it happened.

---

Hold on…

What you believe isn’t your opinion, and you’re not saying it happened but your opinion is it did happen because you hate the SNP?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

The SNP should keep quiet about that particular war. You know, considering their plan at that time….

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

That's pathetic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Is it aye? Why’s that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

To be clear, I’m not saying it happened.

---

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

As I said above, I made the point after reading about the SNP claiming Britain didn’t take in enough Jewish refugees, 80 years or so ago. So I made a similarly unfounded point.

Whether I believe it to be true or not is my personal opinion.

Mainly its due to Donaldson and the SNP’s sympathies of the time, MI5 clearly believing it and deciding he needed interned, the informant who said it happened, the quotes from Donaldson at the time (“ The government would leave the country and England’s position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on Germany. Scotland, on the other hand, has great possibilities”) and my total disdain for the SNP in general. To be clear, I’m not saying it happened.

---

You literally did say that it happened I quote "I on balance believe it probably did happen"

What you have copied is a quote from the British MI5 agent that has never been corroborated by anyone. You are presenting it here as if it was a direct quote from Donaldson that you can prove he said. You cannot prove he ever said anything like that