Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.." The supreme court isn't so-called, Tom. It is the supreme court. Mrs TMN x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this..its all over the news " really OK I haven't seen it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rebuild that wall.." What wall would that be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rebuild that wall.. What wall would that be? " The one with glass along the top and mined. Maybe time we turned off the water and oil tap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.. The supreme court isn't so-called, Tom. It is the supreme court. Mrs TMN x" 100% correct. Also, she wasn’t going to declare independence . Even she can’t do that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.." Actually I thought the Supreme Court has ruled that an Independence referendum can not be held without the UK government's consent. Not that Sturgeon can not declare Independence.! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.. Actually I thought the Supreme Court has ruled that an Independence referendum can not be held without the UK government's consent. Not that Sturgeon can not declare Independence.!" The first part of your response is correct. The less said about the second part the better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rebuild that wall.. What wall would that be? The one with glass along the top and mined. Maybe time we turned off the water and oil tap." According to the Scottish government no water is supplied to England.. 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tom is a big fan of the Scottish peoples.. Very warm and welcoming .. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.." As far as I am aware the SNP asked the court's a question regarding a referendum without Westminster consent. It was not Westminster that took this to court. The courts have given their interpretation of the situation. Sturgen knew there was a significant risk of a negative answer as her own legal people would not commit either way. To her credit, although understandably disappointed she accepts the ruling. I assume she will press ahead with her plan to make the next GE into a single issue election. Not sure how that works or if it's fair to the people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.. As far as I am aware the SNP asked the court's a question regarding a referendum without Westminster consent. It was not Westminster that took this to court. The courts have given their interpretation of the situation. Sturgen knew there was a significant risk of a negative answer as her own legal people would not commit either way. To her credit, although understandably disappointed she accepts the ruling. I assume she will press ahead with her plan to make the next GE into a single issue election. Not sure how that works or if it's fair to the people" twas I believe Lord Advocate. (so Scottish government) She should do a one issue manifesto imo. The SNP cheat a little bit by claiming support because of their vote count. People may vote Snp despite their referendum views but because they are seen as a good party overall. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll" out... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll out... " Its a union and my vote is to stay in. The SNP are as incompetent as any Tory party and just as deluded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll out... " If I was a Scot I'd want out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll" Let them go, please. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll out... If I was a Scot I'd want out." If only… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest Con artist in Scotland is Sturgeon, she knew the legal case was always going to fail. Her lord advocate either failed to provide the competent legal advice or she was feard to stand up to Sturgeon and cost the UK tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds.. Yet in typical SNP style no one will accept responsibility and no one will be sacked for thier stupidity or incompetence. " I suspect sturgeon believes her best chance is when the Tories are in power. So needs to make this front page news for two years. And will do anything to achieve that aim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest Con artist in Scotland is Sturgeon, she knew the legal case was always going to fail. Her lord advocate either failed to provide the competent legal advice or she was feard to stand up to Sturgeon and cost the UK tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds.. Yet in typical SNP style no one will accept responsibility and no one will be sacked for thier stupidity or incompetence. I suspect sturgeon believes her best chance is when the Tories are in power. So needs to make this front page news for two years. And will do anything to achieve that aim. " Yep, “her” best chance… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll" Out. 8yrs ago people voted no in the belief we were "better together" 8yr later were still waiting for the "better" to come along, all we've seen is worse, and it's not just Scotland that's worse, it's it's entire UK | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll Out. 8yrs ago people voted no in the belief we were "better together" 8yr later were still waiting for the "better" to come along, all we've seen is worse, and it's not just Scotland that's worse, it's it's entire UK" 
I’ve a feeling you do not have an answer to…. What would “out “ give you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll Out. 8yrs ago people voted no in the belief we were "better together" 8yr later were still waiting for the "better" to come along, all we've seen is worse, and it's not just Scotland that's worse, it's it's entire UK" you've made me wonder now: could Scotland have got thru COVID and the cost of living crisis better as an independent country? Not as part of the EU, but standalone. My initial thought is it would have been low down on the list for vaccines. And may struggle to have fund some of the fiscal initiaves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest Con artist in Scotland is Sturgeon, she knew the legal case was always going to fail. Her lord advocate either failed to provide the competent legal advice or she was feard to stand up to Sturgeon and cost the UK tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds.. Yet in typical SNP style no one will accept responsibility and no one will be sacked for thier stupidity or incompetence. I suspect sturgeon believes her best chance is when the Tories are in power. So needs to make this front page news for two years. And will do anything to achieve that aim. Yep, “her” best chance… " Her best chance is still no chance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does this woman want and what are her motives?" She want to go down in history as the modern day William Wallace.. The woman who freed scotland from the tyrannical chains of England.. But then she is seriously and mentally deranged. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll Out. 8yrs ago people voted no in the belief we were "better together" 8yr later were still waiting for the "better" to come along, all we've seen is worse, and it's not just Scotland that's worse, it's it's entire UKyou've made me wonder now: could Scotland have got thru COVID and the cost of living crisis better as an independent country? Not as part of the EU, but standalone. My initial thought is it would have been low down on the list for vaccines. And may struggle to have fund some of the fiscal initiaves. " Would have done the same as uk and borrowed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does this woman want and what are her motives? She want to go down in history as the modern day William Wallace.. The woman who freed scotland from the tyrannical chains of England.. But then she is seriously and mentally deranged. " You come across as a mentally deranged kn_b | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.." The Supreme court is nothing more than an establishment ruse. Want a good excuse to justify why something isn't allowed? Get the supreme court to make a decision on political affairs. Democracy was always defended with the sword and gun, not in a court. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does this woman want and what are her motives? She want to go down in history as the modern day William Wallace.. The woman who freed scotland from the tyrannical chains of England.. But then she is seriously and mentally deranged. You come across as a mentally deranged kn_b "Your comment says much about your allegiances and sums up independence supporters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.. The Supreme court is nothing more than an establishment ruse. Want a good excuse to justify why something isn't allowed? Get the supreme court to make a decision on political affairs. Democracy was always defended with the sword and gun, not in a court." It was the SNP that took this to the supreme court not Westminster or anyone else. If the supreme court is as you describe then why did the SNP ask them to decide? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.. The Supreme court is nothing more than an establishment ruse. Want a good excuse to justify why something isn't allowed? Get the supreme court to make a decision on political affairs. Democracy was always defended with the sword and gun, not in a court. It was the SNP that took this to the supreme court not Westminster or anyone else. If the supreme court is as you describe then why did the SNP ask them to decide?" The SNP went down that route, despite being warned that their legal case was poor, and unlikely to succeed It also cost the taxpayer £260k to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll Out. 8yrs ago people voted no in the belief we were "better together" 8yr later were still waiting for the "better" to come along, all we've seen is worse, and it's not just Scotland that's worse, it's it's entire UKyou've made me wonder now: could Scotland have got thru COVID and the cost of living crisis better as an independent country? Not as part of the EU, but standalone. My initial thought is it would have been low down on the list for vaccines. And may struggle to have fund some of the fiscal initiaves. " Didn't the UK government have funds from borrowing?! Just like every other country in the world who acted with furlough type schemes? I am sure there are plenty similar sized or smaller countries that managed. Options for deals with England or EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll Out. 8yrs ago people voted no in the belief we were "better together" 8yr later were still waiting for the "better" to come along, all we've seen is worse, and it's not just Scotland that's worse, it's it's entire UKyou've made me wonder now: could Scotland have got thru COVID and the cost of living crisis better as an independent country? Not as part of the EU, but standalone. My initial thought is it would have been low down on the list for vaccines. And may struggle to have fund some of the fiscal initiaves. Didn't the UK government have funds from borrowing?! Just like every other country in the world who acted with furlough type schemes? I am sure there are plenty similar sized or smaller countries that managed. Options for deals with England or EU? " I wonder how easy Scotland would have been able to issue debt. I'm guessing it would be a significant amount and quite early in Scotlands new credit history. And maybe they could have joined up. Although it may have been politicised. I don't know tbh. But if I was voting I'd be thinking this through as it's a case study on the challenges of being a small independent outside of a union. What did other small countries do? How did they do it? Would it work in Scotland ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.. The Supreme court is nothing more than an establishment ruse. Want a good excuse to justify why something isn't allowed? Get the supreme court to make a decision on political affairs. Democracy was always defended with the sword and gun, not in a court. It was the SNP that took this to the supreme court not Westminster or anyone else. If the supreme court is as you describe then why did the SNP ask them to decide? The SNP went down that route, despite being warned that their legal case was poor, and unlikely to succeed It also cost the taxpayer £260k to do so. " Pretty much what I was saying. I did not know the cost though and it was the tax payers money. Seems a lot to pay to answer a question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll Out. 8yrs ago people voted no in the belief we were "better together" 8yr later were still waiting for the "better" to come along, all we've seen is worse, and it's not just Scotland that's worse, it's it's entire UKyou've made me wonder now: could Scotland have got thru COVID and the cost of living crisis better as an independent country? Not as part of the EU, but standalone. My initial thought is it would have been low down on the list for vaccines. And may struggle to have fund some of the fiscal initiaves. Didn't the UK government have funds from borrowing?! Just like every other country in the world who acted with furlough type schemes? I am sure there are plenty similar sized or smaller countries that managed. Options for deals with England or EU? I wonder how easy Scotland would have been able to issue debt. I'm guessing it would be a significant amount and quite early in Scotlands new credit history. And maybe they could have joined up. Although it may have been politicised. I don't know tbh. But if I was voting I'd be thinking this through as it's a case study on the challenges of being a small independent outside of a union. What did other small countries do? How did they do it? Would it work in Scotland ? " Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the Scots want in or out? Let's do a fab poll Out. 8yrs ago people voted no in the belief we were "better together" 8yr later were still waiting for the "better" to come along, all we've seen is worse, and it's not just Scotland that's worse, it's it's entire UKyou've made me wonder now: could Scotland have got thru COVID and the cost of living crisis better as an independent country? Not as part of the EU, but standalone. My initial thought is it would have been low down on the list for vaccines. And may struggle to have fund some of the fiscal initiaves. Didn't the UK government have funds from borrowing?! Just like every other country in the world who acted with furlough type schemes? I am sure there are plenty similar sized or smaller countries that managed. Options for deals with England or EU? I wonder how easy Scotland would have been able to issue debt. I'm guessing it would be a significant amount and quite early in Scotlands new credit history. And maybe they could have joined up. Although it may have been politicised. I don't know tbh. But if I was voting I'd be thinking this through as it's a case study on the challenges of being a small independent outside of a union. What did other small countries do? How did they do it? Would it work in Scotland ? Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?" You're obviously aware that 'sterling' was a Scottish currency that was adopted by England when the Crowns were unified? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? " Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given" 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called Supreme Court has stopped Nicola Sturgeon in her tracks to declare Scottish Independence without permission from Westminster. Would this be a different story if the European Courts were in charge and if not is Brexit to blame for this.." Yes and no, decades, centuries of neglect are, brexit is the tipping point. This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ??" As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? " the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency" I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". " 'It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago' Really? So you can only be oppressed after an allocated period of time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". " 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago' Really? So you can only be oppressed after an allocated period of time? " not quite my point. The Quebec supreme court looked at whether all individuals are treated equal and without discrimination. Scots clearly do. And whether Québec had been denied meaningful access to the government. Indeyref showed Scotland had meaningful access. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. " I don't follow what you are saying here. Or how this really relates to the legal arguments. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at the judgement. Can I ask if you have ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago' Really? So you can only be oppressed after an allocated period of time? not quite my point. The Quebec supreme court looked at whether all individuals are treated equal and without discrimination. Scots clearly do. And whether Québec had been denied meaningful access to the government. Indeyref showed Scotland had meaningful access. " That is exactly your point... All people aren't treated equally, let's be honest, are all people within the 4 countries that make up the UK, even treated equally on this site? Let alone politically? The funny thing is, the Lords fell in to the trap ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. I don't follow what you are saying here. Or how this really relates to the legal arguments. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at the judgement. Can I ask if you have ? " Under what 'law' did you read it? Who's law? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. I don't follow what you are saying here. Or how this really relates to the legal arguments. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at the judgement. Can I ask if you have ? " All you've done is quote journalists. The people of Quebec aren't sovereign ?? When you have a valid response, feel free. Remember, being gay was illegal in England until recently. ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago' Really? So you can only be oppressed after an allocated period of time? not quite my point. The Quebec supreme court looked at whether all individuals are treated equal and without discrimination. Scots clearly do. And whether Québec had been denied meaningful access to the government. Indeyref showed Scotland had meaningful access. That is exactly your point... All people aren't treated equally, let's be honest, are all people within the 4 countries that make up the UK, even treated equally on this site? Let alone politically? The funny thing is, the Lords fell in to the trap ?? " id have thought it meant in terms of voting, representation etc. You and I both get a vote. That counts the same. I would have thought that Scotland is legally interesting. Not many parts of the world have a union like ours. It feels different on the outside to Québec and Kosovo. (for different reasons). And i suspect neither or us know international law well enough to know for sure I'd they have made the right or wrong decision. However I would start with thwm bwi g on a more legally sound footing than either or us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. I don't follow what you are saying here. Or how this really relates to the legal arguments. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at the judgement. Can I ask if you have ? All you've done is quote journalists. The people of Quebec aren't sovereign ?? When you have a valid response, feel free. Remember, being gay was illegal in England until recently. ??" no. I've looked at the judgement Can be found of a link in here if you havent read it yet https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/supreme-court-judgment-on-scottish-independence-referendum/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago' Really? So you can only be oppressed after an allocated period of time? not quite my point. The Quebec supreme court looked at whether all individuals are treated equal and without discrimination. Scots clearly do. And whether Québec had been denied meaningful access to the government. Indeyref showed Scotland had meaningful access. That is exactly your point... All people aren't treated equally, let's be honest, are all people within the 4 countries that make up the UK, even treated equally on this site? Let alone politically? The funny thing is, the Lords fell in to the trap ?? id have thought it meant in terms of voting, representation etc. You and I both get a vote. That counts the same. I would have thought that Scotland is legally interesting. Not many parts of the world have a union like ours. It feels different on the outside to Québec and Kosovo. (for different reasons). And i suspect neither or us know international law well enough to know for sure I'd they have made the right or wrong decision. However I would start with thwm bwi g on a more legally sound footing than either or us. " Ok, so now you're now making a bit more sense, and I am gonna start be a bit less hostile. My vote is worth nothing. My vote can only account for 59 seats in Westminster, that's regional in England. We haven't voted a tory government in 70 years, but had a tory government in 65 of those years (iirc) we voted against Iraq, we voted against Afghanistan, we voted against brexit, we voted for gay and trans rights, we continually vote against wmds, nuclear weapons, but we're getting them forced on us. If we are draining your economy like they are claiming, let us go. People are starving and freezing, let us go, and you'll be roasting and we'll fed. They're lying to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. I don't follow what you are saying here. Or how this really relates to the legal arguments. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at the judgement. Can I ask if you have ? All you've done is quote journalists. The people of Quebec aren't sovereign ?? When you have a valid response, feel free. Remember, being gay was illegal in England until recently. ??no. I've looked at the judgement Can be found of a link in here if you havent read it yet https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/supreme-court-judgment-on-scottish-independence-referendum/ " Cool ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. I don't follow what you are saying here. Or how this really relates to the legal arguments. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at the judgement. Can I ask if you have ? All you've done is quote journalists. The people of Quebec aren't sovereign ?? When you have a valid response, feel free. Remember, being gay was illegal in England until recently. ??no. I've looked at the judgement Can be found of a link in here if you havent read it yet https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/supreme-court-judgment-on-scottish-independence-referendum/ " Westminster Judgement
Yeah Westminster matters ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. I don't follow what you are saying here. Or how this really relates to the legal arguments. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at the judgement. Can I ask if you have ? All you've done is quote journalists. The people of Quebec aren't sovereign ?? When you have a valid response, feel free. Remember, being gay was illegal in England until recently. ??no. I've looked at the judgement Can be found of a link in here if you havent read it yet https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/supreme-court-judgment-on-scottish-independence-referendum/ Cool ??" 
Have you read it?
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else."None taken. Yes that's what I was saying or trying to say about other currencies. I was curious how borrowing works when doing so. As for the BBC they are not everyone's taste so just looked at the Scottish government website with the SNP statement on the currency situation. Turns out they also quote Stirling in the same way I first did. So far what I read on the BBC is confirmed by this statement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is my first post on the forums, so hello to all fibbers. As a Scot, and fiercely proud of that, and as someone that's campaigned and fought for Scottish independence for the last 30 years, I think I might be able to respond with a certain amount of education on the subject. The first thing I will say, Scots have no issue with the ordinary people of England, or Wales, or NI, or anywhere. Personally, I have no issue with a union with those other members in the slightest. So let's go back to the 1680s, the claim of rights was introduced in Scotland. The claim of rights safeguarded the Scottish peoples right to sovereignty. During the signing of the Treaty of Union in 1707, where less than 200 people signed Scotland up to the Union, the signatories had to barricade themselves in to the building, as they were about to be lynched, the one thing that was unanimously agreed, was that the Scottish people, would remain sovereign over Scotland. This was ratified by all sides. I'm a republican, but respect people's rights to believe in a monarchical society. Even Elizabeth the 2nd in recent years, acknowledged that she wasn't even sovereign over Scotland. Fast forward to last Wednesday. The 'ruling' that the UK government in Westminster, by 5 Lords of the realm, by written constitution, is an absolute LIE. There is no written UK constitution. Furthermore, at the time of the signing of the treaty of union, there was no UK law. Thrist, English law, and Scots law are hugely different in many instances, such as this, thus non comparable. Erm...4th, the 'lords' claimed that 'only a people that were oppressed, could hold a referendum without consent' The denial of one's democratic right, is the very definition of oppression. Finally, the blatant disregard of any of these facts, tear up the the voluntary act of union, for any subsequent union to exist, it means the previous signatories would need to agree to a new Treaty. That means the original 117 Scots signatories, is now 5.5m, good luck with that. And the stinger....United Nations and international law is on Scotlands side. So Nicola Sturgron has played this beautifully. To all the nice people, regardless of where you're from, love to you all ?? the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination. It's hard to argue oppression if you had a vote less than ten years ago. And even if you feel oppressed because of it, you can't make up a definition to use in a legal case. It was deemed that any vote is a reserved matter even if it wasn't legally binding. So not directly related to anything in 1707. Just not in the scope of the 1998 act. I can find no reference in the findings of "written constitution". 'the uk supreme court followed that of Canada when it came to self determination. Rather than "claim" anything they used a precedence as the SNP requested any decision was consistent with international legal rights of self determination' The people of Canada are sovereign to the Crown, Scotland is sovereign to the people of Scotland. Thats the big difference. The 5 lords of the crown omitted that. I don't follow what you are saying here. Or how this really relates to the legal arguments. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at the judgement. Can I ask if you have ? All you've done is quote journalists. The people of Quebec aren't sovereign ?? When you have a valid response, feel free. Remember, being gay was illegal in England until recently. ??no. I've looked at the judgement Can be found of a link in here if you havent read it yet https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/supreme-court-judgment-on-scottish-independence-referendum/ Cool ??
Have you read it?
"What part of 'the Scottish people are sovereign' Don't you understand? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else.
None taken. Yes that's what I was saying or trying to say about other currencies. I was curious how borrowing works when doing so. As for the BBC they are not everyone's taste so just looked at the Scottish government website with the SNP statement on the currency situation. Turns out they also quote Stirling in the same way I first did. So far what I read on the BBC is confirmed by this statement"It's 'sterling'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else.
None taken. Yes that's what I was saying or trying to say about other currencies. I was curious how borrowing works when doing so. As for the BBC they are not everyone's taste so just looked at the Scottish government website with the SNP statement on the currency situation. Turns out they also quote Stirling in the same way I first did. So far what I read on the BBC is confirmed by this statement
It's 'sterling'."Quite right. I should have put sterling instead of Stirling. In fact maybe to be the same as the SNP statement I should say using the pound sterling until moving to a Scottish pound. This does seem to be what the BBC reported | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else.
None taken. Yes that's what I was saying or trying to say about other currencies. I was curious how borrowing works when doing so. As for the BBC they are not everyone's taste so just looked at the Scottish government website with the SNP statement on the currency situation. Turns out they also quote Stirling in the same way I first did. So far what I read on the BBC is confirmed by this statement
It's 'sterling'.
Quite right. I should have put sterling instead of Stirling. In fact maybe to be the same as the SNP statement I should say using the pound sterling until moving to a Scottish pound. This does seem to be what the BBC reported"It is bud, however the snp aren't Scotland, so regardless of what they say, they're not all of US. I will also say, the bbc, are as newsworthy as big black cocks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else.
None taken. Yes that's what I was saying or trying to say about other currencies. I was curious how borrowing works when doing so. As for the BBC they are not everyone's taste so just looked at the Scottish government website with the SNP statement on the currency situation. Turns out they also quote Stirling in the same way I first did. So far what I read on the BBC is confirmed by this statement
It's 'sterling'.
Quite right. I should have put sterling instead of Stirling. In fact maybe to be the same as the SNP statement I should say using the pound sterling until moving to a Scottish pound. This does seem to be what the BBC reported
It is bud, however the snp aren't Scotland, so regardless of what they say, they're not all of US.
I will also say, the bbc, are as newsworthy as big black cocks."It's true they are not all of Scotland though if another referendum happens and a leave vote wins then it is the SNP who will be in charge for the first stint at least. I understand your view on the BBC but on this occasion it is easy to cross reference with other outlets and the Scottish governments own website. All these show in this case the article is correct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else.
None taken. Yes that's what I was saying or trying to say about other currencies. I was curious how borrowing works when doing so. As for the BBC they are not everyone's taste so just looked at the Scottish government website with the SNP statement on the currency situation. Turns out they also quote Stirling in the same way I first did. So far what I read on the BBC is confirmed by this statement
It's 'sterling'.
Quite right. I should have put sterling instead of Stirling. In fact maybe to be the same as the SNP statement I should say using the pound sterling until moving to a Scottish pound. This does seem to be what the BBC reported
It is bud, however the snp aren't Scotland, so regardless of what they say, they're not all of US.
I will also say, the bbc, are as newsworthy as big black cocks.
It's true they are not all of Scotland though if another referendum happens and a leave vote wins then it is the SNP who will be in charge for the first stint at least. I understand your view on the BBC but on this occasion it is easy to cross reference with other outlets and the Scottish governments own website. All these show in this case the article is correct"The Scottish are far more sensible to commit political stupidity than going for full independence. Considering all the problems we’ve had because of Brexit, do you think they want the same thing to happen to their country, I think not, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else.
None taken. Yes that's what I was saying or trying to say about other currencies. I was curious how borrowing works when doing so. As for the BBC they are not everyone's taste so just looked at the Scottish government website with the SNP statement on the currency situation. Turns out they also quote Stirling in the same way I first did. So far what I read on the BBC is confirmed by this statement
It's 'sterling'.
Quite right. I should have put sterling instead of Stirling. In fact maybe to be the same as the SNP statement I should say using the pound sterling until moving to a Scottish pound. This does seem to be what the BBC reported
It is bud, however the snp aren't Scotland, so regardless of what they say, they're not all of US.
I will also say, the bbc, are as newsworthy as big black cocks.
It's true they are not all of Scotland though if another referendum happens and a leave vote wins then it is the SNP who will be in charge for the first stint at least. I understand your view on the BBC but on this occasion it is easy to cross reference with other outlets and the Scottish governments own website. All these show in this case the article is correct
The Scottish are far more sensible to commit political stupidity than going for full independence.
Considering all the problems we’ve had because of Brexit, do you think they want the same thing to happen to their country, I think not,"who are "the Scottish" in this sentence ? I'd be wary that the flavour or scexit will be driven by SNP, who may not represent the voice of Scotland (given they have less than 50pc of the popular vote) And they are also the party I least see as offering a soft scexit. They come across as being more ERG equivalents than something more moderate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware 'sterling' is a Scottish currency that England adopted? Maybe my wording is incorrect. Maybe better to say the current UK pound currently known as Stirling and the new Scottish pound. It might be the case that the UK may have to drop the word Stirling for the reason you give. Personally I agree to another vote due to brexit but was just curious to how it works in the situation given 'Current plans we hear is to use Stirling until they launch their 'own currency. So if covid had struck while still using Stirling, can they still borrow themselves or would it be the rest of the UK that would have to borrow on their behalf?' 'Sterling' is our own currency ?? As I say maybe my wording was wrong. The current plans are what I read on the BBC about moving to a new currency I mean this without disrespect buddy, the BBC is about as truthful as some of the profiles on here
It's completely untrue, we can use dollars, euros, Turkish lira, sheep, goats, iou's, same as anywhere else.
None taken. Yes that's what I was saying or trying to say about other currencies. I was curious how borrowing works when doing so. As for the BBC they are not everyone's taste so just looked at the Scottish government website with the SNP statement on the currency situation. Turns out they also quote Stirling in the same way I first did. So far what I read on the BBC is confirmed by this statement
It's 'sterling'.
Quite right. I should have put sterling instead of Stirling. In fact maybe to be the same as the SNP statement I should say using the pound sterling until moving to a Scottish pound. This does seem to be what the BBC reported
It is bud, however the snp aren't Scotland, so regardless of what they say, they're not all of US.
I will also say, the bbc, are as newsworthy as big black cocks.
It's true they are not all of Scotland though if another referendum happens and a leave vote wins then it is the SNP who will be in charge for the first stint at least. I understand your view on the BBC but on this occasion it is easy to cross reference with other outlets and the Scottish governments own website. All these show in this case the article is correct
The Scottish are far more sensible to commit political stupidity than going for full independence.
Considering all the problems we’ve had because of Brexit, do you think they want the same thing to happen to their country, I think not,"Maybe I have misunderstood, but it appears to me that the SNP want full independence. Are you saying this is not the case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rebuild that wall.." Hadrian's? Sure, we'll take Newcastle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Give us English a vote on Scottish independence- I’d get shot of them instantly " you will need a section 30 from scotland first | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Give us English a vote on Scottish independence- I’d get shot of them instantly you will need a section 30 from scotland first " But if you get on your knees and beg we might just give you the section 30 cause we are quite democratic like that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
