Jump to content

Albus Bulbasaur

Gold Members
  • Posts

    1,436
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

556 Excellent

About Albus Bulbasaur

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Man
  • Location
    UK
  • My Team
    Rangers

Recent Profile Visitors

2,193 profile views
  1. Not something I've put too much thought to, as I have said it was an analogy regarding why you shouldn't take risks due to over confidence. For goodwill before I enjoy the rest of my day offline if option A is to risk something and option B is to avoid the risk then at that moment option B is safer. Of course long term this option B safe path could lead to your bloody death later down the line but at the immediate point of choosing not to jump you're safer than you are mid jump. I'm going to avoid analogies from now on.
  2. Aye but there's blood thirsty great white sharks circling the boat and you've got a gash on your leg whereas Sir Keir is on the horizon furiously rowing towards you.
  3. It's an election bid because as Nicola said herself these are the terms she will fight the general election over if she fails at getting a S30. If she was confident she'd get a section 30 or win the SC case she wouldn't already be setting out their stall for the next GE. She's understandably setting up her position to fight yet another GE after failing to have an actual referendum. At best it's contingency planning.
  4. Sure seemed like it considering you didn't really combat anything I said rather just added more detail to the issue. What we're doing now is a bit boring, like the other day when you misread a post and then failed to reply when shown what you had been mistaken with. For clarity my analogy is regarding the idea you would take a risk when you don't have to. Sure you can argue it's naive long term but in my analogy the "safe path" is still at the moment safer than a risky jump.
  5. I disagree with your framing tbh. I'm content with the situation and believe there's a democratic route through the democratically elected MPs at Westminster. I think we probably agree people perhaps should care more but the general public probably care more about Love Island than flights to Rwanda so I can't say I'm surprised every day normal people aren't fussed about the finer details of parliament and sovereignty. I've said previously campaigns regarding PR and movements pointing out particular grievances in the system as a slow burn approach is more palatable than the emotionally lead screeching grievance approach we have at the moment.
  6. Thats a long way of saying you agree with my post.
  7. You lacking the testicular fortitude to quote me and then try and show my words as out of context does you no favours. The SNP saying that voting for them is a definitive way to enact Independence is above its station as they evidently don't have the power. Feel free to quote this if they win the SC case.
  8. I'm recognised as the forums best Globle player so I always welcome new players. See you over there bud.
  9. My analogy was regarding Unionists choosing to have a referendum just because they're confident they'd win, it wasn't aimed at Indy supporters who are frustrated.
  10. The idea is flawed and unrealistic imo. I can't see Labour or Tories agreeing to this idea. I live in the Borders so UDI would be hilarious imo. Oh no you're wrong I fully grasp what your problem is with the constitutional set up. I understand your frustrations and why you think more people should be concerned by this, as addressed previously it's quite evident that a lot of people are indifferent and this big perceived injustice just isn't really one the majority of Scottish people feel bothered about on a day to day basis. Having a referendum just because you're confident you'd win would be foolish. You don't jump across a gorge with a death drop just because you're confident you would make it if there's a longer safe path around the side.
  11. The grand plan is to have a General Election and moan when WM doesn't grant a section 30. When do i start quaking in my boots? I'm not missing any point, WM will have a multitude of reasons which they've said numerous times, "once in a generation" seems to be one of their main ones, they've recently been citing pro Indy parties elected to Holyrood and the way the vote splits in percentages as another. I sincerely think this particular argument would have weight and support if they hadn't literally granted the powers less than a decade ago. That makes it very difficult to argue that WM are being unreasonable to most people. Can agree somewhat on your last part though. That's hardly the fault of Unionists though.
  12. This is also what we've been saying since 2014. You can democratically get WM to grant one right enough. Funny how some people don't mind the SNP lying about this continously to gain votes though. That's where the Alba Das have my sympathy.
  13. Good luck with that! Plan 1 is ask (we know the answer is no) Plan 2 is courts (we don't know) Plan 3 is GE (that's not a plan)
  14. And as it stands I don't think that argument engages or turns on enough people. Perhaps it will in the future. I personally think losing the SC battle would be catastrophic for Indy and I think the following GE would result in them losing seats.
×
×
  • Create New...