Enigma Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I have French relatives. A lovely bunch they are too. #EUfamily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 HB must be beside himself in the knowledge he'll be relying on the self same bigots he castigates so regularly to push his beloved NO vote over the finish line. I believe the current forum parlance for this is 'Unlucky'. Pure speculation mate,the Nats might get stuffed in the referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Anyone else heard a positive case for the Union yet? Wiping out Russia in the event a world-ending nuclear holocaust is apparently a perk that comes with the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Once you realise the Nats tactics evolve around patriotism and trying to cause North South divide you can (without becoming complacent) sit back and relax to a certain extent.As for the Frechie/Scot.......FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Hugh Kerr's letter in the herald also suggests a Danish alliance. And Iceland are quite pally too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Anyone else heard a positive case for the Union yet? It will get right up the noses of the Nats on ere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Once you realise the Nats tactics evolve around patriotism and trying to cause North South divide you can (without becoming complacent) sit back and relax to a certain extent. As for the Frechie/Scot.......FFS! Dee Gas, the North South divide has existed since Thatcher's time, and has steadily got worse. You can't blame Nationalists for causing it, it's there, it's been caused by Home Counties centric politics and it's one of the main reasons people will vote Yes who might not otherwise have done so. It's certainly what changed my mind, that and the utterly moribund Westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 A great comment made underneath. Except of course they wouldn't be invading a sovereign state. They would be declining to permit the UK military base to form part of the agreed sovereign territory of an as of yet non-existent sovereign state of Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 "We will work every day between now and the vote to ensure that we stay United with our friends, families and workmates." The more I looked at that quote I have to ask what the fek does that even mean? I have family in Rep of Ireland. The company I work for has business dealings with people in the Rep of Ireland and elsewhere in Europe. I don't look upon either my family or work colleagues in Ireland as being separate or disunited from me. But if we gain independence somehow I will feel differently to family and work colleagues in England? Is that what they are saying??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Except of course they wouldn't be invading a sovereign state. They would be declining to permit the UK military base to form part of the agreed sovereign territory of an as of yet non-existent sovereign state of Scotland. Right you are Donald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Dee Gas, the North South divide has existed since Thatcher's time, and has steadily got worse. You can't blame Nationalists for causing it, it's there, it's been caused by Home Counties centric politics and it's one of the main reasons people will vote Yes who might not otherwise have done so. It's certainly what changed my mind, that and the utterly moribund Westminster. Hello Pink Freud,i can blame them for trying at every opportunity to give the impression all of England is stinking rich,employed and Scottish hating b*****ds. There is a blatant tactic by the SNP and Co to demonise England,to create a total 'them and us' bunker mentality. It is simply not a true reflection of the Union. Millions of English have it every bit as hard as the worse off Scottish people/areas. The Rab C led "divide campaign". I assume (going by the polls) many Scots see it for the ridiculous exaggeration it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I said safe and secure. Note the conjunctive. And my source is, well, the MOD's public reasoning for using Faslane-Coulport instead. You didn't say safe and secure, you said said suitable and secure. Just keeping you honest. S12 Terrorism Act 2006 is an amendment to another enactment that relates to tresspass, not the pish you tried to baffle me with. This therefore relates to security of the site so it is suitable and secure. You admit it can and will be used if Faslane is unavailable so again it is suitable and capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 "We will work every day between now and the vote to ensure that we stay United with our friends, families and workmates." The more I looked at that quote I have to ask what the fek does that even mean? I have family in Rep of Ireland. The company I work for has business dealings with people in the Rep of Ireland and elsewhere in Europe. I don't look upon either my family or work colleagues in Ireland as being separate or disunited from me. But if we gain independence somehow I will feel differently to family and work colleagues in England? Is that what they are saying??? Still playing dim I see. The British people family,as if you didn't know. Many Unionists feel it,it is a big part of their identity and I suspect it matters not how many times Rab C and Co wave the Saltire,exaggerate the North South divide and generally try to cause trouble it will not be enough to make Brits lose the British part of their i d e n t i t y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 1. At no point have I said it is a like for like replacement. Your OP stated there is no location suitable in rUK. 2. Yes there is as a temporary home till Milford Haven comes online. 3. Read through what you have wrote if you are to apply that Faslane and Coulport are not suitable or capable sites either. 1. The MoD have determined, based on safety criteria, that a base must be equivalent to or better than Faslane to be suitable for the arming of Vanguard submarines with Trident missiles. Devonport fails those criteria. 2. A temporary home which would be unsuitable for the safe and efficient arming of nuclear submarines. 3. Lower population density, less crowded port, easier docking and better facilities for the arming of subs at port. Faslane-Coulport is better than Devonport. They are only because they are deemed to be slightly less of a risk. Within a few miles of Coulport there is the main port for oil tankers supplying grangemouth ffs. But the net balance of safety concerns is less severe. The potential loss of human life is less at Faslane-Coulport. That's the MOD's assessment. And even their vociferous anti-nuclear opponents, the SCND, agree with them that this is the case. Heres an analogy for you my wife has a lovely luxury car that she lets me drive. We get divorced because she says she wants her independence, this leaves me with my 10 year old hatchback. It will do though because it still gets me to my work and back. I'll use it till I get myself a lovely luxury car because it's suitable and capable. Independence isn't divorce. They are totally disanalogous. Even if they weren't it isn't that there were two cars in the first place, one of which was shit and the other of which was good. There was a car which was roadworthy and one which was not roadworthy. The wife can't and doesn't need to drive because she can walk to work (in this metaphor read Scotland doesn't need Faslane-Coulport because it doesn't want nuclear armed submarines, which is what they're used for). The husband needs to drive to get to work and a SORNed car, no matter what its technical specifications, is not adequate for his purposes. He therefore needs the car with a full MOT, tax and insurance, until he can get the other car roadworthy again. This will influence the judge's decision about what constitutes an equitable apportionment of the matrimonial property, and even if it means the husband reducing his claim against certain other parts of the estate, he is more likely to be given the car, even if on a temporary understanding. I have at no point said it would be easy, cheaper, ideal, or be permanent. It is capable and suitable though. Ease of use, cost, and operational effectiveness are materially significant to a determination of capability and suitability. A bogey is capable of running down a hill but it's not a safe, secure and suitable vehicle to be used as a taxi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 You didn't say safe and secure, you said said suitable and secure. Just keeping you honest. Suitability necessitates safety. S12 Terrorism Act 2006 is an amendment to another enactment that relates to tresspass, not the pish you tried to baffle me with. This therefore relates to security of the site so it is suitable and secure. You admit it can and will be used if Faslane is unavailable so again it is suitable and capable. Wow. Fucking hell. You think that because the Terrorism Act designates certain nuclear sites subject to more stringent tresspass laws that somehow means it's secure, safe or suitable to be used to arm nuclear warheads to submarines? Jesus wept. People drive cars which aren't roadworthy all the time. Just because someone uses something doesn't mean it's suitable, safe or secure to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Anyone else heard a positive case for the Union yet? If we vote YES we will never have another corrupt Westminster (London) government that we didn't vote for ruling over us again. We must vote no in favour of the union. It doesn't make sense to vote yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The British people family. Looks like the sort of silly term many Rangers fans used to use before their old club died, that is a good sign! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Right you are Donald. Donald Finlay QC is a very intelligent and talented individual. He has this to say to you. If we vote YES we will never have another corrupt Westminster (London) government that we didn't vote ruling over us again. We must vote no in favour of the union. It doesn't make sense to vote yes. Correct. If we vote Yes we'll just have corrupt Holyrood governments that more than 70% of Scotland didn't vote for ruling over us instead. I gently remind you that the SNP only have a mandate from 45% of those who voted and about 25% of those eligible to vote in this country. Westminster is corrupt, and beyond repair, but let's not pretend Holyrood is a panacea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Except of course they wouldn't be invading a sovereign state. They would be declining to permit the UK military base to form part of the agreed sovereign territory of an as of yet non-existent sovereign state of Scotland. Now been debunked, but no media outlets initially challenged it or did I miss that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Now been debunked, but no media outlets initially challenged it or did I miss that. What, precisely, has been debunked? The fundamentals of international law and what constitutes a sovereign state and sovereign territory? Stop dribbling, Rainman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.