When will indyref2 happen?

[Crùbag]

Just now, The new Kia Ceed said:

Absolutely no way there was 100k.    20,000 looks like the top end of the estimate.  

Who knows? Were you there though? What's your methodology? I was stood in Johnston Terrace for an hour and a half and in that time the front of the march had already reached Holyrood Park. It was two lanes wide too. Thousands had left by the time we reached Holyrood.  20k??!!

[The new Kia Ceed]

1 minute ago, Crùbag said:

Who knows? Were you there though? What's your methodology? I was stood in Johnston Terrace for an hour and a half and in that time the front of the march had already reached Holyrood Park. It was two lanes wide too. Thousands had left by the time we reached Holyrood.  20k??!!

Yes.    

The population of Edinburgh is around 500,000.    There wasn't the equivalent of 1/5 of Edinburgh present.    

I wish there was....there just wasn't. 

[Ira Gaines]

[welshbairn]

22 hours ago, Jambo99 said:

We have the EU.

The EU is a pragmatic solution that has had no warfare between members for over 70 years , and pretty much solved the inter-national conflict within Europe. 

Yes, obviously not perfect. But - it works. 

 

FTFY

[Detournement]

Inter Europe conflict ended as soon as European countries gained the ability to hit each others capitals with missiles rather than just sending poor men into meat grinders. MAD for Berlin/Paris/Rome/London.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Detournement

[Jambo99]

41 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

The 'union' of Alba did much to solve clan feuds too. Unfortunately, the Union also meant that we were now at war with nations that had hitherto been our allies. Just because England was at war with them.

Unless you're suggesting that independence would mean more invasions from England a la King Edward and maybe a Jacobite rising on our side?

Anyway, I'd rather look forward. 100k on the streets today says similar. We're only going in one direction - we want to rejoin the world.

This is infantile nonsense.  

 

[Jambo99]

14 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I am an idiot.

FTFY

[welshbairn]

41 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Inter Europe conflict ended as soon as European countries gained the ability to hit each others capitals with missiles rather than just sending poor men into meat grinders. MAD for Berlin/Paris/Rome/London.

 

What a shite theory. Rome and Berlin would be glass, Paris and London would be cushty. Economic interdependence and the benefits of cooperation did it,  underpinned by shared rules of human rights, governance and justice, for the longest period in history by far.

Edited October 6, 2018 by welshbairn

[dirty dingus]

I was there, it was mobbed all around the beautiful city of Edinburgh with happy Indy folk and about 2 dozen butcher apron waving nuggets. I've  only ever been for football and gigs so never appreciated it before. The price of bevy is a wee bit mental though.  

Edited October 6, 2018 by dirty dingus

[The new Kia Ceed]

10 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

I was there, it was mobbed all around the beautiful city of Edinburgh with happy Indy folk and about 2 dozen butcher apron waving nuggets. I've  only ever been for football and gigs so never appreciated it before. The price of bevy is a wee bit mental though.  

The holocaust denying bellend that runs 'A force for good' - a man so racist he was punted out of UKIP for his views -  had targeted 200 plus Brit-nats.   

Pleasing there's no-one there. 

[NotThePars]

What a shite theory. Rome and Berlin would be glass, Paris and London would be cushty. Economic interdependence and the benefits of cooperation did it,  underpinned by shared rules of human rights, governance and justice, for the longest period in history by far.

I don’t think I understand what you’re saying about Rome and Berlin. They had security provided by Washington. Don’t disagree on the second half of your post though and think the Keynesian consensus and development of welfare states played a role as well.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

I don’t think I understand what you’re saying about Rome and Berlin. They had security provided by Washington. Don’t disagree on the second half of your post though and think the Keynesian consensus and development of welfare states played a role as well.

 

I meant that France and Britain were the only European nations who were capable of destroying other capital cities with missiles. I always thought the US nuclear umbrella was a myth, there was no way they would have started a nuclear exchange with Russia to protect any country in Western European.

[Jambo99]

share the crayons lads

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, Jambo99 said:

share the crayons lads

To stop you eating them?

[dirty dingus]

Just now, Jambo99 said:

share the crayons lads

what an uninspiring stain you are.

[Jambo99]

2 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

what an uninspiring stain you are.

Sock expert. 

[Jambo99]

3 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

To stop you eating them?

Thin-Tin

[NotThePars]

I meant that France and Britain were the only European nations who were capable of destroying other capital cities with missiles. I always thought the US nuclear umbrella was a myth, there was no way they would have started a nuclear exchange with Russia to protect any country in Western European.

Depends who you asked, and who you believed, judging by the reading (I’m doing an essay on this right now lol).

[Detournement]

15 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I meant that France and Britain were the only European nations who were capable of destroying other capital cities with missiles. I always thought the US nuclear umbrella was a myth, there was no way they would have started a nuclear exchange with Russia to protect any country in Western European.

This is off topic but they wouldn't need nuclear war heads to destroy each others capitals just loads of medium range missiles.

That's why ground based medium and short ranged cruise and ballistic missiles are banned by treaty.

[Jambo: First Blood]

On 05/10/2018 at 21:44, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Of course but it could prevent a hard border?

It's not as simple as hard border or no hard border. There are different levels of friction created by different circumstances. A FTA will literally never mean easier trade or less border checks than a single market that's given. Other frictions would enter into the equation too. Currency differences being a big one.