MarkoRaj Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 PS - can you please write shorter replies this post took me about twenty minutes to write. Good luck with that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Good luck with that Yeah, I'm thinking he needs to get laid worse than any man in history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Yeah, I'm thinking he needs to get laid worse than any man in history. :lol: again, welcome tae the club :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Whit. Thanks to your votes, Scotland to Britain is not the same as Belgium to Netherlands or Britain to Republic of Ireland. What a bizarre argument. My votes? I have stated many times on here that I support real independence - outside the EU with our own currency. You also need to learn about the split of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in the early 19th Century. Have you heard of the Benelux Union? The analogy is appropriate. Edited March 9, 2016 by Bishop Briggs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm getting that you are a Britnat troll. I asked what happened to the £16.9 billion reported as missing from Scotland's GDP which you claim has now been ammended, you didn't reply, and I asked you to account for these improvements which you claim have been made, can you do that? 1. I'm not a BritNat 2. I voted Yes 3. There was not £16.9 billion missing from Scotland's GDP. Also, notice this is a completely different claim, but equally wrong claim, as saying that £16.9 billion was missing from our fiscal position. 4. I said that there were some historic aspects of GERS' methodology that understated certain revenue streams. Those problems have been remedied since those criticisms were made. 5. The fact that the SNP do not dispute the accuracy of the changes should probably tell you something. And Westminster did steal 6000 square miles of sea from Scotland and GDP in this area is not coutned in GERS, as I'm sure you know, but being intellectually dishonest you dismiss this. You're a lying troll. Nope, you're literally just making this up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Medeiros Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Quick alternative GERS - if we ditch the blood thirsty tactics of Westminister and accept Scotland is only a normal medium sized country. Ireland for example, and scale down defence spending.10-11 9.2% income v 8.9% expenditure Scotland deficit £9 billion UK deficit £ 134 billion 11-12 9.6% income v 8.9% expenditure Scotland deficit £6.9 billion UK deficit £116 billion 12-13 8.9% income v 8.9% expenditure Scotland deficit £ 11.6 billion UK deficit £ 122 billion 13 - 14 Scotland income 8.6 % v 8.9% expenditure Scotland deficit £ 11.9 billion UK Deficit £ 103 billion 14-15 Scotland income 8.2% v 8.9% expenditure Scotland deficit £ 12.2 billion UK deficit £ 92 billion Plenty of other saving we could make when independent which is why GERS shows how Scotland is doing in the UK; not if Scotland became a country. Edited March 9, 2016 by Glenn Medeiros 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 How? By your logic, English MPs should be allowed to interfere on Scottish laws that affect English workers' pay. That would mean goodbye to devolution and independence! You and the SNP MPs in Westminster are the BritNats' useful idiots. According to the BBC website: The proposed changes were not covered by new English Votes for English Laws provisions, which require the explicit consent of English and Welsh MPs for measures exclusively affecting them, because other parts of the Enterprise Bill apply to Scotland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm not the worlds biggest Jamie Ross fan but his live tweeting of the #jc4pm (ffs) gig tonight has been sublime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Medeiros Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm not the worlds biggest Jamie Ross fan but his live tweeting of the #jc4pm (ffs) gig tonight has been sublime. This the Scotland one they couldn't sell tickets for ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 This the Scotland one they couldn't sell tickets for ? Aye. He tweeted some photos of the half empty auditorium, it seems to have been a parade of lefty english comedians, CND and stop the war types lining up to pay homage to the SNP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 According to the BBC website: The proposed changes were not covered by new English Votes for English Laws provisions, which require the explicit consent of English and Welsh MPs for measures exclusively affecting them, because other parts of the Enterprise Bill apply to Scotland. But, as reported by the BBC, Hosie still said that the SNP would vote against liberalising Sunday trading in England. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) According to the BBC website: The proposed changes were not covered by new English Votes for English Laws provisions, which require the explicit consent of English and Welsh MPs for measures exclusively affecting them, because other parts of the Enterprise Bill apply to Scotland. Bills have multiple votes. The SNP voted on an amendment relating to Sunday Trading, the substance of which was a matter which did not change the laws of Scotland. No one objects to the SNP voting on other parts of the bill that do change the law as it relates to Scotland, or on the bill as a whole, for the same reason. They are being accused of a very specific hypocrisy of voting to prevent England from adopting the same law as Scotland already has, while they would be up in arms if English MPs proposed to vote on measures to change the laws in relation to Sunday trading in Scotland. ETA: It would be like SNP MPs voting against England removing the parental consent provision of English Marriage law for 16 and 17 year olds on the grounds it would have a detrimental effect on the Gretna wedding industry. Edited March 9, 2016 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Bills have multiple votes. The SNP voted on an amendment relating to Sunday Trading, the substance of which was a matter which did not change the laws of Scotland. No one objects to the SNP voting on other parts of the bill that do change the law as it relates to Scotland, or on the bill as a whole, for the same reason. They are being accused of a very specific hypocrisy of voting to prevent England from adopting the same law as Scotland already has, while they would be up in arms if English MPs proposed to vote on measures to change the laws in relation to Sunday trading in Scotland. ETA: It would be like SNP MPs voting against England removing the parental consent provision of English Marriage law for 16 and 17 year olds on the grounds it would have a detrimental effect on the Gretna wedding industry. they should a system in place to stop that. ETA your example only works if the Sunday trading only affected shops in Gretna, Edited March 9, 2016 by invergowrie arab 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Bills have multiple votes. The SNP voted on an amendment relating to Sunday Trading, the substance of which was a matter which did not change the laws of Scotland. No one objects to the SNP voting on other parts of the bill that do change the law as it relates to Scotland, or on the bill as a whole, for the same reason. They are being accused of a very specific hypocrisy of voting to prevent England from adopting the same law as Scotland already has, while they would be up in arms if English MPs proposed to vote on measures to change the laws in relation to Sunday trading in Scotland. But this can't be, we are one United Kingdom: one nation that is better together and has not succumbed to divisive nationalism. What we are obviously not is a combination of resentful nations with lopsided devolution deals and skewed population/representation densities. Because that just wouldn't work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 But, as reported by the BBC, Hosie still said that the SNP would vote against liberalising Sunday trading in England. Bills have multiple votes. The SNP voted on an amendment relating to Sunday Trading, the substance of which was a matter which did not change the laws of Scotland. No one objects to the SNP voting on other parts of the bill that do change the law as it relates to Scotland, or on the bill as a whole, for the same reason. They are being accused of a very specific hypocrisy of voting to prevent England from adopting the same law as Scotland already has, while they would be up in arms if English MPs proposed to vote on measures to change the laws in relation to Sunday trading in Scotland. ETA: It would be like SNP MPs voting against England removing the parental consent provision of English Marriage law for 16 and 17 year olds on the grounds it would have a detrimental effect on the Gretna wedding industry. Dinnae shoot me I'm just the messenger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 If Scotland had returned 50-odd Labour MPs and they voted as the majority of the UK's Labour MPs did, would the regionalists even notice? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 they should a system in place to stop that. ETA your example only works if the Sunday trading only affected shops in Gretna, Come on, the SNP can't complain on the one hand that EVEL makes them second class MPs but on the other that English Vetoes for English laws doesn't actually stop any Scottish MPs from voting on English-only legislation! No, my example works regardless. I could as easily have said "Scotland's wedding industry". If Scotland had returned 50-odd Labour MPs and they voted as the majority of the UK's Labour MPs did, would the regionalists even notice? No, because they don't complain about Westminster making laws for Scotland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 My votes? I have stated many times on here that I support real independence - outside the EU with our own currency. You also need to learn about the split of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in the early 19th Century. Have you heard of the Benelux Union? The analogy is appropriate. Yes, I obviously have heard of the Benelux Union. I'm not Kev. Don't think I really need to learn more about it for this thread because when you and Ad Lib were comparing SNP MP's voting in Westminster to MPs voting in other sovereign states you weren't referring to 19th Century Netherlands, you were just talking absolute pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Psychosis Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 If Scotland had returned 50-odd Labour MPs and they voted as the majority of the UK's Labour MPs did, would the regionalists even notice? Probably depends on whether those Labour MPs had ever tried to claim that they wouldn't vote on matters that didn't effect Scotland. Personally, I don't give a shit how the SNP voted on Sunday opening hours. But I can see why they're being accused of hypocrisy for doing so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 No, because they don't complain about Westminster making laws for Scotland. Perhaps you missed them campaigning for devolution; engaging in the Smith Commission; claiming that Holyrood should be a permanent part of the constitution ... Why would they do this if they had no complaints about Westminster making laws for Scotland? Glad to see you admitting that regionalists are only too happy to complain about Scotland's elected representatives having a say in UK-wide votes if they don't like the party those representatives belong to. What a craven, anti-democratic, vile bunch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.