Ally Bongo's Content - Page 7 - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Ally Bongo

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,979

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    17

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Tartan Army Message Board News

Media Demo

Posts posted by Ally Bongo

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

     

    The other thing that puzzles me as a party member is if they were short of funds,why didn't they simply ask their members to donate a bit more. It seems so unnecessary.

    I can only imagine it is a combination of the media scrutiny that would arise plus an admition of a massive drop in memberships and donations 

    When the SNP membership numbers were at their height i'm sure i mentioned on here how healthy their finances must be when you consider there were 120,000 members

    Even at the lowest membership rate of £1 that's a bare minimum of £100,000 every month and if you average it on £3 a month it's £300,000

    Where was it all going ?

    Spads ?

    Staff wages ?

    Maybe it was being spent correctly on all these things and when the memberships started to fall they didnt cut cloth

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    1 hour ago, phart said:

    Be interesting to see what actually happened.

    Wings has seemingly been on the ball right from the start

    £600,000 was raised by the SNP through campaign funding and was supposed to be ringfenced for an Independence campaign

    It was obviously spent on other things and when the SNP were asked where it was, Murrell and others have "cooked the books" to pretend it was still there.

    How that translates into a two year investigation and the Procurator Fiscal taking someone to court for it i have no idea

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    Embezzlement is not always a form of theft or an act of stealing, since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrators. Instead, embezzlement is, more generically, an act of deceitfully secreting assets by one or more persons that have been entrusted with such assets. The persons entrusted with such assets may or may not have an ownership stake in such assets.

    Will be interesting to see what the PF makes of it

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    Like mostly everyone I'm fed up saying Humza is a liability and needs to go 

    However it's got to the state of a cringe every week

    The SNP will be lucky to win one seat at the GE if they go into it with him at the helm

    He must sit in front of his phone thinking - what can i tweet in order to lose some more SNP voters

    The news thread

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    46 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

    Something feeling good / pleasant isnt an upside if the consequence of that is ill health. 

    The difference between smoking and drinking is that smoking can harm regardless of volume. Alcohol doesnt. 

     

    https://www.icr.ac.uk/blogs/science-talk/page-details/when-it-comes-to-cancer-how-does-alcohol-compare-to-smoking

    What about alcohol?

    Awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer, however, is not anywhere near as high. A recent survey suggests only 13 per cent of people understand cancer is one of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption.

    We don’t yet have the same vast body of evidence for the effects of alcohol compared to smoking, but we do know that alcohol itself can directly cause damage to cells that can trigger cancer, and there is evidence that alcohol consumption increases the risk of seven different types of cancer – that of the mouth, throat, voice box, oesophagus, bowel, liver and breast.

    Moderate drinking

    In an attempt to increase public awareness, a new study published in the journal BMC Public Health has estimated the cancer risks associated with moderate alcohol consumption, and drawn a comparison with levels of smoking.

    The authors of the research, from  University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Bangor University and University of Southampton, found the risk of cancer from drinking one bottle of wine a week was equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes a week for women and five cigarettes for men.

    If non-smoking women and men drank a bottle of wine every week, their lifetime risk of cancer would increase by 1.4 per cent for women, and one percent for men. In real terms, if 1,000 women and 1,000 men each drank one bottle of wine per week, it’s likely that around 14 extra women and 10 extra men would develop cancer at some point in their life.

    Heavier alcohol consumption

    On the surface, five or 10 cigarettes a week doesn’t sound like a lot. But we need to put that into drinking habits of the nation. The Office for National Statistics reported in their recent 2019 survey that 60 per cent of adults in the UK report they drink up to 14 units a week. That’s quite a lot of people with a moderate increase in risk.

    The survey also revealed that 17 per cent of adults – so more than the number of smokers in the UK – reported the drink between 14 and 50 units and 4 per cent reported drinking 50 or more. How do these levels affect risk?

    The BMC Public Health study also looked into heavier levels of alcohol consumption and estimated that drinking three bottles of wine per week (around 30 units) could increase lifetime cancer risk by 3.6 per cent in women and 1.9 per cent in men, or 36 in 1,000 women and 19 in 1,000 men. That’s apparently the equivalent to smoking roughly eight cigarettes per week for men and 23 cigarettes per week for women.

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    27 minutes ago, Shaundy said:

    Lost me with “act like adults “ 

    didn’t have the bollox to tell the ‘Greens’* to fek off dictating. 
     

    I’m old enough to remember when the UK Green (sic) party was called The Ecology Party. Then , as is with all just causes are , it was hi jacked by folk with fek all interest in the original causes. If they wanted to join the charade of Democracy then they had to pick a colour. With Blue , Red and Yellow taken they accepted the Green rosettes. 
    the rest is theirstory .

    I blame the private schools 

    Did you actually read what BIS said ?

    They wanted ALBA to have a speaker so they asked them first 

    If ALBA had committed they would not have asked the Greens knowing they would not stand beside ALBA (presumably on their women with cocks stance)

    The news thread

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

    So do Israel then pay us back?

    Would seem strange if it cost us to defend Israel from an attack from Iran which came about because Israel attacked some Iranian commanders (rightly or wrongly)

    They will pay for any arms we give them

    They will not pay for RAF Jets helping them afaik

    The news thread

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Diamond Scot said:

    When an RAF jet shoots down a drone / missle. Who pays for the fuel and RAF missle used to shoot down the drone?

    Does Isreal reimburse the UK or is it just chalked up to expenses of defending an ally?

    We were paying the USA back until 2006 for the lend lease program - i think it was just us that paid them back and the Russians gave the middle finger 

    So that was for Ships, Tanks, Guns and Ammunition that we used ourselves.

    We didnt pay for the military hardware that the US used themselves for fighting in Europe

    Therefore we will be paying for the cost of us defending Israel however by that rule of thumb i expect Ukraine to be paying us back for the next 60 years

    Unless they do what the Russians did in 1946

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

     

    There was another one - younger

    Trying my best to remember - her twitter feed was continual vomit stuff

    Aaid would remember - maybe had an irish sounding surname

    Remembered - Gemma Doyle

    What a vicious rat she is/was

    Notice she fucked off to London after her 2015 defeat and now spouts her anti SNP bile from there

    The news thread

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    What if, and it's not a big if, all we have seen so far is the matinee and the end target has always been Iran ? 

    The combination of internal revolt and Iran being a complete pain in the arse throughout the region may have finally made the US and their "allies" decide they have had enough ?

    It is starting to look like that and Iran are playing their game

     

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, Malcolm said:


     

    yeah, quite possibly.  I don’t think they will be able to wipe Israel off the map though- they have a nuclear capability.

    This was written in January

    The odds of Iran now having a Nuclear weapon will be quite short

    https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/how-quickly-could-iran-make-nuclear-weapons-today

    Institute For Science & International Security

    The unfortunate reality is that Iran already knows how to build nuclear weapons, although there are some unfinished tasks related to the actual construction of them. If the regime’s leadership decided to build them, how would it proceed? How long would it take?

    The long pole in the tent of building nuclear weapons is essentially complete. Iran can quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for many nuclear weapons, something it could not do in 2003. Today, it would need only about a week to produce enough for its first nuclear weapon.3 It could have enough weapon-grade uranium for six weapons in one month, and after five months of producing weapon-grade uranium, it could have enough for twelve.

    The other major poles in the tent are “nuclear weaponization” and delivery. Iran has a variety of delivery systems, including nuclear-capable missiles: the delivery pole is ready.

    Weaponization is the pole that needs more work. It involves theoretical calculations and simulations; development, testing, and construction of the other components of the nuclear weapon; the conversion of weapon-grade uranium into metallic components; the integration of all the components into a nuclear weapon; and the preparation for mounting the weapons on aircraft or missiles or for use in a full-scale underground test. This pole includes the mastery of the high explosive triggering system, the molding and machining of high explosives, and the building of a neutron initiator that starts the chain reaction at just the right moment to create a nuclear explosion.

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, phart said:

    Still 2 years away for Scottish elections? Not to be negative but it seems things are taking a turn for the worse globally in general. Be interesting to see the landscape in 2 years.

    I read a piece from a military strategist regarding Iran's initial attack using mainly drones with some cruise and ballistic missiles

    The narrative from the MSM is that it was an act of face saving from Iran after Israel took out some of their General Staff

    What if however, that attack by Iran was to test Israel's defences so they can prepare for a proper attack ?

    Iran is friendly with Russia and it's a baw hair from going tits up

    Digs

    in Euro 2024

    Posted · Edited by Ally Bongo

    I'd imagine there would have been cancellations after the play offs which might be affecting it plus a good deal of Polish fans can do day trips for their games 

    The nearer it is to the tournament they might think that everyone who is coming is already now booked so they will drop them a bit to try and encourage the last minuters

     

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    From 2021

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-snp-manifesto-2021/

    The most tedious question we ever get asked when we criticise the SNP – because we’ve explained it a hundred times already and none of the people asking have ever bothered to look – is “But what would YOU do to secure independence, clever-clogs?”

    We’ve outlined that plan in detail repeatedly – you can read it again here if you want. But maybe we need something a bit simpler for the hard of thinking, so let’s have a go.

     

    If we were in charge of the SNP, and nothing had materially changed by the time of next year’s election – which is to say that support for Yes was still in the majority and the UK government was still refusing to grant a second referendum – the text in bold just below this paragraph would be our entire manifesto.

    It’s nice and short (barely over 200 words – in fact, amusingly we’ve just noticed that it’s exactly 1314 characters) and you could fit it on a postcard. Indeed, the core of it is all contained in the first paragraph alone, which is one tweet’s worth with 71 characters spare for a couple of hashtags and a link. The rest is just extra detail. So here it is:

    We believe that the Scottish people are sovereign, and we hereby announce our intention to declare Scotland independent and submit that intention to the will of the people in this election for their approval.

    Accordingly, if the Scottish National Party should secure more than 50% of the constituency votes in this election, we will consider that a clear mandate to withdraw from the Treaty Of Union, declare Scotland to once more be an independent state, and seek recognition from the international community on the basis of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of all peoples to self-determination, that self-determination having been expressed by this vote.

    Should the UK Government wish, we are willing to confirm that mandate via a referendum, to be held no later than three months from the date of the election, on the same question as that used in 2014. If no such referendum is requested or conducted, the declaration of independence based on the election result will automatically be considered to stand.

    Upon the secure establishment of independence, a new general election will be called immediately.

    With regard to other policies, our current positions on all issues remain unchanged, and all future legislation will be brought before the Parliament, debated and voted on in the normal manner.

    (The bit in italics is optional.)

    And that’s it. You’re done. An absolutely clear, impeccably democratic mandate that the international community would have no reason to object to. Everyone knows clearly what they’re voting for, and you’re even offering the UK government a second bite at the democratic cherry as a courtesy. It requires no permission – parties can stand on whatever manifesto they want in a democracy and put their proposals to the people.

    Basing it on the constituency vote alone makes it simpler (one person, one vote), and it also prevents the election being used as a Trojan horse to smuggle in unpopular policies that people don’t want to vote for. You can vote SNP for independence on the constituency vote, but then vote for whatever party you want on the list vote, because the list vote is the actual intended mechanism for ensuring proportional representation.

    It’s also very easy to understand and explain – effectively the constituency vote is the referendum and the list vote the election.

    (Getting >50% of the constituency vote would not guarantee the SNP a majority on its own, although of course it would make it more likely, but you’re holding a new election as soon as you’re independent so it doesn’t really matter.)

    If the SNP/Yes failed to get over 50% of the constituency vote on those terms, we’d have a Parliament where they’d still almost certainly be the biggest party and form the government (because they’re 30+ points ahead in the polls as it stands), so they have nothing to lose. On current polling they’re going to get zero or very close to zero MSPs from the list anyway, so no harm done there.

    And if you’re one of the weirdo 5-10% of SNP voters who don’t want independence, vote for someone else on the constituency and SNP on the list – under the D’Hondt system you should still theoretically end up with the same number of SNP seats so you lose nothing either.)

    Pro-indy Labour (and Lib Dem and Tory) voters would also have nothing to lose – they could safely vote SNP on the constituency vote for independence and Labour on the list, and be confident of getting the number of MSPs they’re entitled to via the list system, exactly as they did in 2016.

    Women and others uncomfortable with certain current SNP policies could do the same but voting for new list parties, giving them the best possible chance of blocking those policies without sacrificing independence.

    And of course, diehard Unionists would simply vote as they’re going to anyway – the Unionist party of their preference on the constituency ballot, and Unionist on the list too. Indeed, it’s better for them as they don’t have to worry about “tactical” voting – any Unionist constituency vote effectively counts as a No.

    All of the detail about the prospectus for independence, what currency we’d use and whether we’d still get Doctor Who, would be a matter for the campaign. If people were happy with the answers given they’d vote Yes (ie SNP on the constituency), and if they weren’t happy with the answers given they could vote No.

    (If that process was good enough for the Brexit vote then it’s good enough for us. You can never have definitive answers everyone will agree on in advance – that approach was tried with the White Paper and it failed – so there’s no point worrying about it. People will either trust their fellow Scots to make it work like every other nation on Earth does and deal with problems as they arise, or they won’t. That’s the vote.)

    Of course, there’s no guarantee that the UK government would accept the result of such an election just because they had no legitimate democratic grounds not to. They might try various diplomatic methods to pressure other countries into not recognising the new Scotland, but frankly the UK’s international stock and bargaining power is pretty tiny at the moment and we wouldn’t fret too much about that.

    Or they might send in the tanks, though it’d be interesting to see what happened if, say, everyone went out and parked their cars on all the roads to Faslane. But since the alternative is to let them keep Scotland prisoner forever anyway, we don’t really have anything to lose there either.

    It’s hard to understand why this isn’t already the SNP’s official public position. There’s no reason it should be a secret. It’d certainly have put a lot of people’s minds at rest and saved the party an awful lot of discontent and disharmony in the last year or two. There’s no reason to waste five more years begging for a Section 30 and then, maybe, propose something like this for 2026, by which time God knows what might have happened and there might not even be a Holyrood to have elections to any more.

    If it continues not to be, people will be entitled to ask why.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...