Unionism - Page 5 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

The military is already here. The Scottish regiments of British Armies some of which were formed when Scotland was independent. Soldiers on those regiments are not going to have a mass walkout to join a British regiment. This week the Scottish Government put £65 million towards Ukraine's armed forces and similar would happen to start building Scottish armed forces. Passports and embassies? You think we cannot manage that? Jeez you'd think we are struggling with rudimentaries of the wheel..we are not backward. The UK will be cunts over currency but only after over a year as independence would take that time to come into force.  And as has been pointed out we have went through massive changes in the past in our lives and got through it and learned to adapt. Think back to decimalisation, joining the EEC, Brexit, COVID to name but a few. With independence it would be the same. You need to look at historical polls. Unionism is on decline. Back in the late 1970s about 79% of Scots were happy in the union. That has now been slashed by almost 30% to support at around 50,% and that number is heading south all the time.

Decimalisation is a good example of trying to alleviate some of the currency concerns. Most folk would not have a clue how a new currency is formed even if the idea was explained to them, it would be too tedious and technical  . People need an example of a situation they can identify with . Even if they dont know what the actual background was to get us moving from old money to decimalisation,  they know it happened and the world didn’t crash around them or their older relatives.,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Pretty much what mccaughey says re question 1. Tories do not embrace devolution. If they had half the chance they would burn down the Scottish Parliament. 

It gives a lot of them a well paid job and without it they’d be without any Scottish voice.  Even with a Tory Govt in WM, if it were not for Holyrood and it’s proportional system, it would be the SNP and Labour facing off against each other.   I don’t think they’d burn it down, they do want it to be totally subservient to WM.

It’d be interesting to see how their dynamic would change with a Labour Government in WM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Pretty much what mccaughey says re question 1. Tories do not embrace devolution. If they had half the chance they would burn down the Scottish Parliament. 

All those Tory MSP's aren't going to vote themselves out of well paid jobs without the guarantee of something better - like a Westminster or HoL seat (which they know isn't available as they are seen as 3rd rate parish councillors by Tory high command).

In polling, those in favour of shutting down the Scottish parliament are in single figures. So even the majority of No voters in 1997 have changed their minds, and now see the benefit of Holyrood.

Same will happen with independence.

 

4 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Re Q2. Again, I agree with him on the issue of geography. I think it makes things much harder for people to be won over as we are on an island where all the countries are in the union. This is unusual. It just makes some people feel more ‘together’ , some enough to revolt if we win independence. It would  only take a few to start for the bandwagon to grow. 

I am not sure why this is not being seen an issue . I want independence as much as anyone on this board but I would rather be prepared for the potential problems. It will also be used by the No side to put people off so is should be addressed. 

 

There will be a short window where the losing side will feel most aggrieved, and try to reverse the result. We saw this after the 2014 brexit result. It took a decisive election win for the Tories to 'get it done'.

This is why the SNP won't fragment until they 'get indy done'. They will be needed to see it through after the Yes vote, and all Yessers will need to support them to see off the unionist challenge.

 

4 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Splitting the country is outrageous though. Independence would be dead in the water with that suggestion.
 

Agreed. I find it bizzare that any Yesser would countenance it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

 

2. Well ireland won their independence through a war and a majority vote for sinn fein. They then had to partition the country because a large amount of unionists still wanted to remain british. So they partly won their independence but had to surrender the north in order to prevent civil war and allow them to move foward with what i am guessing was a hope to regain the north at a later date.

No mate... Partition didn't prevent the civil war, it caused it!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

What percentage of scotland is unionist? My reckoning is its easily a third and if thats right then we could be looking at an uncertain future if they all band under a unionist party looking to rejoin the union. 

That's assuming what's left of the UK would want us back. It's very difficult to think how independence might the English psyche. In the long term I'm sure we'll be good neighbours, there's no reason we shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Not sure where that stats come from but i have seen ones that say lower than 30%. Either way 70 percent voting unionist is not great reading and it puts us an instant disadvantage. 

It's attitudes like this we're up against, not English ex-pats...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol i can see my proposal is not very popular which is what i expected tbf. 

For the record its not something i want but its sadly not looking likely that we win independence based on the current polls. I also find it worrying that most of the nationalists responding on this thread think we have a small number of unionists in scotland. Its delusional to think we have a small minority of unionists. If that were the case we wouldnt have lost the last referendum and the current polls would show a large majority for indy.

Being delusional about this is not going to help us and will only stop us from addressing the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Totally agree. And the fantasy world McGaughey suggests is ludicrous. Evidently, nobody here agrees that Scotland should be cut up to appease BritNats and that is never the purpose of an IndyRef. It is like that Small Faces song All or Nothing. Independence takes Scotland out of the dark ages when empires ruled big swathes of the world for the benefit of the ruling body - nobody else.

You keep on calling me mcgaughey. Why? 

You also still havent answered my question. 

I will ask the question to again to all the nationalists in this thread?

If you had the choice between never getting an independent scotland or the choice of a smaller indy scotland that had a long term future(100 years or more) then what would choose?

I doubt anyone will have the guts to answer this question. Most seem to want to blindly cry freedom and pretend that scotland will vote yes despite the last referendum and the recent polls showing we probably wont.

Delusion wont win us our country back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

 

I will ask the question to again to all the nationalists in this thread?

If you had the choice between never getting an independent scotland or the choice of a smaller indy scotland that had a long term future(100 years or more) then what would choose?

I doubt anyone will have the guts to answer this question.

 

I'll answer that question gladly. I'd choose the 100 years of Scotland remaining part of the UK. We either go together, or we don't. If you knew anything about the history of the British partitioning countries (i live in one that Britain partitioned 100 years ago), then you might have a different view.

Sorry, but i find it bizzare that at a time when we need maximum unity among the Yes movement in order to bring Westminster to the referendum negotiating table, you're advocating divisive stuff like this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dave78 said:

No mate... Partition didn't prevent the civil war, it caused it!

 

 

Well thats debatable. Ireland has seen civil war for the last 400 years or more. The idea that partition caused the civil war is not really true. The country has always been divided and could still be divided for a very long time. Interestingly one of the reasons they have been so divided is down to scots colonising the north and pledging their allegiance to britain and basically considering themselves ultra british. Perhaps if ppl in here read some history about ireland they might realise that lowland scotland has produced brit loyalists for hundreds of years and the idea that they are some tiny minority in scotland is quite frankly laughable and delusional.

Personally i dont think partition works in ireland or is fair. Usually polls in the republic tend to show at least a 70/30 split in favour of reunification. Polls in the north tend to be slightly in favour of remaining british. Overall ireland must be at least 60/40 in favour of reunification which is pretty amazing considering that the threat of war in the north is still a realistic possibility. Imagine how pro unification they would be if they didnt have to worry about loyalists starting a war. 

This idea that scotland is like other commonwealth countries seeking independence from britain is simply not true. We benefitted hugely from the empire and were willing participants in its atrocities and expansion. We are also a part of the island of britain which will mean a certain section of the population will always have on some level a connection to it wether thats hardline or not. We are not some oppressed nation seeking to gain independence, we are a nation who has 2 different identities who clash about what they want the country to be and what they feel is best for the country. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

You keep on calling me mcgaughey. Why? 

You also still havent answered my question. 

I will ask the question to again to all the nationalists in this thread?

If you had the choice between never getting an independent scotland or the choice of a smaller indy scotland that had a long term future(100 years or more) then what would choose?

I doubt anyone will have the guts to answer this question. Most seem to want to blindly cry freedom and pretend that scotland will vote yes despite the last referendum and the recent polls showing we probably wont.

Delusion wont win us our country back.

 

You really are showing yourself up here chasing a question that is not relevant whatsoever. If and when IndyRef2 comes about it will be on independent for the WHOLE of Scotland and that is exactly how it should be. Scotland was an independent country long before unionists even existed so how pissed off they'll be I do not give a toss just as they never gave a toss about how nationalists felt for 300 years. One last time McCaughey apologies on getting your name wrong but we are balloting for an entire independent Scotland and your sectioned off crazy idea is a figment of your imagination but I would never agree to it and unionists would never suggest it as they want ALL of Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

I'll answer that question gladly. I'd choose the 100 years of Scotland remaining part of the UK. We either go together, or we don't. If you knew anything about the history of the British partitioning countries (i live in one that Britain partitioned 100 years ago), then you might have a different view.

Sorry, but i find it bizzare that at a time when we need maximum unity among the Yes movement in order to bring Westminster to the referendum negotiating table, you're advocating divisive stuff like this.

 

I have read plenty on the partition of ireland. I have said in my post above that i dont agree with it in ireland. Ireland is a different situation from scotland. As is all the countries who gained indy from the british empire(us).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

The idea that partition caused the civil war is not really true.

 

Literally ever historian in Ireland will disagree with you.

I'm thinking our definitions of the Irish civil war must be different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

You really are showing yourself up here chasing a question that is not relevant whatsoever. If and when IndyRef2 comes about it will be on independent for the WHOLE of Scotland and that is exactly how it should be. Scotland was an independent country long before unionists even existed so how pissed off they'll be I do not give a toss just as they never gave a toss about how nationalists felt for 300 years. One last time McCaughey apologies on getting your name wrong but we are balloting for an entire independent Scotland and your sectioned off crazy idea is a figment of your imagination but I would never agree to it and unionists would never suggest it as they want ALL of Scotland.

Its an easy question that dave78 answered. Its a question i myself can quite happily answer yet you and probably most others on here will avoid it. I usually find when someone avoids or wont answer a simple question like the one i asked is usually because they dont want to face up to the truth.

Theres a good chance Scotland might never go independent. We have not got the numbers and its something we the nationalists will probably have to accept eventually unless something drastic changes. More and more english come to scotland every year and we could be in a situation where unionism starts increasing to the point where we are back to a 70/30 split in favour of the staying in the uk. All we had to do last time was tick a box and we were still too pussy. That tells me that we are either pussies or we like being british or both. Either way being delusional about it wont get us anywhere.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Literally ever historian in Ireland will disagree with you.

I'm thinking our definitions of the Irish civil war must be different.

 

Partition certainly never helped the situation but its not the root cause of the centuries of civil war in ireland. Partition and civil war happened because a huge amount of irish wanted to remain british. Its a war over identity and nationalism and even if partition never happened then the protestants in the north would still want to be british and would likely have fought against being taken out of britain. 

If it was only partition that caused civil war in ireland then why were they fighting a civil war for centuries before that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

 

If it was only partition that caused civil war in ireland then why were they fighting a civil war for centuries before that?

 

Ok, now i see the confusion. In an Irish context, when referring to "civil war" this is what's meant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

I'll answer that question gladly. I'd choose the 100 years of Scotland remaining part of the UK. We either go together, or we don't. If you knew anything about the history of the British partitioning countries (i live in one that Britain partitioned 100 years ago), then you might have a different view.

Sorry, but i find it bizzare that at a time when we need maximum unity among the Yes movement in order to bring Westminster to the referendum negotiating table, you're advocating divisive stuff like this.

 

So basically you would accept us never having independence over a very small boundary change? Fair enough, i fully understand that i am one of the few who would accept a boundary change but for me i desperately want independence and the thought of us never getting it is completely soul destroying to the point i would be willing to make a compromise that gets us 85% of our country back and the opportunity to be alot harsher on hardline british in our country to the point where we never have to worry about rejoining the uk ever again. To some on here that opinion is strange but i also find it strange that you and others could handle the prospect of us never getting independence. That is  something that is unacceptable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Ok, now i see the confusion. In an Irish context, when referring to "civil war" this is what's meant.

 

Ok fair enough. Either way ireland has been at war constantly for hundreds of years, civil war is pretty much the norm there.

Also i have said in my previous post that i disagree with partition in ireland. Ireland clearly has a pro unification majority if you take the country as a whole. Not only that the population that is loyal to britain is not even indigenous to ireland.

Guess what country this ultra british group are mostly indigenous to? SCOTLAND 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

So basically you would accept us never having independence over a very small boundary change? Fair enough, i fully understand that i am one of the few who would accept a boundary change but for me i desperately want independence and the thought of us never getting it is completely soul destroying to the point i would be willing to make a compromise that gets us 85% of our country back and the opportunity to be alot harsher on hardline british in our country to the point where we never have to worry about rejoining the uk ever again. To some on here that opinion is strange but i also find it strange that you and others could handle the prospect of us never getting independence. That is  something that is unacceptable to me.

You just do not get unionism. Not a chance in hell they'd want just a portion - they want it all. If you have no qualms appeasing that sort of people in the fantasy that they would then grant independence you do not understand how unionists minds work.

And you are asking a question that is irrelevant. If/when there is an IndyRef2 the question will be asked on all of Scotland not on your portioned off idea.

It seems part of your reasoning is because unionists won't accept independence. Tough. What you propose is like catching bank robbers and then offering them the chance to keep some of their stolen money because they may be angry they were caught. It is that ludicrous.

Last time no it is all of Scotland or none for independence. I could not condemn one square foot of Scotland to having to live under unionist role when total independence is what we are being asked to vote on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Ok, now i see the confusion. In an Irish context, when referring to "civil war" this is what's meant.

 

I picked up early on that he’d probably never heard of the actual Irish Civil War, 1922-3, which as you correctly say was as a direct result of partition in the treaty.  TBF, though I’d never really heard much about it until I worked in Dublin for a year in 1990.  Mind you, we weren’t taught much Scottish history in school so it’s not surprising we weren’t taught anything about Ireland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

You just do not get unionism. Not a chance in hell they'd want just a portion - they want it all. If you have no qualms appeasing that sort of people in the fantasy that they would then grant independence you do not understand how unionists minds work.

And you are asking a question that is irrelevant. If/when there is an IndyRef2 the question will be asked on all of Scotland not on your portioned off idea.

It seems part of your reasoning is because unionists won't accept independence. Tough. What you propose is like catching bank robbers and then offering them the chance to keep some of their stolen money because they may be angry they were caught. It is that ludicrous.

Last time no it is all of Scotland or none for independence. I could not condemn one square foot of Scotland to having to live under unionist role when total independence is what we are being asked to vote on.

Its an easy question that any nationalist who seriously understands the huge step we are taking should be able to answer. You and anyone else can ask me any question you like on here and i will give you a straight answer. If i cant give a straight answer then i usually ask myself why. Usually the reason is because its an uncormfortable truth that i dont wish to confront. 

If your answer is a simple no and you would rather not have independence ever then just say that. Its a question david78 was able to answer and i respect that fact that he doesnt want long term independence for scotland if it means redrawing the border. For me its different, the thought of never having some form of independence is unacceptable and devastating to the point of accepting a small border change that allows us to walk away with 85%of our country and includes what i consider is the most important parts that make scotland what it is. 

Here are some questions that i would appreciate you and other nationalists(of which i am one)on here to answer? 

1. If we win independence with a slim majority of say 52 or 53 percent do you think that its over and we dont need to worry about ever rejoining the uk?

My answer is no its far from over. Moving the country forward on such a slim margin means we will have an uncertain future for a long time with the possibility of rejoining the uk. If indy scotland isnt an instant success then the ppl of scotland will easily swing back to wanting in the union especially when theres a core of ppl who love the union abd being british and another section of our soceity who are willing to switch sides at the drop of a hat depending on money.

2. If you answered no are you willing to accept rejoining the uk if a majority want to?

The thought of rejoining is simply not an option for me, its why i am reluctant to go forward on such slim margins knowing we easily could be straight back in after a 5/10 years.

3. Do you think we are like other countries gaining independence from britain and can you tell me which of these countries naturally produce pro british ppl in the way scotland does?

Simply put we are a very different situation to any other country looking to get independence from the britain. We are huge part of britain and we were the british empire. We produced many pro british ppl who went out and committed atrocities in the name of britishness. The the only countries that naturally produce pro british ppl are england,wales and scotland. Ireland has a pro british population because guess what we scots colonised the north and put a group of ppl who consider themselves british into that country.

4. If we gain independence do you think it will be an instant success?

I personally have my doubts, we will have to put large amounts of our budget into creating a new army, navy etc. Lots of money will need to be spent on embassies and things like setting up a hmrc equivalent. The first 5 to 10 years could be critical to the long term success and it could be disaster on some of these issues. That wouldnt bother me i am happy to plow through but other scots have shown to be crumbly cunts who get scared at the least bit of inconvenience. Thats one of the problems when you have a population who treat independence like choosing what outfit to wear. Sad fact is the patriotism of many scots just isnt there for us to secure our future long term. If it was then 55 percent would not have voted no last time and the polls would not be showing that we will vote no again which they currently are.

5. If we win on a margin of say 52 percent and indy is not an instant success do you think there will be a majority looking to rejoin the uk? If no then why? 

Imo in those circumstances if scotland isnt an instant success we will swing straight back to a unionist majority. 

 

My idea of redrawing the border was mostly at first a throwaway suggestion that i knew most nationalists in here would hate and would consider ludicrous but what it has done is made me realise how out of touch many are on independence and how our population think regarding it. The idea that a huge majority are itching for it and that its only a small minority who are loyal to britain both baffles me and worries me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, aaid said:

I picked up early on that he’d probably never heard of the actual Irish Civil War, 1922-3, which as you correctly say was as a direct result of partition in the treaty.  TBF, though I’d never really heard much about it until I worked in Dublin for a year in 1990.  Mind you, we weren’t taught much Scottish history in school so it’s not surprising we weren’t taught anything about Ireland. 

Lol you picked up on nothing. You shouldnt wrongly assume that i have never heard of the irish civil war. You are showing your ignorance. It was a simple crossing of wires which happens when you are discussing and responding to several different ppl at once.

As i said partition isnt the root cause of the civil war and it isnt the root cause of any of the fighting in ireland. Partition is merely a by product of two groups who have different ideologies and identities that want different things. 

You have to ask yourself what caused partition? If you can answer that then you will understand the root cause of partition.

Edited by mccaughey85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

You shouldnt wrongly assume that i have never heard of the irish civil war. You are showing your ignorance. As i said partition isnt the root cause of the civil war and it isnt the root cause of any of the fighting in ireland. Partition is merely a by product of two groups who have different ideologies and identities that want different things. 

You have to ask yourself what caused partition? If you can answer that then you will understand the root cause of partition.

I absolutely understand what caused partition and why partition in the treaty caused the Irish Civil War.   I also know the extent to which the Civil War shaped Irish Politics for the best part of the following 100 years  

if you knew anything about the Irish Civil War then you’d know that it was between the pro and anti-treaty forces of the IRA who a year or so earlier had been fighting together against British forces.   Nothing to do with Catholics and Protestants or Unionists and Nationalists, it was Irish (largely) Catholic Nationalists fighting each other. 

Michael Collins is reported as saying that when he signed the treaty he’d signed his death warrant as he knew that it would not be accepted by every one.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already answered your totally irrelevant question - irrelevant as we ae being balloted for independence for Scotland not just independence for here and there or most parts apart from a bit near the border or a bit where you throw a dart at a map and where it lands a border goes up.

You keep harping on about unionism and I have explained to you before it is a dying breed. The biggest unionist party - the Tories were last the biggest party in Scotland over 60 years ago!! Polls back in the late 1970s had support for the union in Scotland at 79% whereas today that number has shrunk to around 45%. The last time Scotland had a unionist party in control at Holyrood is well over a decade ago. Unionism is shrinking in Scotland not growing.

To address your questions:-

1. Yes I do think it is over. You seem to be thinking because we are here again (eight years after last vote) that the same will happen with a Yes vote. It won't for a few reasons. The chief reason being pro-independence parties have control at Holyrood. Pro-independence voters are generally smart enough to realise the first few years will be tough but heck the last few years have been uber-tough within this union. Another reason being Scotland would be back in the hands of Scots - as is generally the way with 90% of countries around the world.

2. No need to answer as I answered yes.

3. Yes we are like other countries gaining independence. There have been several countries in the last 50 to 100 years whose countries had people seen as British subjects but that did not cause issues as we have seen with India and Australia to name but a few. Those uber Brits that live in an independent country will diminish further perhaps with some relocating to England or Wales if the union means that much to them and Scotland (if they rejoin the EU) will open its borders to EU citizens looking to settle here plus it would not surprise me at all that English and Welsh people who are attracted to the idea of independence may very well move here too.

4. You would be daft if you think it will be an instant success. It will be tough but unionism will not get any boost from this as Westminster will show themselves up for what they really are by making unreasonable demands. The soft Yessers will be steeled into more hard Yessers when they see the true nastiness of unionism at work during the interim negotiations on the split of the UK. I would say this answers your number 5 too. But on your last comment as I said earlier no way would unionism swell when people see the unionists for how cunty they will be in the interim making unreasonable demands, digging their heels in on the most trivial things and hoping to kybosh independence before it has started. No way Scots who voted Yes will vote for a unionist party when they see how unionists work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, aaid said:

It gives a lot of them a well paid job and without it they’d be without any Scottish voice.  Even with a Tory Govt in WM, if it were not for Holyrood and it’s proportional system, it would be the SNP and Labour facing off against each other.   I don’t think they’d burn it down, they do want it to be totally subservient to WM.

It’d be interesting to see how their dynamic would change with a Labour Government in WM.

 

14 hours ago, Dave78 said:

 

All those Tory MSP's aren't going to vote themselves out of well paid jobs without the guarantee of something better - like a Westminster or HoL seat (which they know isn't available as they are seen as 3rd rate parish councillors by Tory high command).

In polling, those in favour of shutting down the Scottish parliament are in single figures. So even the majority of No voters in 1997 have changed their minds, and now see the benefit of Holyrood.

Same will happen with independence.

 

 

There will be a short window where the losing side will feel most aggrieved, and try to reverse the result. We saw this after the 2014 brexit result. It took a decisive election win for the Tories to 'get it done'.

This is why the SNP won't fragment until they 'get indy done'. They will be needed to see it through after the Yes vote, and all Yessers will need to support them to see off the unionist challenge.

 

Agreed. I find it bizzare that any Yesser would countenance it.

I wasnt being entirely serious about them burning the Scottish Parliament down, and I take your point about MSP jobs being cash cows and why would they give it up. But I really do think that Tories in general , not specifically MSP’s, are not particularly bothered about a Scottish Parliament. 

I would go even further and say that the number of people in general who say they support a Scottish Parliament would dwindle should a different question be asked. If the question ‘ what is more important to you , staying in the UK or having a Scottish Parliament? ‘  I think the results would be disappointing to pro independence people.
As happened in the referendum, I think there is a sizeable number of people who are too embarrassed  to say they would not vote for their country to become independent, but when push comes to shove they shite it. 

As an aside, I was in England at a business meeting  a few years ago and the client was going on about it all being ‘‘ that idiot Tony Blair’s fault for ‘giving ‘ Scotland their own parliament  and stirring up all this nationalist nonsense’’.  
It’s not the first time I have heard this sort of thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...