Indyref 2 (2) - Page 13 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

You're entitled to your vote like anyone else.  

It's not clear that the Yes movement will only count votes from the SNP, other pro indy parties or set up a Yes Scotland party.  If it's the former, I'd suggest getting on board with political reality but that's up to every voter.  

I'm sort of done with attempting to change people's minds now.  This way forward allows people to make their voice heard.  We either support it or we don't.  If we do, let's see how Westminster reacts.  If we don't, we don't deserve independence.  No Molly coddling or moaning about it.  You're either a country or you're not.  We only need to put a vote in a box.  There's good argument for and against.  At least it'll bring it to a head.

 

i most definitely would vote for independence, i was probably dramatizing my fear that other folk will vote in that way as in wanting indy but not under the colour of the SNP. the defacto is a complicated and risky strategy   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 433
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, aaid said:

In common with most - if not all - political parties, the SNP rules state that you cannot be a member of the SNP if you are a member of another political party that competes with the SNP.  So, if you live in Wales you can also be a member of Plaid Cymru, if you live in England you can also be a member of the Green Party of England and Wales.  If you live in Scotland, you can’t be a member of Alba.  HL - by his own admission joined Alba and at that point ceased to be a member of the SNP.  That he hasn’t informed either his branch or head office of that is irrelevant but speaks to his character.  

or just to wind you up, ever thought of that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, aaid said:

He can vote but technically he isn’t a member.  The regulations state that you cease to become a member once you breach the rules, not when the party finds out about it.  The fact he knows this means he is being disingenuous.

That is me in a nutshell.  If anything, I’m more to the left in my fifties than I was in my thirties, but still not as far as I was in my teens. 

i am a member, a more active and valuable one than you will ever be. for all you know i could be a councilor😃 i do know that around a year ago there was discussions in two local branches regarding double memberships and the suspicion of bracnh members who were, maybe just a coincidence or was it the hunt the aaid's TAMB alba daft poster HL haha... it really did make me laugh and thought about you "the oracle"!!!!   obviously just a coincidence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aaid said:

So are you now saying that you aren’t a member of Alba?

wouldnt you like to know, why does it bother you so much, i will say donate to the alba party and the snp. i get on very well with salmond although i havent spoke to him in a while when my mate was sitting next to him and brain cox on the train. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

no wonder Westminster and the establishment wanted to eliminate him. he is just simply head and shoulder above anyone in the SG at present 

 

https://news.stv.tv/politics/alex-salmond-calls-for-snp-greens-and-alba-to-unite-for-independence-at-next-general-election?fbclid=IwAR2rR35BWbkqCPEQkj21ck7nSu15bTfXRvAiA_Bun83MieO46kSm13wrjqY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

wouldnt you like to know, why does it bother you so much, i will say donate to the alba party and the snp. i get on very well with salmond although i havent spoke to him in a while when my mate was sitting next to him and brain cox on the train. 

So why did you lie about this in the past?  You’ve got form for saying one thing and than pulling the “oh but I was only joking” when you’re challenged on it.  How can anyone trust what you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

 

no wonder Westminster and the establishment wanted to eliminate him. he is just simply head and shoulder above anyone in the SG at present 

 

https://news.stv.tv/politics/alex-salmond-calls-for-snp-greens-and-alba-to-unite-for-independence-at-next-general-election?fbclid=IwAR2rR35BWbkqCPEQkj21ck7nSu15bTfXRvAiA_Bun83MieO46kSm13wrjqY

If it’s put to Salmond that he is the barrier towards this happening, will he stand down and stand back?  If he won’t then he clearly doesn’t mean what he’s saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aaid said:

So why did you lie about this in the past?  You’ve got form for saying one thing and than pulling the “oh but I was only joking” when you’re challenged on it.  How can anyone trust what you say?

it a online board, no one apart from you gives a shit about party membership, the majority on this thread care about independence and achieving it,, maybe its more a reflection on you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aaid said:

If it’s put to Salmond that he is the barrier towards this happening, will he stand down and stand back?  If he won’t then he clearly doesn’t mean what he’s saying.  

would sturgeon? what kind of question is that to ask? everyone who believes in self determination has a part to play in gaining independence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

would sturgeon? what kind of question is that to ask? everyone who believes in self determination has a part to play in gaining independence 

Put bluntly, what would the SNP gain from getting Alba involved.

That’s before considering that Alex Salmond is an extremely unpopular individual and that Alba activists routinely spit bile at the FM and SNP politicians.  

Would he do the decent thing and shuffle off the stage if it was put to him that his presence was a lot more harmful to independence than it helped or is it - as it always has been - all about Alex?

We all know that’s not going to happen and that the media will platform him as a “pro-Indy” voice for “balance” but in the full knowledge that he is a bogeyman.   I can just see the next Question Time from Scotland, Murdo Fraser, Jackie Baillie, Jim Sillars and Alex Salmond.  Nothing to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, aaid said:

Put bluntly, what would the SNP gain from getting Alba involved.

That’s before considering that Alex Salmond is an extremely unpopular individual and that Alba activists routinely spit bile at the FM and SNP politicians.  

Would he do the decent thing and shuffle off the stage if it was put to him that his presence was a lot more harmful to independence than it helped or is it - as it always has been - all about Alex?

We all know that’s not going to happen and that the media will platform him as a “pro-Indy” voice for “balance” but in the full knowledge that he is a bogeyman.   I can just see the next Question Time from Scotland, Murdo Fraser, Jackie Baillie, Jim Sillars and Alex Salmond.  Nothing to see here.

you are missing the point, its not about the snp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In full. Alex Salmond with Bernard Ponsonby. 

Salmond: The SNP light brigade's begging letter to the Supreme Court, has delivered: a reinforcement of Scotland's nationality and right to exist. 

 

You are Scottish. You are sovereign. You will never never let a supreme court in London tell you, that you are a second class citizen. 

Lord Reid, has overstepped in judgment. I believe that Scotland will now fight back. Absolutely without doubt. This is fight for liberty and our rights.

The SNP must act now and the people will hear the clarion call. 

We are sovereign Scots. We must fight for Independence. 

Edited by Tartan_Tonna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I understand why they did it but I don’t think the snp immediately banging the drum for a second referendum following the no vote 2014 was helpful. 

Not sure how they progress from here either. 

either do i, if we dont get a referendum this next few years then they will never allow one, if we get a referendum i am not very confident we will win. i just get the feeling something big would need to happen. i get the feeling we may end up with more devolved powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some digging should be done into the Act written up for devolution. The Supreme Court mentioned that in its reasoning for its decision stating in that it states any decision on independence was reserved to Westminster. Just how much input into that and its wording was created by anyone other than a unionist. How much input did a pro-independence party, group or even person had a say in this. I would say none. Yet it is legally binding today in a far different political landscape. It needs updating to account for this surely but realise it will never be agreed to by those that chain us in this union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

either do i, if we dont get a referendum this next few years then they will never allow one, if we get a referendum i am not very confident we will win. i just get the feeling something big would need to happen. i get the feeling we may end up with more devolved powers.

It's going the other way if anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I understand why they did it but I don’t think the snp immediately banging the drum for a second referendum following the no vote 2014 was helpful. 

Not sure how they progress from here either. 

When did they do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I understand why they did it but I don’t think the snp immediately banging the drum for a second referendum following the no vote 2014 was helpful. 

Not sure how they progress from here either. 

You're either misremembering, or buying into Brit nationalist propaganda.

In the immediate aftermath, Sturgeon said there'd only be indyref2 if Yes consistently polled at least 60%, OR there was a material change in the circumstances from indyref1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not been following it closely at all.

Someone in the FT was saying it was a shrewd move to make the supreme court say no, cause then it just has the inequality out in the open now. Also their analysis was it would result in an increase in support.

My own thing is all the people who are certain one way or another are making the situation seem a lot more simpler than it actually is. The numbers show the will of the people is really quite balanced. It's going to be tricky. Showing substantively the democratic deficit through these sort of things will help shift numbers.

I'm pretty ill-informed though not going to pretend I can survey the chessboard and see what moves are going to happen. I just think revealing the cloven hoof of the supreme court is a good 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...
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...