Buddy'sMum
Well-Known Member
What would we do without Wikipedia?
The SNP and Mrs Nicola Sturgeon
- Thread starter Judgemental
- Start date
What would we do without Wikipedia?
Roasted Chestnuts
Well-Known Member
At a complete loss apparently
honestly Buddy's mum you seem like a nice lass with her head screwed on but trying to get someone so biased and politically immature to accept anything remotely resembling a facts it's like teaching a brick wall Chinese, impossible and pointless. Hence why shutterbug and myself decided to just leave them to their warped beliefs, no such thing as an open mind on this section of the forum anyway.
dibbin
Well-Known Member
At a complete loss apparently
My thoughts exactly.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
I wish you all well in Scotland ,however be careful and just remember whose political aims will be satisfied most by this situation.
Our only real argument south of the border is we should be able to control our own destiny as much as you can north of the border. The hunting vote showed up your first minister in a bad light down here as even those who did not agree could see it was none of her business. During the election she made a big point of saying she would not get involved and then went back on that straight away. Sorry but that is the facts all it was about as well was bringing the law into line with your own thats why her attitude was perverse to say the least. However I still think that was a political trap that she naively fell into as it was designed to show her up to be what she is it was never to change the law on hunting but brought forward the need for an English assembly in the eyes of many ,why do you think the changes were so weak. To me the easiest option is just stopping Scottish MPs voting on English only matters within Westminster as clearly the gentlemans agreement that was in place actually means nothing to NS.
Our only real argument south of the border is we should be able to control our own destiny as much as you can north of the border. The hunting vote showed up your first minister in a bad light down here as even those who did not agree could see it was none of her business. During the election she made a big point of saying she would not get involved and then went back on that straight away. Sorry but that is the facts all it was about as well was bringing the law into line with your own thats why her attitude was perverse to say the least. However I still think that was a political trap that she naively fell into as it was designed to show her up to be what she is it was never to change the law on hunting but brought forward the need for an English assembly in the eyes of many ,why do you think the changes were so weak. To me the easiest option is just stopping Scottish MPs voting on English only matters within Westminster as clearly the gentlemans agreement that was in place actually means nothing to NS.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
That is Great in theory however how do you negotiate and achieve the objectives with somebody who does not believe in the union
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
STURGEON HAS ALL THE HALLMARKS OF PURE MEGALOMANIA. SHE IS THE MOST DANGEROUS and if mature would be saying it was useful and most courteous of Mrs May to visit and leave it at that, not to put a spin on the visit and exploit what 'may or may' not have been discussed. One simply cannot trust somebody who takes such an unreliable position.
Herewith the comments from the Daily Mail, interestingly at the end of the piece, Downing Street expressly makes a denial.
"Nicola Sturgeon suggests she has a veto over when to trigger Brexit process after Theresa May put Scotland in a 'very, very strong position'
Sturgeon claims Theresa May has given her a veto over Brexit timing
Theresa May made visit to Edinburgh her first official trip as Prime Minister
Promised not to trigger Article 50 until 'UK approach' had been agreed
Sturgeon says this puts Scotland in a 'very, very strong position'
SNP First Minister vows to 'use this position as well as I can'
Sturgeon's comments will infuriate Tory Brexit campaigners
By MATT DATHAN, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 14:14, 17 July 2016 | UPDATED: 16:18, 17 July 2016
Nicola Sturgeon has suggested she has a veto over when Britain triggers the formal process of leaving the EU.
The First Minister said Theresa May had put Scotland in 'a very, very strong position' when it comes to triggering Article 50, which sets a two-year time limit on negotiations to leave.
The pair met when Mrs May made her visit to Edinburgh on Friday her first official trip as Prime Minister.
The new PM told Ms Sturgeon she would not start the Brexit process until she had agreed a 'UK approach' with leaders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Ms Sturgeon's words today will infuriate Tory Brexit campaigners, who warned on Friday that no region of the UK should be allowed to 'hold the rest of the country to ransom' by delaying the negotiations.
Scotland was one of only three major regions to vote to stay in the EU, with six in ten Scots backing Remain. Only London and Northern Ireland were the other regions backing EU membership.
Nicola Sturgeon has suggested she has a veto over when Britain triggers the formal process of leaving the EU
Asked today if Mrs May had given her a veto over triggering Article 50, Ms Sturgeon told the BBC: 'That certainly appeared to be an interpretation that some put on the Prime Minister's remarks after the meeting...and certainly from what she said after the meeting, I think that puts Scotland in now in a very, very strong position.
'That's a position I am going to use as well as I can.'
Fury over Scotland’s Brexit ‘veto’: MPs react angrily as...
The First Minister also insisted that the EU's attitude to Scotland's place in Europe has softened since June's referendum result, and the option of Scotland staying in while the rest of the UK 'Brexits' should not be ruled out.
Mrs May's visit to Bute House, the First Minister's official residence, aimed to show her commitment to preserving the United Kingdom following the UK's decision to leave the EU.
But Downing Street denied Mrs May had handed a veto to Miss Sturgeon, who wants to keep Scotland in the EU".
Herewith the comments from the Daily Mail, interestingly at the end of the piece, Downing Street expressly makes a denial.
"Nicola Sturgeon suggests she has a veto over when to trigger Brexit process after Theresa May put Scotland in a 'very, very strong position'
Sturgeon claims Theresa May has given her a veto over Brexit timing
Theresa May made visit to Edinburgh her first official trip as Prime Minister
Promised not to trigger Article 50 until 'UK approach' had been agreed
Sturgeon says this puts Scotland in a 'very, very strong position'
SNP First Minister vows to 'use this position as well as I can'
Sturgeon's comments will infuriate Tory Brexit campaigners
By MATT DATHAN, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 14:14, 17 July 2016 | UPDATED: 16:18, 17 July 2016
Nicola Sturgeon has suggested she has a veto over when Britain triggers the formal process of leaving the EU.
The First Minister said Theresa May had put Scotland in 'a very, very strong position' when it comes to triggering Article 50, which sets a two-year time limit on negotiations to leave.
The pair met when Mrs May made her visit to Edinburgh on Friday her first official trip as Prime Minister.
The new PM told Ms Sturgeon she would not start the Brexit process until she had agreed a 'UK approach' with leaders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Ms Sturgeon's words today will infuriate Tory Brexit campaigners, who warned on Friday that no region of the UK should be allowed to 'hold the rest of the country to ransom' by delaying the negotiations.
Scotland was one of only three major regions to vote to stay in the EU, with six in ten Scots backing Remain. Only London and Northern Ireland were the other regions backing EU membership.
Nicola Sturgeon has suggested she has a veto over when Britain triggers the formal process of leaving the EU
Asked today if Mrs May had given her a veto over triggering Article 50, Ms Sturgeon told the BBC: 'That certainly appeared to be an interpretation that some put on the Prime Minister's remarks after the meeting...and certainly from what she said after the meeting, I think that puts Scotland in now in a very, very strong position.
'That's a position I am going to use as well as I can.'
Fury over Scotland’s Brexit ‘veto’: MPs react angrily as...
The First Minister also insisted that the EU's attitude to Scotland's place in Europe has softened since June's referendum result, and the option of Scotland staying in while the rest of the UK 'Brexits' should not be ruled out.
Mrs May's visit to Bute House, the First Minister's official residence, aimed to show her commitment to preserving the United Kingdom following the UK's decision to leave the EU.
But Downing Street denied Mrs May had handed a veto to Miss Sturgeon, who wants to keep Scotland in the EU".
Lizzie66
Well-Known Member
Scotland are not going to agree, Wales voted out and the NI Assembly were for out with the people being for in (probably because they could foresee further troubles if borders were reintroduced with Eire).
As PM of the UK she has a remit to adhere to the will of the people of the UK therefore although she will try to reassure the people of Scotland that the withdrawal from the EU will not have a negative impact on them, she will ultimately give notice under Article 50 and we will withdraw from the EU. she has no choice, Scotland cannot hold the rest of the UK to ransom.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Seriously, we are quoting the daily fail as a good source of what has gone on??! That's worse than the express early. Do you people only read such 'quality' publications?!
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
That's about it in a nut shell .
It's not really fruitful to try think you know what leaders think by what the press say and position things people have said .
England and Wales ( sadly I think but that's the past ) voted for out .We had a country wide referendum a country that Scotland had recently voted to stay in I just don't see how anyone can reasonably say that Scotland could after a vote on a one person one vote basis say that everybody has to accept a change in the basis that you cast your vote .
It's really straightforward Scotland voted very recently to stay in part of the U.K. and the U.K. has voted to leave the EU.
TM has said she will deliver Brexit she has to do that .
On another point if as NS tells us all the time Scotland will do fine and dandy on its own in economic terms then it's likely because of the very poor struggling countries within the EU that it would be a big per capita contributor to the EU ( ATM only Germany contributes more than the UK ).
And then theres the euro , membership would mean accepting the euro who in their right mind would vote for that in the current circumstances .
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
For the simple reason the two you mention, generously allow one the whole story on-line, which can easily be copied and pasted. Whereas such as the Times only allow one a 'sample' unless one subscribes.
That said for what it's worth, there are a number of letters in today's Daily Telegraph mirroring exactly what we are saying and fundamentally saying Sturgeon is, bad mannered, lacks political courtesy and is dishonest.
Buddy'sMum
Well-Known Member
You negotiate.
The First Minister has the Scottish Parliament to answer to, she doesn't make the decisions herself, you know. She will do what she and the Scottish Parliament believe is in the best interests of the Scottish people. That is her job.
Snuffles
Well-Known Member
When does England get a vote on Scotland leaving ? (ducks below parapet )
Buddy'sMum
Well-Known Member
Cheers, BB and Dibbin
yeah, I'm done with this thread too. You can't have a sensible discussion about Scotland with people whose knowledge of Scotland comes from Wikipedia FFS and who give any credence at all to the drivel published by the Daily Fail and the Express.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Yes I agree completely but that does not remove the expectation of normal diplomatic and political courtesies from the First Minister.
Since we, folk in England are so bereft of knowledge of Scotland, perhaps you can explain why the First Minister does not take a seat in the House of Commons. Somebody else asked that question and it went unanswered.
The other question I have, in the event Scotland cedes to the EU, are they going to have the Euro because I cannot see the EU heads of state entertaining the Scottish Pound assuming there is such a currency, largely for ideological reasons, notwithstanding it's value is linked to the GB Pound.
That is a very serious and non-combative question which many have asked and are asking but simply cannot get a straight answer.
I will point out this thread was started on Wednesday 13 July at 09:08 am it is now Monday 18 July 12:08 pm. The forum visit count is 9,336 probably a record for only five days for our little Hunting Forum, so something of importance is being said, considering the majority of posters are the regulars. Somebody outside of the hunting and the equine world, are interested in our pearls of wisdom. Perhaps all those with guilty consciences, as to why we, such an unlikely group are taking such an interest in Sturgeon and the whole Scots question in the first place.
Last edited:
MotherOfChickens
MotherDucker
Why do you care? Not being snarky but I am interested in why those living in England care to the point of being dismissive and rude about an opposing point of view. While there are a small % of Leave voters who may be anti-English but this is not an anti-England issue. It is not about hating England, its about wanting Scotland to be the country it wants to be (arguably it wouldn't need independence for that to happen but that hasn't been on the table yet). Why take it so personally?
Lizzie66
Well-Known Member
Do you mind not using generic terms such as "you people" not only is the inference from that is that we are all reading and accepting as gospel a particular point of view it is also shows an extremely arrogant, patronising attitude as well as being intellectual snobbery of the worst kind. All the newspapers have their own slant, if they didn't it would be pretty pointless have so many different papers. The market they are aiming at will determine the bias they show and the depth of content they include. All of the papers tend to publish a version of the truth it is frequently what is omitted that actually slants the article rather than factual inaccuracies in what is published.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
If you go back to my post on page 16 you will see for my part, because Sturgeon and her H of C minions welched (or as we say in the West Country 'RAN WORD') on the deal over the Hunting Act 2004 and the use of the Statutory Instrument, to make some important and very necessary amendments.
If you can tell me how to shift thirty head of red deer off my small acres, permanently, without a full pack of hounds, do please advise.
Also what that level of numbers does so far as THE CONSTANT RISK of Lyme's Disease is concerned, to horses and humans alike.
No we are told we don't understand Scotland, by the same token they and in Sturgeon's urban arrogance are content to interfere with our domestic issues.
Believe me and I dare say there are many others who post on this forum will say the same, the issue of the Hunting Act 2004 and Sturgeon's dishonesty, will never be forgiven and will never go away. Not to mention all the hunting folk up and down the country who are very angry on the subject.
To my mind we are just as effective as any march in London.
Last edited:
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Err, by 'you people' used as a turn of phrase I did mean the people posting links to these pillars of reporting society. No inference that anyone else on this thread is all reading and accepting as gospel a particular point of view, more that those who keep providing links to them must think they have some value and truth in them or they wouldn't be posting them.
Personally I am not a fan of newspapers because it will always be full of inaccuracies and would question anyone who uses any of them as their primary source to be quoted on here to back up their argument. You will find one that agrees with you! And if that is the best you can come up with to support your argument I don't think you can be surprised if it is met with a bit of an eye roll.
Buddy'sMum
Well-Known Member
Couldn't find the answer on Wikipedia?
The First Minister is a MSP but not a MP and therefore cannot sit in the UK Parliament.
Last edited:
MotherOfChickens
MotherDucker
erm, we have deer too.
As for not forgiving NS on this, in the general scheme of things, small issue-there is way more for Scotland to 'let go' when it comes to being lied to, stolen from and being controlled by successive governments that were not voted for by those in Scotland in the last 40 years (for starters).
Scotland is not a region of England.
oh, and fwiw the term 'welch' says more about you than anything else. Maybe look it up.
Lizzie66
Well-Known Member
Not taking issue with you here on your disagreement with JM as I don't agree with his pov either. However the party with the largest vote share in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 was Labour and Labour were the government of the day. So they have been governed by the party they selected.
I agree that Scotland is not a region of England it is however a region of the United Kingdom.
I would be interested in what way you believe Scotland has been stolen from ? The Barnet formula ensures that the Scotland per head gets more money than England or Wales and largely this is understandable due its geographical spread of people and the fact that providing a similar level of service to those in the H&I would cost significantly more per head.
Scotland pushed by the SNP had a referendum on its independence, SNP said once in a lifetime and are now backing away from this. If the result had been the other way around would they have been willing to listen to arguments for holding another referendum ? Of course not. If she genuinely has the interests of the Scottish people at heart then she should be putting all her effort into ensuring the UK succeeds and not providing a distraction that we could all well do without at this moment in time.
If the whole of the UK does well then all its people do well and surely this should be the aim of all.
MotherOfChickens
MotherDucker
no, it's not a region. It's a nation, a country.
The relevant information as to the billions taken from Scotland in the 70s/80s are provided within the many links earlier in this thread (or possibly another one, I can't remember) Is Scotland the only part of the UK to suffer from neglect and underinvestment? No-but Scotland does have option of doing something about it for themselves.
As explained ad nauseam, many people voted 'No' on the basis of being in the EU. We are no longer in the EU and we didnt vote for that. NS is looking at all possibilities, Independence being one, and so she should- that is her job. I am not necessarily pro-Independence at this time but we do have a right to think and talk about it.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
I am rather busy at the moment and was saving up all the responses for this evening.
But the above, oh dear, that does need an immediate reply, next you are going to tell us the Queen has abdicated from Scotland.
That it's, President Sturgeon of The Republic of Scotland.
Goodness me the lady has certainly brain washed, 'you people'.
The ghosts of Jacobites still walk and wail in the mists.
millikins
Well-Known Member
And how do you know this? An in/out UK referendum was not in prospect at the time of the independence referendum.
dibbin
Well-Known Member
I personally know people who voted No for that reason, because there was dubiety over whether an independent Scotland would be able to remain in or join the EU.
Snuffles
Well-Known Member
MoC we are still in the EU and i believe we will continue to be !
MotherOfChickens
MotherDucker
being in the EU was a major selling point of voting 'No' in the independence vote. Being out of the EU upon an Independence was a major reason people voted No.
millikins
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but that is anecdotal. An awful lot voted "no" too because despite repeated opportunities to do so, Alex Salmond was unable to offer a credible answer as to how an independent Scotland would be financed, or what currency it would use.
MotherOfChickens
MotherDucker
Don't actually see what the Queen has to do with it. Scotland is still a country, not a region. The Queen could still be Queen of it, that wasnt in question for the last referendum. I fail to see what the point of the royals is in 2016 exactly but I don't care personally whether they are there or not.
MotherOfChickens
MotherDucker
exactly!. now we are up **** creek without a paddle (which wasn't our doing) and the temptation is to say **** it, lets do it anyway. How is this so difficult to understand? Bearing in mind I've not said that I think its a great idea, or that Scotland being attached to the EU is necessarily a good idea either.
Last edited: