Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ThePirateHulk, May 6, 2011.
You accused him of being wrong, he isn't. You refuse to accept the obvious reality of the Union of Crowns, and the political Union that followed. Even if it isn't the correct styling, it is still a united kingdom.
You accused him of furthering confusion while at the same time refuse to accept that confusion as a possibility.
I suggest that anyone who has any serious interest in this dribble watches the video for themself and draw their own conclusions as you clearly have lost the plot over while blowing it out of proportion, and context..
I don't think they've ever suggested the public control the referendum directly unless you can evidence this spurious assertion?
I think a poll showed it yes, although the vast majority clearly support the Scottish Government holding it and not Westminster. I don't think the timing overturns that principle.
The benefits and pitfalls over the timing have been discussed at length, perhaps you could review the thread and pick up some opinions professed earlier on in the debate regarding the timing.
What's the relevence?
Oddly the First Minister was cleared of any wrong doing.
Except the union of the crowns was not a united kingdom as all the evidence shows....thus he was categorically wrong.
In the same way that the 16 kingdoms of the Commonwealth do not constitute a united kingdom either......
Why on earth would I accept such an obviously erronous premise when all the evidence is contrary to it?
Because it's been repeated a lot? An Argumentum ad nauseum fallacy in all it's glory...
I think independence might be worth it just for the sole reason of losing Lord Foulkes.. the thought that the likes of him have unfettered access to our democracy is frightening.
They were united in a dynastic union. Hence why it could be viewed as a united kingdom as then on in it has failed to diverge from its intent; uniting those kingdoms. It didn't merge them, but it united them.
The fact is that both the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England and their respective crowns remained separate and distinct.....James was king in two nations...James VI in Scotland and James I in England. Not until 1707 were the kingdoms united and it is that union that the SNP wish to separate from and so it is perfectly acceptable, in fact it is necessary to discuss that union, the one that united two kingdoms in a united kingdom.....
The union of the crowns was not a uniting of the kingdoms, it was not even a uniting of the thrones or even the literal crowns themselves.....it was a personal union, and this has been explained over and again...a personal union doesn't imply a united kingdom or a state union.
I think it is a shame that you do not know your own countries history.
Why would you lose him...is he not a Scottish Baron?
Are the SNP going to forcibly remove the aristocracy yet keep the Queen?
And who is to say that he will not be returned to a Scottish Parliament Seat in the advent of Independence?
Are the SNP really going to limit an individuals access to democracy in their brave new world?
Are they not in the process of an open consultation?
It seems that Michael Moore has made the case that the Referendum could be held far sooner, in fact as soon as next Sept.....I have not seen any solid evidence from the SNP to dispute his reasoning.
the relevance is obvious if you review the thread as it is a continuance of the story raised earlier.....there is no need to comment as I don't really need to punctuate anything mentioned in the story it is what it is.
This is not only a NewsnetScotland rss feed is it?
It was united by a single dynasty, yes they remained distinct and seperate but the two kingdoms were united by a single monarch. They shared that family across the kingdoms. It was in essense united by the act of Union of the Crowns.
The UotC did not create a single crown, but it provided a single monarch which in effect brought about a single de facto kingdom as in effect the Scottish Crown and interest became second to that of England. Distinct entities, unified under a succession of single families with a pan British policy that acted as one.
What I don't agree with is this double standard of refusing to accept the possibility of confusion over these historical perceptions while at the same time falsely accusing someone of creating that not possible confusion when pointing out the pitfalls of such conflations.
It's a lot of bull frankly and you know it.
Well its a bit threadbare to the topic to be honest; regarding the commentary I just felt you were perhaps holding a bit of a double standard given how recently you have felt compelled to post a significant amount of articles without even the smallest of commentary.. but if thats how you roll I don't see why I should criticise you for it like you do.
Consultation does not equate to direct control, and until the outcome of the consultation has come to the committee we can't really comment further.
The Scottish Government are the Government with the mandate for the referendum, their intention is front news page on nearly every paper in Scotland today.
Their solid reasoning is the historic majority in May 2011 elected with a manifesto on an independence referendum.
Something Mr Moore's party opposed verhemently. He has no reasoning.
I was simply following your example and giving a bit of balance to what has become a filtered NewsnetScotland feed to all intents and purposes.
Scotland will not have anything to do with the House of Lords, neither will it establish its own.
He can sit and twiddle his thumbs with his otherwise useless title, but hopefully he'll flee elsewhere in fear of his prediction of a facist bigoted state...
After the names he's called it, I doubt he'd even want to bother. I'm not sure he'd be overly welcomed either, even if it was tenable after this.
Seems fair enough to me, I would also like police and fire services to get a rebate from the Exchequer on fuel duty to protect their budgets and services against high and rising fuel costs.
True, but what if a majority of the public who are consulted want an earlier date for the referendum? Will the SNP agree to change the date? I suspect not as they seem intent, no matter what, on 2014.
And if they choose to ignore that part of the public consultation outcome, what other parts of it might they conveniently ignore?
This is obviously hypothetical as the consultation isn't over yet, but it feels as if the SNP have already made some decisions that shouldn't be made until the consultation is completed.
fixed for accuracy.
Separate names with a comma.