1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Scottish Nationalists set for a majority

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ThePirateHulk, May 6, 2011.

  1. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Right, at least this is something. Is it now not time for the anti-independence movement, particularly the liberal democrats now, to put more flesh on this concept if they are ignoring their previous efforts and to put aside any internal party conflict on the matter of a two question referendum?

    One side says they don't want a dual campaign, the others start to mobilise... this cannot be sustained.
     
  2. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Ever magnanimous in defeat Castiel...

    ;)
     
  3. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    So all the historic Scottish Noble Titles and Estates will be abolished?

    How are you going to limit his access to Scottish Democracy like you just claimed?
     
  4. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    It depends on how that will manifested itself, but if it was a clear and resounding voice then yes I would guess they would.

    The entire process will be documented released and published.

    They were under increasing pressure to announce a date for the referendum, the consultation will be given all due consideration and the date has yet to be firmly set.
     
  5. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    No one has said that, although they would become politically irrelevent.

    By removing his political rights in Scotland, no one could get away with proposing a House of Lords in a modern setting. He would be disenfranchised, and I never said it was going to be targetted against him but the institution and priveldge that he enjoys. We would lose "Lord" Foulkes quite clearly I didn't think it would require explanation to be honest, and the thought of his unfettered access to our democracy in the UK constitutional framework is frightening particularly given his outspoken disdain of the devolved settlement.
     
  6. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    We can continue if you wish.....you can carry on making up fallacious arguments in a vain attempt to redefine the English Language if you want, however it will not change the facts.

    The Union of the Crowns was not a united Kingdom as both kingdoms remained separate....their titles, their crowns, their parliaments, their thrones were all separate. A personal Union doesn't imply or create a union of the kingdoms. While the king was shared the monarchy was not and he was in fact the king of two separate monarchies.

    What you tried to describe in your invention above was a dual monarchy, whereby two separate kingdoms are ruled by a single monarch but share a single foreign policy, trade union and military...that was also patently not the case.


    The ascension of James to the English Throne did not create a united kingdom by any definition, This is a fact, all the evidence supports this fact and no matter how you try to inveigle it verbally to mean otherwise.
     
  7. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    An independent Scotland will intentionally disenfranchise an individual because he opposed them politically?
     
  8. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    No one has said anything like that, you're inventing intent again Castiel.

    He's more than entitled to sit for any party that would accept him in Holyrood, or as an independent, but he won't be involved in Scottish democracy as a peer or "Lord"..

    They are all fighting for their job and they know it.
     
  9. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Did you not say this then?


    And was not Lord Foulkes an outspoken supporter Devolution as well as been intimately involved in drafting the 'Claim of Right'?

    And what is stopping him standing for re-election?, he was not voted out of office after all, he simply did not seek it.

    Is it really your contention that Lord Foulkes as a Scottish Citizen will not be able to fulfil his democratic rights in an independent Scotland?
     
  10. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The dynastic union was significant enough to give the impression of a de facto United Kingdom through the sharing of a single Monarch and through the policies enacted. You disagree, we've established this.

    What we can't bring to conclusion is the fact that you refuse to accept the possibility of this perception, accuse Alex Salmond of furthering it in a spotlight fallacy, and refuse to reconcile the two. You can't have your cake and eat it, and you've been trying for pages now.

    This is nonsense.
     
  11. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    If you can't detect a joke it isn't really my fault. It was I though in clear reference to the loss of the House of Lords in Scottish Democracy but again perhaps I'm taking things for granted but you seem to have a problem with detecting tone at times to be honest..

    I think his opinions and actions since negate all relevence to a claim of being representative of Scottish Democracy.

    Yes, of course we will lose the House of Lords and he will not be able to have his unfettered access to democracy in an independent Scotland.
     
  12. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    The problem is that history doesn't support this. Despite James' ambitions and declarations he was firmly rebuffed by both the English and Scottish Parliaments, and there was no dual monarchy or united kingdom, either by deed or name until 1707.

    Only Alex Salmond has ever raised this as an issue, and there is no historical or constitutional basis for it. He is alone in his 'confusion' (along with you it seems) about what a United Kingdom is......he has tried to invent something that simply did not exist. He clearly stated that the Union of the Crowns was a 'United Kingdom, if you will'......erm, no it is not and he knows it.

    I agree, what Alex Salmond said is nonsense, as is your defence of it. He was wrong to equate the Union of the Crowns with being a United Kingdom....it is as simple as that, people are wrong sometimes, get over it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2012
  13. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    you refered to his access to a Scottish democracy, holding a title doesn't limit him from access to his democratic rights...so what do you mean?

    The truth is that independence or not, Lord Foullkes can still exercise his democratic rights, and even stand for election if he so chooses.

    Again, how do you intent to limit his access to Scottish Democratic process? Does that not undermine democracy?
     
  14. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    There was a single dynastic union that encompassed both crowns and kingdoms, we've been here. I'm not even thinking about James, but the action of that dynastic union and some of the historical perceptions that can take place.



    Which was what he was explaining, that you refuse to acknowledge in your spotlight fallacy hissy fit.


    If this is all you can do I suggest you up your game and take a bit of your own advice, distorting contributions because you have ran out of road is amatuer and not productive at all.
     
  15. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I meant this Castiel;

    "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."

    If you can't fathom it out I'm not here to hold your hand throughout this entire debate.

    Can you take your irrelevent tangents elsewhere?

    No one has tried to remove his franchise, the comment related to his unfettered access to democracy. A clear reference to his peerage but if you don't understand or accept that it isn't my problem neither is it the issue you wish to blow it up to.





    Grow up for heavens sake.
     
  16. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    Ahh, the old "I've been caught out, got it wrong but can't bring myself to admit it so I'll try and make out I was actually being really clever and you're too stupid to understand" gambit...
     
  17. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I got caught out making a joke about how a peer in the HoL will lose his unfettered access to Scottish democracy and it might be worth that alone?

    Wow, you guys really got me didn't you?
     
  18. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    You don't know what a dynastic union actually means in practice obviously of you think it implies a united kingdom. I think that the 16 members of the commonwealth who share the Queen as their head of State would be facinated to realise that they are in reality defacto members of a united kingdom.....what that actually means for their unique and soveriegn regnal titles I have no idea....maybe you can explain it?


    I'm not having a hissy fit, that honour is yours alone.

    Are you now saying that he was explaining that the Union of the Crowns was NOT a united kingdom?......when his words were somewhat diferent.


    So we resort to attacking to poster rather than the post.......:D
     
  19. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    I recall you distinctly saying he would be disenfranchised and his political rights removed.

    Are you then suggesting that unless you reside in the House of Lords that your access to Scottish democracy is somehow restricted?
     
  20. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The Commonwealth isn't comparable to the UK and it's shared history and shared components in this context in my mind, I find this a bit of a tangent which conviently avoids your double standard of refusing to accept the perception and accusing Alex Salmond of creating confusion with the very same perception; when he was warning against it..




    Yes you are Castiel.

    I think what has been explained is clear, as his the more complete quote and 12 minute video.

    You are going to severe lengths to try and construct this 'fault' when it simply doesn't fit with the reality of the intent or delivery.

    This is why you have spent pages trying to convince everyone that such a belief perception or mistaken view that a monarchical united kingdom is impossible, while trying to accuse Alex Salmond of purposefully confusing the issue.

    It's arguing a round peg and a square hole at the same time.




    You admitted it yourself in GD that you feel most of your contributions are not productive, so it's hardly me that's attacking you.. more you that was attacking youself I'm just reminding you of it.

    This is pathetic to be honest with you, you know it but lack the humility to give.