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. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    ..now switched to the "I was only joking in the first place, you have no sense of humour" back up plan... ;)
     
  2. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I see you've now resorted to trolling.

    Instead of selectively quoting to create an entirely false avenue of attack, why can't you just open your eyes and read what people write?

    That is clear, your obfusication and misrepresentation in order to create an argument of little substance says more about your lacking positive argument for the union and outright opposition than anything.
     
  3. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I can't help your ignorance either to be honest..
     
  4. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    .. ultimately falling back on the "I've got nowhere left to go with this so I'll resort to personal insults"...

    Not that you're formulaic or anything :D
     
  5. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The hypocrisy, can you evidence your claim of my apparent anti-english prejudice and bigotry yet?

    Or are you still trolling from the sidelines after your smack down?

    Poor athanor.. :)
     
  6. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    ..and now the inevitable selective memory, more usually manifested by taking very selective quotes out of context to try to prove a point, completely ignoring any evidence that inconveniently shows you to be wrong...

    Text book stuff...
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2012
  7. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I'll take that as a no, yet again. Pot kettle black.
     
  8. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Really, the personal Union that the Queen shares with independent Nations that were once part of the British Empire is not relevant to an idependant Scotland and the personal Union she would then share with it?

    There is no double standard as I am clearly saying that the perception and the confusion were both invented by Alex Salmond, either intentionally or simply by his misunderstanding of the difference between a union of kingdoms and a personal Union.

    I was pointing out that his statement and thus any perception or confusion derived from it was in fact erroneous, as his basis for such is both not apparent in either the facts of what a personal union is, and that only he has ever raised it as an issue of confusion....

    That is a fair and objective assessment of his statement.



    Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself.....I find it amusing that you are increasingly relying on trying to attack me personally, rather than the historical and contemporary facts of personal Unions and how they relate to the Monarchy and Queens various regnal titles.
     
  9. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    I think people reading this thread will have reached their own conclusions on that, so feel free to take it however you prefer...

    What about being black?
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2012
  10. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    I know what you wrote, You even clarified it.



    It is very clear....you are clearly stating that his democratic rights will be removed in Scotland and that he will be disenfranchised.....

    I had no idea that democratic rights and access to the democratic franchise were dependent on being a peer.

    You may simply want to think before you post in future....:D

    Anyway, I am off to bed as I have a 6am flight in morning.....good night me ole mucker!!!
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2012
  11. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I think you are in denial if you think that went your way; you accused me of being anti-english... for talking exclusively about England and not Wales and NI in the context of a discussion between Dolph and myself.

    Even he said you took it entirely the wrong way.



    Are you being serious? :confused:
     
  12. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The use of franchise there was in reference to his peerage and ability to vote in the HoL specifically in reference to his ability to impact on Scottish legislature although it would not be exlusive in application; I don't think anything that has inferred he would lose his conventional franchise - as long as he remained resident mind.

    Scotland would be well rid of the undemocratic Lords.

    Have a safe journey.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2012
  13. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The intertwinned history is entirely different, we didn't have a "commonwealth" until the 19th c. we are talking about the 17 c.

    Of course there are similarities, but we are talking about instances that happened exclusively between some of the constituent nations of the UK and the perception of that time, the impact or effect and the potential perception of that period.

    We clearly disagree on the potential here, but again I can't accept from the footage that he was either intentionally confusing or misunderstanding anything; he was portraying a potential pitfall, highlighted it by example, and then went on to affirm that it shouldn't be confused.

    To claim he was confusing the issue is impossible when you look at the entire context and other statements on the constitutional settlement proposed.



    This is mince, you are just taking something out of context contorting it and trying to attack him with the very principle he was making.

    Of course it is historically incorrect in title, but the perception can be different from that - which you resoundly reject any posibility of such perception or misunderstanding - and that is what he highlighted.

    I think you couldn't be further from the delivery if you tried in all honesty.



    How can I be attacking you personally when I am quoting you to yourself?

    Grow up and contribute in a more constructive manner than this inane mental contortion sideshow.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2012
  14. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    The basis is the same....a personal Union in both cases whereby the nations that share the monarch do not actually share the monarchy...the Regnal Titles are as separate as is the sovereignty of the Nations. Thus in the case of James, you had James VI of Scotland and James I of England and today we have Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Queen Elizabeth II of Canada and Queen Elizabeth II Antigua and Barbuda and Queen Elizabeth II of Australia and so on......none of which imply or constitute a uniting of those kingdoms....they remain separate.

    The history of that period reflects the case that neither the English or Scottish Parliament's were at all confused over the situation...both were adamant in their own Sovereignty, and this despite James' ambitions to the contrary.

    There was no such perception that James' ascension created a united kingdom or even a dual monarchy...quite the contrary in fact, with each Kingdom asserting their independence even more voraciously than before.


    I do not think he was highlighting an example of a commonly held misconception at all....he clearly makes the comparison himself between the Union of the Crowns and a united kingdom....which as you now admit yourself is a incorrect (which is a turnaround from what you have been saying) and that it was no such a thing.

    I do not think that anyone has or had this perception of what a United Kingdom is or refers to, either in the 17th or 21st Centuries. It is quite clear to me that the term United Kingdom refers to one single entity, that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I see no confusion or capacity for confusion over that and the more I watch that footage and listen to your arguments to the contrary, I think Alex Salmond is being disingenuous in saying otherwise. I am increasingly coming to the decision (I was and have stated that I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt and though it was merely a mistake to use the comparison on his part) that he is cogent of the fact that many potential voters in Scotland have a deep and abiding affection for the Monarchy and he is trying to do two things, he is trying to associate the United Kingdom with retaining the monarchy (when in fact it is retaining the monarch rather than the monarchy as the monarchy refers solely to the United Kingdom rather than the Kingdom's of England and Scotland...in independence the regnal title of Queen of Scots or whatever the Royal Prerogative is, would be a separate and distinct regnal title) and thereby creating the perception that by stating the SNP's intent to retain the Queen as the Monarch of Scotland, that they are also, to some degree retaining the United Kingdom thus killing two birds with one stone....he plants the seed that voting for Scottish Independence is not the same as leaving the United Kingdom which many Scots would balk at, and he is also creating an argument to keep the term "Leaving or Separating from the United Kingdom" out of the Question and to a lesser extent the debate itself.

    I do not think I am mistaken in this assessment, regardless of the various counters that you come up with, which have only strengthened and defined my opinion rather than changed it.


    Call it what you like, it remains the truth.


    I have not seen any specific and linked quotes from me to that effect.....and if trying to assert that something I may have said in an entirely different thread, in an entirely different context has any bearing on what I have to say on the issue of the monarchy and the facts as presented smacks of sheer desperation on your part, as does the continued attack on poster rather than the posts.

    I am not acting infantile in any way, I am merely voicing my opinion and the evidence that supports it. I'll leave the foot stamping and name calling to you.:D
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2012
  15. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    Wow, are you really still dragging up an exchange from almost a year ago? Now that is a little sad. In any case I think readers of this thread have been perfectly capable of making up their own minds on that particular topic as have I.

    Still, much in common with the current debate with Castiel I expect your hubris won't let you concede and move on.

    Glad to see you managed to prove my previous point about selective memory and (mis)quoting however. Predictable to the end. :D

    Not even a little bit, no, are you? :confused::D
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2012
  16. NoobNeb

    Associate

    Joined: Feb 25, 2012

    Posts: 3

    Has this thread just degenerated into personal bickering??
     
  17. VoG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jan 20, 2004

    Posts: 5,688

    Location: Nottingham

    Sadly it appears to be heading in that general direction.
     
  18. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    TBH I think the thread stopped having any credibility as a discussion when it got turned into a SNP propaganda RSS feed a while back.
     
  19. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 28,710

    Location: Canada

    It's amazing they got his name right... It is channel 5 after all.

    More seriously it's nice to see them actually making a documentary once in a while, rather than voicing over US imports.:p
     
  20. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,559

    Location: Wales

    this thread is really strange with biohazard on your ignore list, it's like a mod went mental with the axe.


    Get about 5 posts per page.