eFestivals

Admin
  • Content count

    71,098
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

eFestivals last won the day on June 12 2010

eFestivals had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About eFestivals

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.efestivals.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    in a field

Recent Profile Visitors

131,953 profile views
  1. Yup, some are definitely seeing the dismissive and disrespectful. I think there's a clue for who sees it more with the UK's preference for May's respect for the EUref result to the alternative of the rejection of democracy. By somewhere around 2:1 to 3:1. But hey, perhaps my take is wrong. You'll be very happy if it is.
  2. Or alternatively.... How will Sturgeon's outright rejection of the Scottish people's wishes go down with the swing voters in Scotland? Swing voters in Scotland who know that Scotland is not sovereign, and who freely self-determined for Scotland not to be sovereign. There's evil May, who is going with the clear and demonstrable wishes of the people, on the exact terms of the vote and the exact terms of what Scotland clearly self-determined. And then there's saintly Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish people, who rejects the views of the Scottish people, who rejects the results of two democratic votes, who claims democracy while going against her own word as well as those votes, as well as going against the wishes of the people she supposedly represents. I wonder who's going to come out on top, when only around 60% of indy supporters are the hardcore unthinking types?
  3. It did. It had a vote about something it has no powers for. I voted myself a stately home yesterday. That's because Scotland isn't sovereign, because Scots in Scotland self-determined to remain a part of the UK. To which your glorious leader disagrees, not because of any facts. But because of a matter of faith. A religion. So she holds a vote, on the basis that that if May won't give Sturgeon the sovereign power she claimed to have when... 1. she tried to claim Scotland had a veto over the UK decision for the EU ref (very democratic, not). 2. she claimed that all parts must opt-in to a decision to make it valid (unless the decision is scottish indy, then different self-serving rules apply, very democratic, not) ....so Sturgeon has a vote, a vote she likes, where bribes are made and accepted, so Sturgeon knows this is one vote she can win. A vote to say that as the UK (and Scots!) won't accept that Scotland is sovereign, Sturgeon going to threaten to be sovereign. A vote to 'take back control', just like Farage. To make Scotland great again, just like Trump. To put Scotland first, just like all greedy selfish fucks want for themselves. But she can't can she? Because Scots in Scotland think Scots in Scotland are better served by Englishmen in England than by Scots like you or Sturgeon. That's awkward.
  4. then your point was....? Reading back, I see you don't have one, just the normal deflective bollocks from an awkward discussion. So, back to some real questions. Where's the missing £15Bn coming from so that the SG don't have to make much bigger cuts than any tory?
  5. the 100+ emails in my mailbox.
  6. jesus, over-excitement in this thread. :lol: It's not really going to surprise anyone, but I've just been told that Royal Blood are playing. caveat: the source said he wasn't 100% but thinks its right, which is less certain than he normally is ... but given his history I've run with it.
  7. Who knows. I'm not detecting any changing of minds in comments like that one that I read, tho i suspect any changed minds will be a bit shy about it.
  8. that's the only support slot I'm aware of J playing in 15+years ... given who the act is, I reckon his ego got suppressed for that one.
  9. Chic yes, Jamiriquai probably not. I'm not sure Jay's ego could take others above him.
  10. that's me sat down towards the front at the right, taken at Stonehenge '84 on solstice morning. I then rode back to southampton for a day's work. (and then had to go home 'sick' )
  11. It's 'right' acquired thru membership. It's a 'right' that evaporates with membership. Which means it's not a 'right'. Rights exist on their own merits, not tied to anything else. Do you have a right to life, but only while the SNP are the govt? But even if it fitted the standard idea of 'rights', there's no such thing. There is only current thinking. Anyway, here's the EU deal, laid out in a truthful manner via analogy that clearly shows it as the transient thing it is.... All pensioners have rights to a state pension, until they don't have rights to a state pension. See what I mean? All citizens have a right to free treatment from the NHS, until such time as there's no right to free treatment from the NHS. See what I mean? Scots currently have rights to UK citizenship that cannot be revoked .... that is, until after indy, when Scotland can expect the same right of UK citizenship as the Irish got - none at all. Which makes complaints about the revocation of 'EU citizenship' the most stupid thing you've ever said, as you're quite happy to revoke the UK citizenship of Scots.
  12. A large part - A FULL PART - of the SNP case was to take scotland out of the EU, but it didn't bother you then. As for scaring pensioners, the SNP promised a 10% rise. Scots didn't believe Scots, and found the Westminster promise of parity of pensions with the rest of the UK the more believable case. Which is hardly surprising given the economic case the SNP put forwards, which would mean Scotland was essentially bankrupt now and those pensioners would be getting less. Scotland run by Scots from Scotland would be better? Not in the view of Scots.
  13. yeah yeah. It's what you say to deflect from the big lie that was the SNP, the white paper, and you who defended them and still do.
  14. Can I suggest you try a few analogies with the same idea for the whole-UK and for Scotland, and see how you get on? </and then came only silence because LJS's head exploded when he realised his arse was his mouth>
  15. I did. You're the guy who doesn't, because you're saying that super-special Scotland will be treated in a super-special way because Scotland is super-special. And then you say your own claims of super-specialness for Scotland are... ... as if I didn't know already.