Jump to content

eFestivals

Admin
  • Posts

    103,422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by eFestivals

  1. 8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    Perhaps millions based their vote on the NATO question.

    Perhaps not a single vote hung on this. 

    Im sticking with what I said about it not being a biggie for anyone on either side.

    Was it a biggie under daily mail articles ? I'm happy to stand corrected.

    we'll never know how much of a biggie it might be unless they switch it back again to anti.

    I just pointed out the true fact that the SNP switched their position because they felt indy without NATO was an unviable proposition for the people of Scotland. It was only about a decade ago, basically in preparation for making that big indy proposition.

    I presume that was based on polling, tho i don't know.

  2. 50 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    I think Scotland would slip away from any world police type roll with Indy. We are kind of roped into the wave ruling stuff at the moment.

    As an aside, I came up close to a Trident sub yesterday. A sinister looking beast. We were coming back from a couple of days in Arran and the ferry was way closer to it then i thought would have been allowed. The ferry man was telling my weans that they see it all the time in that stretch of water. 

    Hopefully our enemies don't scan Efest for intel :-)

    I think you're right about Scotland becoming insular and shirking away from shared international obligations, as a consequence of both the attitudes of indy and what finances will force onto an iScotland.

    But even if all of the military spending were cut (and it wouldn't be), that still only saves £3Bn. There's still loads more to be found.

  3. 3 hours ago, LJS said:

     

    Just because someone believes it will be difficult does not mean they have to accept your view of what that "fucking hard" looks like.

    I've used impeccable maths (which you have been unable to fault) to demonstrate otherwise. You are the one who is subverting mathematics.

    the maths is right, it's just the cause that you've got horrendously wrong.

    Tory cuts!

    That you now welcome. :)

  4. 3 hours ago, LJS said:

    "Civic or territorial nationalists define the nation as an association of people with equal and shared political rights, and an allegiance to similar political procedures. The nation is a political entity, inclusive and liberal. Anyone can, so to speak, join through becoming a citizen.

    Ethnic nationalists define the nation in terms of a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, faith, and ancestry. They base membership on descent or heredity. It is clearly a more restrictive form of nationalism."

    If you think Scottish Nationalism  fits the second definition better than the first, there is truly no point in carrying on this debate because you don't understand modern Scotland.

    Go on, tell me how Sturgeon saying "Scotland is a country" fits the first one, and tell me how it doesn't fit the 2nd one. :lol:

    They are precisely what I've been getting at.

    Thank you for proving yourself wrong about this. :)

     

  5. 16 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

    I did say in my next post "or something similar." I don't think they're as nailed on as people have taken your tweet to mean. @CaledonianGonzo will be in floods of tears having had his hopes raised! 

    I'm now wondering if you're hinting at Carole King or James Taylor. And to be honest, personally I'd prefer either to the Jacksons so hope it isn't my heart ruling my head.

    It was a reference to the Jacksons, as hinted at by the use of a Jackson vid. :)

     

    Quote

    Especially now you've changed it from "Just call my name" to "call out my name."

    that's just my poor recollection of the exact lyrics.

    That you're making into a conspiracy theory. :lol:

  6. 21 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    What nonsense. I am already wrong and have said so. I was happy to wait until another ge. I thought that was how it was going to play. Things have changed. I now think she'll call it in 2018. You think she won't. Maybe....I'll be wrong again.

    Fine.

    So in all circumstances if she doesn't follow thru, you'll happily state she's bottled it?

    Or will you look to excuse it via something or other?

    I reckon you'll look to excuse it, but time will tell if I've called that wrong. :)

     

    Quote

    What about your own words on what you concluded the Indy ref was all about. Are you standing by them or have you now changed your view ?

    That it's all about the money?

    I stand by that. It was why you lost first time and it's why you'll lose next time.

    If the finances of indy could be made to stand up, Scotland would be out of the UK in a jiffy, i've no doubts at all.

     

    Quote

    I like how you are accusing me of being a goalpost mover :-)

    There's always going to be an amount of movement due to events, because to do otherwise would just scream 'dumb'.

    But if you were able to actually understand what I'm getting at - which you very often show you can't grasp - you'd recognise the solid consistency in my stated position.

     

    Quote

    In the exact same post as you are tip toeing away from saying she will bottle it ;-)

    Or alternatively, it's not about lack of understanding, it's because you prefer to make it bullshit and pretend it's fact. :rolleyes:

     

    Quote

    Surely you mean when she bottles it lol

    as i've clearly stated many times, I lean more towards her bottling it, but wouldn't be surprised if she follows thru either.

    They're both things which are extremely likely to end her meaningful political career, and her dilemma is working out which one is most likely to save some or all of her career.

    I've been saying for months it's ceased to be about indy, and is now all about her working things for her own best career benefits.

     

  7. 11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    I have asked you twice about this tribal business and tried to put it into context with who got a say in the Indy ref compared with the Eu ref.

    I think it's relevant as you have previously went down the racism, hatred of the other etc route.

    You're mixing two different things.

    There's a not an insignificant number of anti-English racists within the indy supporters, in much the same way as there's not an insignificant number of blatant racists within UKIP supporters.

    I've also said that Sturgeon invokes Scottish tribalism when she does her "Scotland is a country" thing, a call to blood and soil, and a call of Scottish exceptionalism based on ancient history. Its as far away from the claimed 'civic' as it's possible to be.

    (me calling her a fascist in my exchanges with LJS about that was an insult of his intelligence and not a labelling of her).

     

    11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    Would be interested in whether you still hold that view. I'm guessing you are aware of the voting rules but unsure if you would rather avoid the question?

    Oh FFS. The numbers of EU nationals are too small to swing the vote. Haven't you noticed?

    It's Scots she needs to work on to change their minds, no one else. Hence her invoking ancient Scotland - tho she clearly believes it too.

     

  8. 18 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

    My take is either he's on a massive wind up.

    Or he has info but been told he's not allowed to put it on his R list - hence the not so cryptic "I'll be there" mentions. 

    i've not said "i'll be there"

    I've said "call out my name and i'll be there".

    Spot the difference? :)

     

  9. 48 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    So......in summary....we are broadly in agreement :-)

    that would require you to fully recognise the facts, which you won't.

    Will it be all of education (and more) that gets cut, or all of the Scottish NHS (and more)?

    Or a 20% of everything?

    In the words of Big Brother: you decide.

    And when you have, do remember to tell the Scottish people what you'd like them to suffer when they don't have to. :)

  10. 42 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    We'll make our own decisions.

    Then make the decisions on what will be cut - MASSIVELY!

    Because without that missing £15bn, cuts are the only way.

    For all the while you say "things will have to be cut drastically" but no one will specify the necessary cuts, it's just another means of deflection, an attempt to pretend things won't really be bad.

    At the very minimum, you're talking the pain Ireland had in 2009, and unlike Ireland, there won't be the bounce-back to the natural economic levels following a recession. Scotland's natural economic levels are £15bn a year less than the current levels.

    So really you're talking more like Greece. Pain, endless pain, with no better tomorrow at the end of a short-ish period of pain.

  11. 41 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    I've always pointed out that cuts and austerity are already here so people would understand and are already feeling the pain.

    Erm ... what have you missed about the SNP having the same money to spend in 2017 as they had to spend before 'austerity'? :lol:

    There's been almost no pain of austerity for Scotland.

    Indy is what will bring that pain.

  12. 40 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    Things will have to be cut drastically.

    Then please says what, to total up to at-least £8Bn (the minimum necessary). :)

    And also condemn the SNP for trying to take Scotland indy on a lie, which would only lead to massive disappointment and the feeling of YOU having been conned (cos you accepted the SNP lying take in 2014).

    And when the SNP campaign for indy honestly, and tell Scotland "we'll have to cut bigger than the tories" how do you think support for indy will stand up?

  13. 31 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    It'll be fucking hard.

    I agree

    but then all the other posts you make reject that. :rolleyes:

    You say there won't have to be bigger cuts than the tories would make.

    As i've been asking for 2+ years, if there won't be those cuts, show me where the missing £15Bn is.

    Saying "maths works differently in an independent state" only shows you as an idiot.

  14. 1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    Serious question :

    Do you regard Scotland as a Country ?

    Do you see Scotland as a Nation ?

    Please be specific :-) Yes / No .

    I'd say your question isn't specific enough.

    But if think that question is specific enough and you want an answer, the answer would be no.

    Countries and nations are very normally regarded as only sovereign states, which Scotland is not.

    Do you regard Scotland as a country and Texas as not? If so, why the difference?

     

    1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    I was being serious, ok not about the any relation bit, when I said yesterday that you and the qt Lady were the only folk I have ever heard saying stuff like...we voted as a region.....etc.

    Scotland is no more or less of a country than the others I named.

    If Scotland should be recognised as a country then those others should be too.

    so why do YOU only apply the logic you use to Scotland but reject it for those other places?

    Regarding the EUref, there was no distinct Scottish vote, scotland wasn't even classed as a region. It was simply part of the whole-UK where the vote was a whole-UK decision (and accepted as that by Sturgeon too, who campaigned on that basis).

     

  15. 1 hour ago, LJS said:

    "We" have established nothing, Neil. I see no point in discussing this with someone who so fundamentally misrepresents/misunderstands the nature of Scottish Nationalism and whose only response to it is to accuse folk of Fascism or Blood & Soil Nationalism. You can never just disagree with someone you have to make them out to be either stupid or evil. I would recommend Comfy's post earlier today as a shining example of how to disagree with someone in a civilised and polite manner. You could learn much from Comfy.

    If i'm mis-representing what Sturgeon means when she says "Scotland is a country" to claim a greater right of self-determination, you'll have to tell me what the 'civic' is in words that are clearly not the civic of self-determination.

    Because there is only self-determination, there is and never has been a greater right of it for some than others as a consequence of ancient history.

    So come on then, if I'm wrong tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me what the civic is in making claims of greater rights due to history.

    But you never do. :lol:

  16. 2 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    Ok... so you think she'll bottle it. Fair enough.

    My own view as you know would have been to wait till after the next general election Tory procession.

    That might have worked out, who knows?

    But he's boxed herself into a commitment of sooner than that, on a reasonable idea that it would work out well for her, tho hasn't panned out how she expected.

     

    Quote

    I think you are wrong but obviously it's only my best guess.

    I don't think she will bottle it. I think she will call it for 2018.

    She might well do.  I'm far from sure she'll bottle it, tho I do think that's the more likely. 

    I think it's most likely because I think something will happen that she'll use as a excuse for bottling it - such as (for instance) the terms of a new trade deal with the EU, which she'll claim as adequate to not follow thru on the threat of an indyref.

    (if something like that happens, the terms won't be adequate to meet her previous demands, but she'll claim it as adequate anyway).

    And you'll probably give her a free pass and claim she's not bottled it - but for where it counts (with politicians, not the public such as you) they'll all know she's bottled it.

     

    Quote

    The Scottish people have given her the mandate. People living in Scotland will decide. NS will announce it when she, not me or you, decides. That is the point I was making. 

    People in Scotland have given her a mandate - tho on the basis of that mandate being theirs for the timing, and not hers. Or have you forgotten all of the times she said "the Scottish people will decide when"?

    Slipping it in on a manifesto where the votes weren't for that specific thing but for the whole thing is not that "the people will decide when". Even you've said it in the past that won't happen until victory is assured by what the polls are saying - which doesn't look like anything that's going to happen.

    (Just to be clear, I accept she's got enough of a mandate via the manifesto to hold a vote, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't match her previous claims for "the people will decide when").

     

    Quote

    The people living in Scotland may again decide to stick with May in her hard brexit world.

    I suspect they will.

    I saw mention (it might be fake) of a poll yesterday where the claim was that poll said 68% would support hard brexit, just get on with it.

    If that's correct then I can't see there being less than 50% for that in Scotland.

     

    Quote

    I never once predicted a yes victory last time round. It's too early to call it just now but I reckon it will be close. 

    I reckon it'll be a bigger loss than last time, tho the difference might be as small as less than 1%.

    Last time the SNP were able to pretend the oil could cover the finance issues, and plenty believed it. That's been exposed as the bollocks the smart people always knew it was, and they've got no similar fig-leaf this time to fool people with.

    The numbers have held up at around the same levels since 2014, but that's been held up purely on dreams. Some of those dreams will be smashed against the facts once the campaigning properly starts.

     

    Quote

    I realise this is a pointless debate as you think she will bottle it :-)

    Im interested in what others think a reduced turnout will mean. I have no idea whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing for yes. I suspect a lower turnout will be what we get though. We've never been away from the ballot box up here with the local elections coming up soon as well.

    I reckon they'll be lower turnout from indy supporters and higher from UK-ers, tho where that might leave the overall turnout I'm not sure.

    Because indy is a less attractive proposition without the oil money to hold it up, and the bad financial consequences of indy are starker than they ever were.

  17. 1 hour ago, musky said:

    Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

    It's usual for many to bands to sell of their songwriting rights in return for a lump sum, leaving the band with just the performing rights, so it's possible your friend may have retained the copyright on his songs.

    Very definitely not my friend. Just someone i know of.

    A convicted paedo, as it happens..... who's managed to keep it out of the media, and so hasn't been hit with the same non-use-so-no-royalties as Glitter.

    (a big part of me wants to out him, but there's a number of ethical reasons for why that would be wrong, and due to name changes I'm not sure it would be possible for anyone to prove that 'fred' was 'john the ex pop star' anyway)

    An old song of his has just been used for something major, and he's richer than he's ever been. Millions, from that one use. :(

     

    1 hour ago, musky said:

    I had a friend who retained all his rights and self released all his material, so the only people making money off his sales were the retailers and distributor. He was doing quite well, very well in fact, off the back of that. He'd been in a 80's band who were probably best described as 'cult' and he'd retained a small but hardcore following off the back of that. Probably a different situation though, in that he was still making and selling new material.

    An old friend of mine once set up a record label, and gave it a name (I can't mention the name, they might want their money back :P).

    As a consequence of the name he happened to choose, he ended up being paid absolutely shitloads of royalties that weren't due to the artists he really had on his label (most of which were out of copyright anyway), but were due to other people .... but confusion with what radio stations submitted to PRS for what they'd played had PRS paying out the royalties to him.

    I haven't seen him for well over a decade now, so I've no idea how long those payments went on for - for all I know he's still getting them. It was in-excess of £10k a month, tho, and these were from plays of songs which were never hits.

  18. 9 hours ago, brandycoke said:

    Ian Hunter with a Glastonbury shaped hole in his schedule.

    http://ianhunter.com/main/tour

    I'm not convinced that a hole for Glasto, but I'd be well up for seeing him if it was.

    'All the young dudes' was on the first LP I ever had (aged 8), one of those crap compilations of current hits, that's not so crap with hindsight... this...

    Various ‎– 20 Fantastic Hits By The Original Artists (Volume Three)

    Genre:
    Style:
     
    Year:R-919074-1332417334.jpeg.jpg
     

    Tracklist

    Slade Gudbuy T' Jane  
    The Sweet Blockbuster  
    Harley Quinne New Orleans  
    David Bowie Jean Genie  
    Curtis Mayfield Superfly  
    Millie Jackson My Man, A Sweet Man  
    The Pearls You Came, You Saw, You Conquered  
    Miki Antony If It Wasn't For The Reason That I Love You  
    The New Seekers Featuring Marty* Come Softly To Me  
    Isaac Hayes Theme From "Shaft"  
    Jimmy Helms Gonna Make You An Offer You Can't Refuse  
    Gary Glitter I Didn't Know I Loved You (Till I Saw Rock And Roll)  
    Python Lee Jackson In A Broken Dream  
    The Delfonics Ready Or Not Here I Come (Can't Hide From Love)  
    Mott The Hoople All The Young Dudes  
    Neil Sedaka That's When The Music Takes Me  
    Focus (2) Hocus Pocus  
    Jimmy Osmond* Long Haired Lover From Liverpool  
    Holly Sherwood Day By Day  
    Cockerel Chorus Nice One Cyril

  19. 14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    I'm not sure she's boxed in.

    She's made a certain commitment within a certain time frame.

    Do you think she made that commitment because she thought she'd lose or because she thought she'd win?

    Public opinion hasn't changed in the way she expected, which is going to leave her isolated whether she follows thru on the commitments she's made or whether she bottles out of the commitments she's made.

    Unless she gets lucky with something in the meantime which changes public opinion - tho there's nothing suggesting why it will change. The swapping of sides due to brexit has already happened, and it hasn't caused the surge for indy that many (including me*) expected.

    (* I expected a noticeable surge, tho I didn't expect to be as large as many predicted)

     

    14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    She has clearly stated it's off the table for 2017.

    she's also stated it's certain (with the normal caveats) by March 2019 .

     

    14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    It might be 2018 but we don't know.

    If it's 2018 or later, that means you're brexiting, with everything that means.

    It leaves no time for indy beforehand.

     

    14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    What we do know is that it will be when NS decides.

    Oh, so she lied when she - and you - said it would be the Scottish people who decided.

    I'm glad we've cleared that up. You can apologise later for all you said when her lie was pointed out. :)

     

    14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    With us all forced to wait till she decides, you will need to define what you mean by her being boxed in.

    she's committed to something ONLY because she thought circumstances would have swung in her favour.

    Because they haven't, she's boxed herself into committing to something she now would rather not do.

    Which means she either follows thru and loses and her political career is over. Or she bottles it and is the girl who cried wolf too many times and her political career is over.

    (of course, there's the slight chance she might win, but not enough of that chance for her to actually want to take the risk)

     

    14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

    Whats your best guess Neil ?

    Autumn 2018 seems to be the word. A long way away in politics.

    I reckon she'll bottle it, but if she doesn't then I'd say not before 1st Nov 2018.

    She'll be holding back as long as possible, looking for the sign she might win, or looking for something to cling to as justification for bottling it.

    I reckon it's most likely she'll bottle it, and use something May does to try to cling to as a 'sound' reason why, to try and present herself as not bottling it.

    I don't think it's going to work well enough for her tho, because everyone will know she's bottled it, you included (tho i fully expect you to give her a free pass over it, and claim the excuse she uses is genuine).

    Bottle it or lose, it's indy-over for 15+ years.

  20. 13 hours ago, LJS said:

    Tosh

    as intelligent as ever. :lol:

    You always do the same thing when you're stumped. A diversion (which claiming the UK as tribal was anyway), or brainless like you've done there.

    Meanwhile, we've established that "Scotland is a country" is nothing 'civic' and is invoking ancient tribal Scotland. Blood and soil.

  21. 38 minutes ago, LJS said:

    why is Scotland tribal & the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland isn't?

    As it happens us Scots are made up of many tribes & generally speaking we all get on very in a very civil & civic way. 

    It might well be tribal, but it's a sharing by the tribes, without anyone (except you) fencing a bit off and saying 'this is special, this bit is mine'.

    The UK didn't come together as tribes, anyway, but from the other end, by govt, and king.

    I'd say that was the point the tribalism was put away, to a large degree (at least in theory).

×
×
  • Create New...