The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

inference

ˈɪnf(ə)r(ə)ns/

noun

a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

 

Or in the Neil's English Dictionary (NED)

 

Noun:

A conclusion based on conjecture & prejudice.

so why did he say it would only be brit nats, then?

The question you just won't address.

Remember, comfy is the guiy who says that any criticism of the SNP is anti-Scottish - making the SNP all-of-Scotland to him, which makes 'brits nats' very definitely something less than Scottish.

He knows it, too. He's lied about what he posted, and tried to claim 'rich Scots' is the same thing as 'brit nats'.

Whereas you are defending him, and not realising what he's realised about himself.

Oh dear.

Edited April 29, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If my take on his inference was wromng, someone needs to say why 'brit nats' equals 'rich Scots'.

Are all anti-indie people 'brit nats'? No
Are all 'brit nats' Scottish? No.
Are all 'brit nats' rich? No.
Are all non 'brit nats' poor? No.
Do all 'brit nats' share the same anti-taxes attitudes? No.

So why is comfy saying 'brit nats' and not 'rich Scots'?

He won't say why he said it, and there's a reason why he won't, because he knows why he said it.

While LJS defends the indefensible.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

so why did he say it would only be brit nats, then?

He didn't. 

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The question you just won't address.

I have.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Remember, comfy is the guiy who says that any criticism of the SNP is anti-Scottish

Shite

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

- making the SNP all-of-Scotland to him

Pish

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

, which makes 'brits nats' very definitely something less than Scottish.

Shite + pish = sewage.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

He knows it, too. He's lied about what he posted, and tried to claim 'rich Scots' is the same thing as 'brit nats'.

More pish.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Whereas you are defending him,

I'm defending him against your bizarre & offensive claim he is racist. 

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and not realising what he's realised about himself.

Oh dear.

Do you own a mirror? Try using it.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If my take on his inference was wromng,

It is. Grow up & admit it.

 

[eFestivals]

blah blah blah bullshit.

 

[eFestivals]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If my take on his inference was wrong, someone needs to say why 'brit nats' equals 'rich Scots'.

Are all anti-indie people 'brit nats'? No
Are all 'brit nats' Scottish? No.
Are all 'brit nats' rich? No.
Are all non 'brit nats' poor? No.
Do all 'brit nats' share the same anti-taxes attitudes? No.

So why is comfy saying 'brit nats' and not 'rich Scots'?

 

 

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

blah blah blah bullshit.

 

In the unlikely event of anyone joining the discussion Neil has kindly provided a summary of his posts over the past few days.

Very helpful.

[LJS]

I'm pretty certain there is no dictionary definition of "BritNat" so clearly it's meaning is open to interpretation (or inference!)

You clearly took it as meaning English. I read comfy's post & interpreted it as meaning a supporter of the better together campaign.

When you challenged comfy he immediately made clear that he did not intend the word to mean English.

Comfy has made hundreds of contributions to this & other debates and never has he shown the slightest hint of racism. Indeed I would bet my tartan trews that he is about as Un-racist as a white man can be.

That being the case, the decent civilised thing to do would be to accept that & move on.

For all your faults, Neil, I don't think you are racist, indeed quite the opposite. And I would have thought you would clearly understand why someone like comfy would take such exception to being described as such.

Perhaps, I shouldn't be surprised as personal insults are standard tools of your debating trade.

I guess I thought you would draw the line somewhere.

I am disappointed.

 

p.s. apologies to comfy if you are not a white man! I shouldn't assume.

 

 

[eFestivals]

52 minutes ago, LJS said:

I read comfy's post & interpreted it as meaning a supporter of the better together campaign.

Ahh, 'the enemy' or 'the other'. Yep, it was definitely that.

He was definitely talking about hate figures, and stating those figures of hate had criminality &/or immorality about them.

So all you need to do now is explain why only 'brit nats' are tax avoiders/evaders worthy of mention as a group specifically for tax avoidance/evasion, and what an indy supporter means when they use 'brit nat' pejoratively as comfy did.

[LJS]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Ahh, 'the enemy' or 'the other'. Yep, it was definitely that.

No

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

He was definitely talking about hate figures, and stating those figures of hate had criminality &/or immorality about them.

What the fuck are you on? talk about reading between the lines!

you are reading between lines that only exist in your obsessed & demented mind!

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So all you need to do now is explain why only 'brit nats' are tax avoiders/evaders worthy of mention as a group specifically for tax avoidance/evasion, and what an indy supporter means when they use 'brit nat' pejoratively as comfy did.

He mentioned BritNats once in one post - he did not say "*only*" Britnats. You introduced the *only* because you needed it to give Comfy's post a meaning that was never there.

You then bizarrely claimed that the introduction of the word *only* into you mis-quote didn't alter the meaning. 

At no stage has Comfy or anyone suggested that Britnats are the only people who would ever avoid tax. 

I have given my interpretation , which you have chosen to ignore (of course) that rich Snippers are likely to be less inclined to leave the country they have just voted to be independent than rich Britnats. 

This is entirely my opinion. I might be wrong. Whether I am right or wrong, it is not a racist opinion.

I really have no idea why you are persisting with this. I do not believe for a minute that you believe Comfy is racist.

I presume you realise that stooping to such tactics only serves to undermine your case.

I am genuinely bewildered.

 

 

 

[LJS]

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

He was definitely talking about hate figures, and stating those figures of hate had criminality &/or immorality about them.

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 4/27/2016 at 1:18 PM, LJS said:

http://stv.tv/news/politics/1352023-scottish-labour-set-to-finish-third-behind-the-tories-poll-finds/

 

Miserable reading for Scottish Labour.

Good news for Tories & greens.

 

On 4/28/2016 at 8:42 AM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Your finger is never far from the pulse Neil 

My view / hope / guess is that Labour will cling on to 2nd spot. I remember way, way back we spoke about Independence being the best hope for the Labour party in Scotland. We discussed Jim Sillars saying this in my town hall a good while ago.

Continuing noises about supporting Indy coming from the Labour camp up here.

Tonight I`m feeling a little more confident in my view / hope / guess that Labour will hang in there and finish 2nd.

I think the poll you quoted LJS will act as a well timed reminder that we don`t want the Tories being our 2nd biggest party. Fingers crossed the Greens can push on and get more seats than the Libs.

Just watched Kez getting her leaders interview on the Beeb. Bad start as she can`t say much in defence about the arrival of the manifesto after folk had already made their postal vote. In fairness she has her hands tied compared to the slick SNP election machine. She was in bother with the next question around trident as the manifesto says no to renewal but she is personally in favour of nukes. The interviewer fairly had some respect for her position I thought.

She then said that she accepts 1 in 3 Labour supporters backed Indy last year. The feeling is that this figure is on the rise. 

The reason I am a bit more confident for her / Labour is that she then went on the offensive against the Tories. Davidson has positioned them as the unionist party and is only ever talking about being the opposition. The Tories long ago accepted that the SNP will win. In my view, Kez should not even mention NS for the next week and go on the offensive against the Tories. After they secure 2nd place they can focus on holding the SNP to account. 6 Labour leaders across 9 years have hardly laid a glove on the SNP. For the next week they need to fight to finish above the Tories. They have no chance of gaining a lot of seats from the SNP.....in my opinion.

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

 

When Scottish unemployment is lower than the UK average it's cos the SNP are doing such a great job, but wasn't it funny to hear all the fingers pointing at westminster when it recently increased?

Politicans trying to play the public is never going to stop, but only in Scotland do 50% of them lap it up.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

so both you and LJS approve of people avoiding taxes, and think it's a good thing that everyone should do? Is that what you're getting at?

Or were you suggesting that such people were scum of the earth ... and, and it just so happened that every single one of them is against independence?

C'mon now comfy, you can say why you chose to say only brit nats were tax avoiders. More than a page on, and you still won't say.

How very odd.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think the poll you quoted LJS will act as a well timed reminder that we don`t want the Tories being our 2nd biggest party.

who needs them when you have the almost-tories in power?

All of those powers with which to protect Scotland from the tories, and they end up doing almost everything George says - and are by-far the next closest to the tories with their policies.

It must be because of how Scotland is so different.

[Comfy Bean]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

who needs them when you have the almost-tories in power?

All of those powers with which to protect Scotland from the tories, and they end up doing almost everything George says - and are by-far the next closest to the tories with their policies.

It must be because of how Scotland is so different.

We have the option to vote for the tories next week. I'm going for them being a distant 3rd.

I'm hoping polls showing them in 2nd act as some sort of motivation.

We are a bit different in my opinion as we only returned 1 tory mp ;-)

[LJS]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so both you and LJS approve of people avoiding taxes,

No

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and think it's a good thing that everyone should do?

No

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Is that what you're getting at?

Don't be silly.

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Or were you suggesting that such people were scum of the earth ...

Well, they're not my favourite folk.

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and, and it just so happened that every single one of them is against independence?

Which no one (other than you had ever said)

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

C'mon now comfy, you can say why you chose to say only brit nats were tax avoiders.

Perhaps the FACT that he didn't say this explains this. 

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

More than a page on, and you still won't say.

How very odd.

& more than a page on you still refuse to withdraw your shameful accusation of racism.

 

 

[russycarps]

On 28/04/2016 at 7:08 PM, LJS said:

Sorry I haven't been keeping up with this thread.

That's a very pretty graph. Have a read of this, it summarises the current position better than I could.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/29/dallas-fed-cautions-on-fresh-oil-bubble-as-glut-keeps-building/

It's cute that you are back to thinking that  'oor oil' is going to rescue the independence dream though, after just these few short months   

Raving nationalists, when will they learn...

 

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, LJS said:

Which no one (other than you had ever said)

Why the lie? Comfy said it.

 

[Comfy Bean]

7 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Sorry I haven't been keeping up with this thread.

That's a very pretty graph. Have a read of this, it summarises the current position better than I could.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/29/dallas-fed-cautions-on-fresh-oil-bubble-as-glut-keeps-building/

It's cute that you are back to thinking that  'oor oil' is going to rescue the independence dream though, after just these few short months   

Raving nationalists, when will they learn...

 

Hey russy. The dream will never die remember :-)  it doesn't need rescued.

You may need to help us out with these oil updates for a decade or more but surely the real point is that over that period the price will yo-yo? 

It's an unpredictable world we live in but ongoing tory governments will play more of a role in Scottish indy than the oil price in my opinion. Unless you think Corbyn can unseat the tories of course? 

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You may need to help us out with these oil updates for a decade or more but surely the real point is that over that period the price will yo-yo?

The oil price will yo-yo.

The tax revenues that the UK or Scottish govt collects will never again reach the dizzy heights of 2011.

There is a truly massive amount of oil elsewhere in the world now that is cheaper - hugely cheaper - to extract than the oil off the coast of Scotland. And the costs of extraction off the coast of Scotland are growing much faster too.

A few months ago you were all about Scotland's renewables potential when that was the latest snippers pamphlet, but that one didn't stand up. So it's back to the oil cos the dream needs some sort of hope to cling to.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Why the lie? Comfy said it.

 

Spurs can win the Premier League.

Only Spurs can win the Premier League.

Spot the difference.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

Spurs can win the Premier League.

Only Spurs can win the Premier League.

Spot the difference.

I'm only spotting someone that can't understand what comfy wrote.

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm only spotting someone that can't understand what comfy wrote.

Without the *only* which you inserted it does not mean anything like you are claiming. You claimed the *only* didn't change the meaning. I have just given you a nice easy example of exactly how it changed the meaning.

Your position also relies on your personal interpretation of the definition of "Britnat" & your assumption that Comfy interpreted the meaning in the same way.

In other words your accusation is groundless & given that Comfy has made his intended meaning Crystal clear, you should withdraw it & apologise.