eFestivals
-
Posts
103,423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by eFestivals
-
-
33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
Tribal ?
how do you think ancient Scotland came to exist?
33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:Are you aware of any significant differences around the rules of who could vote in the Indy ref and the Eu ref ?
Are you aware that the polls around indy are polling the correct electorate?
33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:I have long ago accepted that you genuinely concluded that our Indy ref was all about hatred of the other / Englander or whoever. It's always about the hate.
Not at all. It's about a misplaced sense of grievance. It just so happens that almost everyone who gets the blame for those grievances is English, so for some of your indy supporters it is just that.
33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:Your opinion is alien to me but I also regard it as quite revealing about how you see things.
While your opinion and refusal to face up to the facts isn't alien to me. It's actually very familiar. It's exactly the same as seen within kippers, trumpers, and Corbynistas too. Hope beyond all reason.
If you were campaigning for indy on the basis of "it'll be fucking hard, things will have to be cut, drastically, but we'll make our own decisions" my attitudes to your posts would be different. I could respect that honesty in a way I can never respect the deliberate head in the sand act.
33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:You seem upset that our exit will end the union.
Not at all, I just think it would be fucking stupid in the circumstances, and will achieve the opposite of what you hope. As such it would be fair to say it would be considered a disaster by the very people who wanted so badly.
If the UK were the abusive occupier some indy supporters imagine, it would be fair enough. If the economics were better in Scotland's favour it would be fair enough. I don't give a shit what you want to regard as being your country or the status it has - that's purely up to you.
Just as I didn't want brexit to win on a lie, I don't want indy to be won on the lie - and for the same reasons. It will devastate some people's lives, unnecessarily. For a dream that can't be had.
33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:Few care about it as much as you appear to. Fair play to you, you fight hard for its survival. As I said earlier, what type of Country we live in seems way more important to me.
I got interested for no particular reason, and then was hooked by the cybernats, who were a new phenomenon back then.
And now I just laugh at how fact-free the whole thing is.
-
29 minutes ago, LJS said:
Anyway as part of my Public Information commitment here are some more numbers from the Bishop.
I think there is spin to be spun for both camps here
I'll simply remark that (after leave voters) Labour supporters are the most opposed to immigration. How uplifting!
I don't think it would be any spin to say there's a strong anti-immigration feeling in Scotland, that's probably little different overall to England (tho there will be an amount of variance, because there is with the immigration too, and the pressures it brings).
The way some people like to present it, England is full of (only) racist kippers and Scotland is a luvvie-duvvie other world.
It also says that one of the things Sturgeon has been trying to use as a selling point - more immigration - might actually be working against her and not for her (much as her pro-EU stance seemingly has, tho only by a minute amount).
Boxed in on all sides. It's really not panned out how she was thinking it might.
-
9 minutes ago, LJS said:
do we need to play this game again?
you've yet to tell me what the 'civic' is in claiming a greater right to independence because of tribal Scotland.
You never do. There's a reason why.
-
13 minutes ago, LJS said:
I completely agree with you. Personally I rate her a bit higher than most politicians
No shit sherlock
You'll absolve her of playing politics with refugees in the way you won't absolve others for doing the same.
Quotebut then I'm sure you rate some higher than others too, but you are right, she is still a politician.
Neil takes a different view, he says she is a fascist and has done nothing *extra* for refugees. This is unfair and inaccurate so for some bizarre reason I have wasted loads of time defending her.
I said she's a blood and soil nationalist, as shown by her often breaking into "Scotland is a country". There's nothing civic in that.
And i'd be right.
-
18 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:
In a rare moment of madness, I happen to be in the vicinity! I have nothing personally against Sturgeon. My main point about her is I sometimes feel SNP supporters put her on a higher pedestal than an average politician, almost as if she is above the usual games. My view is she plays politic the same way as anyone else. It doesn't make her good or bad, it just makes her a politician.
Yep, that's the truth of things.
But for indy, there has to be some added exceptionalism. Sturgeon cares more than nasty old May down in London, you only have to see her Scottishness to know it.
-
11 minutes ago, LJS said:
I'm sure your first point is right and I'm pretty sure more or less all those intending to vote "no" wodl say they are opposed to a second indyref. However I fail to see any Justification that none of them will be swung from that view. Its as logical as saying the most 51% who want a second indy ref are pro indy and will never be swung from that view. what polls have shown clearly is that people have been changing their minds. there is no reason why they won't continue to do so
I reckon mine is a quite logical take on it.
I say they can't be swung, and all would vote no. I didn't say none would ever vote yes.
Scottish indy is something everyone already has an informed opinion on. Everyone's heard the arguments, and they've already chosen where they sit in current circumstances.
In those 20+ years ones I reckon there's plenty who would support indie in different economic circumstances, where it's not certain the price would be savage austerity. In 20+ years things might look different, but they're not going to look very different in a shorter time-scale than that (barring a nuclear accident in England, or something similarly major).
Those would be thinking people, who do economics, who understand the scale of the problem, who are open to persuasion, but led by the facts. It's just not possible to turn those facts in indy's favour in the next few years.
11 minutes ago, LJS said:It really isn't and you know it.
I don't discount the chance that indy might win, but nothing is indicating it will, and other stuff is strongly suggestive that it won't.
Never mind, eh? Maybe in 20 years.
11 minutes ago, LJS said:I've given up replying to this sort of nonsense so lets have a song, shall we? Its ages since we've had a good song.
Ahhh, the normal distraction technique when you know the facts are against you. Very well done.
-
1 minute ago, LJS said:
Brexit is very much about putting Britain first, & Theresa May is very much the high priestess of Brexit noe. Does that make her a fascist?
Brexit is about putting Britain first. But unless you're happy for me to associate you with the Orange Order on a similar basis, that's fuck all to do with me.
May is being a politician and following a public instruction. We all know she's against brexit personally, ffs. It's not ideological, but practical democratic politics. It's not the same thing to where Sturgeon's at, which is ideological, and trying to get the support to win that isn't there yet.
(you might think i've been soft on May there, but just consider what my attitudes would be towards the validity of a win for Scottish indy. I might not like the manner in which it's been won, but I'll 100% be supporting the validity of the vote on the same principle of democracy as I'm allowing May above. I hope you've seen enough of my posts to know I think a [legal, approved] vote should be respected in just about all circumstances, else voting means nothing).
There's also the geographic logic of GB as a unitary state. There's only tribalism and history (of that tribalism) to define the Scottish state as you and her want it. Again, not the same things.
BTW, had to explain to my new assistant today how come Scottish tickets are often on a different website to the rest of a tour. Internalising markets isn't something that's happening - yet - in England. That'll be costly post-indy.
-
5 minutes ago, LJS said:
your bogus & entirely fictitious claim that the poison fascist had done nothing.
that's the fake, your claim right there. :rolleyes:
I've not been making that claim (except via poor wording, perhaps). I've certainly mentioned a lot it's about the nothing extra.
It's standard process for any authority at any level to look upwards for help and coordination and to get it to deal with an emerging problem which is happening elsewhere under that greater authority.
It's why the whole bloody structure is like it is. FFS.
Fuck sake, I'm crediting Sturgeon and the SG with actually having a useful purpose and doing it's job for once - but only its job, nothing extra - and you want to tell me I'm wrong?
-
22 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
Neil I owe you an apology. I had previously stated, truthfully, that I had never met or heard anyone before who thought that Scotland was a region not a Country.
Last night, a unionist lady on qt said when talking about the Euro ref that "we" had voted as a region and that was that.
She actually said "region" lol
Any relation ? :-)
Texas is a country. Bavaria is a country. Brittany is a country. California is a country.
They're each as much a country as Scotland is, but i bet you've never once referred to any of them as a country.
So as likely your relation as mine, i reckon.
-
15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
I think she's going to call this next Indy ref for 2018 right enough. I think you and ljs have called this already. NS must be confident that a combination of a much higher starting base, the hard brexit, continuing Tory leadership and demise of Labour will give her the numbers.
Did you see that polling LJS has been posting?
One said 49% of people want another ref never or in 20+ years. You can be sure every single one of them is not an indy supporter, and will not be swung from that view.
Which leaves 51% who want a ref sooner than 20 years, of which most will support indy. But not all - because they'll be some people who want an 2nd over and done with, so indy can properly go back in its box for decades.
It's unwinnable, barring some sort of freak happening around the turnout.
15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:The while type of Country thing versus Tory out of Europe land will be the narrative she will look to sell it on. I accept you don't recognise Scotland as a Country etc.
And when she tries to sell it, the first question to be asked will be: how will it be funded?
And then it's all about the important questions of deficit, currency, and continuing trade (or not), where no one on the indy side is able to supply adequate answers. Because it's impossible to.
The only workable answer is massive cuts, but I doubt that's going to be offered as a workable solution, o it'll be a campaign of deception again with willing morons helping to spread lies. If indy wins it'll be a Trump-like win, built on lies believed by idiots.
The 'type of country' thing is an unattainable dream, however noble it might be in ambition. The smart people know that, Sturgeon included.
The only thing to find out is how big she's prepared to lie.
-
5 minutes ago, LJS said:
What happens in England is irrelevant, you said Sturgeon had done nothing beyond what she was obliged to do.
OMFG.
So you now reckon that the UK govt places no obligations on more-local authorities to care and look after the refugees they take on....?
What happens in England are those obligations from the UK govt. What Sturgeon does in Scotland are the same obligations from the UK govt.
The UK govt is giving you fuicking money for it. Do you think it's giving the money without an obligation going with it??????
The obligation is NOT to spend only the supplied funds on the refugees. it's to care for those refugees to the agreed level. If extra funds are needed to do that the extra funds are supplied 'locally'.
There will be a big variance of needs of the individual refugees, so it would be mindlessly-fucking dumb to say "you don't need to ever spend a penny extra on any one of them".
5 minutes ago, LJS said:You were wrong. It would be really nice if you had the common decency to admit that instead of tossing Straw men about all over the place.
She's done another extra beyond the standard obligations. What don't you get?
One of those links you supplied was funding for a refugee charity. Do you think that 'English govt'* money doesn't do the same, and that in the time of a refugee crisis it won't be granting extra?
(* we both know there's no such thing, but administration of all the same things that the SG does is done for England from somewhere, and from an England-only budget).
-
1 minute ago, LJS said:
Dearie me!
ahh, OK ... then yep, on the blood and soil Scotland basis she espouses, the putting Scotland first* that you know and love, yep, she's a fascist.
(* which is why the 0.7% of GDP for aid won't hold)
But the choice of word was more to do with boredom at just how fucking dense you were being about the opposite of civic that her "Scotland is a nation and that gives it greater rights" thing is, than the full-on death camps, etc, thing I thought comfy was referring to.
A more thoughtful version of what you've quoted would be "she's a blood and soil nationalist". Not civic.
Words i suspect I'd used in about a million posts before I used the word fascist.
Ao all this has really proven is just how fucking dumb comfy is, and how he can see anything he likes as an insult (it was an insult at your lack of intelligence, and not at her) but can't do a whole sentence. Joined-up thought is something never seen within Scottish indy.
-
17 minutes ago, GlastoEls said:
Johnny Marr and Liam have been in the studio before without Noel (2001) for demos which partially became the Oasis album Heathen Chemistry, which featured Songbird and a couple others written by Liam. Johnny Marr's on the demo for Songbird which was later released as a b-side.
Marr also played on the final album, albeit on a Noel written song.
which probably has a lot to do with Marr's laughter at the thought of Liam's songwriting.
-
26 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
The people of Scotland will soon enough face a clear choice, an Indy Scotland under the governance of an snp or Labour government or... life within the uk led by the Tories in a hard brexit ukip influenced world.
That's only part of the choice.
There's also the choice of being poorer, which Scots would have but don't want.
But if they got it the Scottish govt would be cuting hard er than any tory has ever done. Think Greece, or Ireland circa 2009.
Which is why the Scots don't want it.
QuotePerhaps people against Indy feel the need to continually demonise sturgeon, call her names etc as they are uncomfortable with the side they are on ?
Nope, it's just holding politicians to account, like people with brains do and snippers like you don't.
Even for the most normal of things the facts are so against you you have to invent a conspiracy.
But consider the finances? Nope, you'll never do that.
QuoteNS's commitments on things like nuclear weapons don't sit so well with people who have abandoned similar views. Calling her a facist , dwarf etc maybe makes folk feel better about themselves and diverts attention away from the Indy question ?
I call my missus a dwarf. Some people aren't so up themselves that pisstakes become daggers.
Who's called her a fascist? I've never seen that said anywhere.
So it's back the made-up, because the facts make you scream.
Will you tell me in a minute how Scotland is too poor, too wee and too stupid to be indy? You normally do.
Quotei still think a lot of labour voters voted no in the hope milliband would be next pm. Those hopes are gone.
your mate has made a few posts in the last few days detailing people's opinions.
If you care to look at them you can see that your own hopes are gone.
Or you could have watched QT last night to see it played out, too.
-
6 minutes ago, LJS said:
Here's a wee hand with your research Neil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34164632
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35192528
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34416076
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/sep/03/scotland-welcome-safe-housing-refugees
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-to-offer-training-for-refugee-doctors-1-4361269
https://beta.gov.scot/news/scotland-welcomes-refugees/
let me know if you need any more
because in England refugees are booted out of the door and never thought of again.
It's only in Scotland they get a bit of extra love by the govt.
You're INSANE!!!!
-
42 minutes ago, LJS said:
Hey neil!, you still haven't told me about the extensive research that you have done so you can be sure that the Scottish Government is not doing anything or spending any money above and beyond what is required of it in accommodating refugees.
Is it because you just made it up?
You still haven't told me what the Scots are paying for that the English aren't paying for. Is that because you've made it up?
Do you honestly think that when the UK govt takes in refugees, that some are booted to Scotland and loved and cared for by the SG, while in England they're booted out the door and never thought of again?
You're insane.
-
32 minutes ago, Tommy101 said:
Thanks for the feedback. At least there is a few months to establish some creative receptacles.
I assume with those restrictions you can take the booze anywhere once you're in? (i.e. not 'arena' based once in)
yeah, no arena, you can take it where you want.
-
36 minutes ago, man next door said:
What a stinking load of bull$hit that is... cos , yeah, of course, it's the excess alcohol that's resulting in all these deaths over the years... and in no way about maximising bar takings.
you need to find yourself a crew member who's selling - there's no restrictions on them.
-
58 minutes ago, russycarps said:
I believe david gilmour rang up michael eavis last year but ME just played your sex is on fire down the phone then hung up
-
56 minutes ago, mufcok said:
Find it hard to believe at this point in his career at Liam would be going out singing songs written by someone else for his own solo album. I firmly believe he will have written all, or the majority, of the songs on the album himself
I don't think Marr was laughing at the idea of Liam writing songs.
I think he was laughing at the idea of what songs written by Liam would sound like.
But that's my take on it, and perhaps it was the first of those.
-
34 minutes ago, tjamest said:
HOW MUCH ALCOHOL CAN I BRING IN WITH ME?
You may bring up to 16 x 440ml cans of lager/cider/beer OR 17 x 250ml cans of premix spirit drinks OR a 3-litre box of wine OR 7 litres of cider/lager/beer in plastic bottles or cans.
Due to licence conditions no glass is allowed on site and will be confiscated at point of entry. Unopened plastic bottles are allowed, but if the seal is broken these will also be confiscated at the gates as we cannot allow unidentifiable substances onto the festival site. No re-entry with alcohol also applies.
When i went in 2014 there was a two hour queue at 3.00pm and they seemed to be searching loads of people for excess alcohol, in 2015 i didn't turn up until about 6.00pm on Thursday and walked straight through. Don't know what it was like last year though.
the car parks on Thursday evening look something like Glasto's Pyramid field at the end of the night - because everyone is knocking back their excess drinks that they can't take in.
-
20 minutes ago, LJS said:
And anyway I'm not damning Cameron for leading us to believe we might take about 3,000 kids. I'm damning Amber Rudd & Theresa May for cynically changing the policy.
You've presented the words of Cameron's "commitment" and you've also posted the words of the legislation.
Neither of which give the policy you claim existed.
-
2 minutes ago, LJS said:
Has it? Not that I'd heard of.
You do know that the Home Office carries out many of the same functions as the SG, don't you? It's responsible for many 'England only' functions in the same way that the SG is responsible for 'Scotland only' stuff.
(just to be clear, i know the HO doesn't do everything for England that the SG does for Scotland, cos stuff like Education is done by the education dept).
2 minutes ago, LJS said:Yes it has. It has made additional money available that it was not required to do.
Not true. :rolleyes:
It spent some of it's own money on support services, which is beyond the funding for the refugees themselves.
Do you think there's only those extra support services for refugees in Scotland? :lol:
2 minutes ago, LJS said:'ve told you this clearly. the information is on the public record so quite why you continue to deny it, I'm not sure. Can I suggest you stop now before you seriously embarass yourself.
I'm denying your claims of it, not it's existence.
Learn to fucking read you moron.
2 minutes ago, LJS said:It might. it might enable us to house more refugees than we otherwise would. And it might make life better for the refugees that are here which in itself is a worthy cause.
It might, but doesn't.
It would only do that if Scotland was influencing the numbers upwards by providing resources beyond what was known to be available.
That would take Sturgeon to commit to taking full - including financial - responsibility for any *extra* refugees she demanded came to Scotland.
First it would require her to commit those extra resources - and she hasn't.
Then it would require her to ask the UK govt to let extras in for Scotland-only to fund. She hasn't.
She's saying she'll take more - but only if the UK pays for them and not Scotland.
Scotland doing more than the UK obligations would require Scotland to take on extra obligations, which it's not done.
2 minutes ago, LJS said:It looks to me as if she is trying to help as many as she can.
On exactly the same basis as you've used there, so is May.
After all, they're operating to identical rules and funding (tho May puts her hand in her own budgets, while Sturgeon wants others to pay so mugs like you to glorify her as having gone further when she hasn't).
2 minutes ago, LJS said:The rate at which refugees arrive is determined by the UK Government & the UNHCR and depends on local authorities making places available. The Scottish Government in association COSLA (convention of Scottish Local authorities) and various statutory & voluntary organisations has been working to ensure that as many places as possible are made available.
Yep.
A place is available when a property is found that won't be denying locals a property them's the UK rules.
Which is pretty easy on somewhere like Bute, which has its population falling at 10% a decade.
Care to show me anywhere in England that has a 1% a year drop in population?
2 minutes ago, LJS said:The more places they make available, the more refugees the UK government will admit.
A more correct way of putting it would be...
The more empty houses there are, the more refugees can enter.
Because those are the rules which govern the numbers.
2 minutes ago, LJS said:Remember though , the main scheme is limited to 20,000, events of the past few days make it very clear that the Government is highly unlikely to take any more than that even if additional places were made available.
Whatever the total number will be, that's what it'll be.
As we've already covered, it's a piece of piss to guilt trip any politician into upping the commitment (tho if it's not done properly they'll wriggle out of it again by pretending that's not what they said - exactly as happened with Sturgeon's 'promise' and Cameron's 'promise')..
2 minutes ago, LJS said:The number of refugees coming to the UK is not being limited by Nicola Sturgeon but by Theresa May.
As we've already covered, it's a piece of piss to guilt trip any politician into upping the commitment - because the commitment is governed by the resources that politicians wish to make available to make that commitment meaningful.
May has set her limit for the UK. Sturgeon has accepted those limits for Scotland.
As proven by her not committing extra money, Scottish money, for extra refugees to enter.
-
9 minutes ago, LJS said:
you will be aware that the Scottish Government has plenty of people only too keen to criticise it for any shortcomings
yeah, your criticisms of them are damning.
In this particular case, the ones who might criticise them for doing fuck all are nearly all the same people who support them in the first place - which is why it's deafening silence. You spend enough of your time pointing that fact out, FFS!
Then there's the free passes that you and plenty of others hand out for *EVERTHING* they do.
I'm still waiting for you to explode about Sturgeon promising to help a refugee but doing fuck all. Instead we get "it a bit daft", nothing like the damnation of Cameron for doing the same, and then lots of false bollocks about Scotland having gone further than UK obligations when it hasn't.
The Dirty Independence Question
in Discussions
Posted
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).