Buckle up troops

[EverestGers 748]

7 hours ago, Copland bear said:

Years ago it stood for Scottish No popery or something to that effect.  My dad never voted them but before 1979 I know he did like them, detested them after Salmond and his cronies in 79 and that was the start of the downfall of the SNP as they care more about migrants than they do people who are Scottish now.

No catholic in their right mind would have voted the SNP in the 70''s but how things have changed and they now openly support republicism and the IRA who they see as freedom fighters ( John Masons ) words not mine, it's the old saying divide and conquer.

Brought up Labour from a family perspective and voted once in my 42 years on this planet, the only vote was for no independence, the reality is there all crooks in supposed position of representation so vote away, there all arseholes regardless and still collect your tax so hate them all eternally ?

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

3 hours ago, gmcf said:

I hate answering you , because I hate jumping on the bandwagon   , but this worries me that you won't support the snp forever . It's almost as if you accept that they are incapable of running a country after independence . 

And after independence , lets  assume you go back to supporting Labour . You do realise it won't be the same Labour Party as before when they had the support of the rest of the U.K. to back them up ? They will be limited in what they want to achieve - what's the deficit now ?  By which time the damage will have been done with no going back . 

Just seems a weird way of thinking to me . 

I just think that the SNP won’t exist 10’years after independence. It’s not radical.

ps you really need to look at the current uk deficit situation if your going to use it as a anti- labour argument - it’s INCREASED under the ‘good housekeeping’ of the Torries - increased dramatically! 

 

Pps you also also need to brush up on your Labour Party history as it’s only in recent times that the current Labour Party were aligned with rest of uk. Before they were a separate entity. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,714]

2 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

I just think that the SNP won’t exist 10’years after independence. It’s not radical.

ps you really need to look at the current uk deficit situation if your going to use it as a anti- labour argument - it’s INCREASED under the ‘good housekeeping’ of the Torries - increased dramatically! 

 

Pps you also also need to brush up on your Labour Party history as it’s only in recent times that the current Labour Party were aligned with rest of uk. Before they were a separate entity. 

Before they had IRA sympathisers in control...

SNP? Labour? ....... both.

That's who and what you vote for. Anyone who does has the blood of British soldiers on their hands, and supports those who back terrorists who have murdered innocent British chikdren.

[Heshootshescores 1,904]

Well when it comes to bigotry he certainly knows what he's taking about. 

Cunt. 

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

[Sweetheart 8,458]

On 13/09/2018 at 17:35, coopsleftboot said:

Scottish Parliament definition of Sectarianism (from the Terms of Reference for the Scottish Parliament Standards Committee) reads;

Sectarian sekˈteə.ri.ən - adjective

Caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups.  In Scotland, this is particularly prevalent against catholicism and associated football clubs.

1. Why does the definition identify Catholicism and associated football clubs?
2. Did Scottish Parliament do a survey to come to this conclusion?
3. How does naming these factions help stop Sectarianism?
4. Do these factions have some sort of Scottish Parliament protection?
5. Shouldn't tackling sectarianism be a neutral process.? 

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

28 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

1. Why does the definition identify Catholicism and associated football clubs?
2. Did Scottish Parliament do a survey to come to this conclusion?
3. How does naming these factions help stop Sectarianism?
4. Do these factions have some sort of Scottish Parliament protection?
5. Shouldn't tackling sectarianism be a neutral process.? 

End sectarian bigot factories NOW! 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

10 hours ago, gmcf said:

See to be honest CB , I don't think they care what happens as long as they get independence  . Job done as far as their concerned , no turning back , and to hell with the consequences . In fact , I really don't think they want to be around to face those consequences . 

Spot on mate. ??

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

7 hours ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Before they had IRA sympathisers in control...

SNP? Labour? ....... both.

That's who and what you vote for. Anyone who does has the blood of British soldiers on their hands, and supports those who back terrorists who have murdered innocent British chikdren.

What bollocks - anyway here’s to 3 points today 

[gmcf 34,127]

8 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

I just think that the SNP won’t exist 10’years after independence. It’s not radical.

ps you really need to look at the current uk deficit situation if your going to use it as a anti- labour argument - it’s INCREASED under the ‘good housekeeping’ of the Torries - increased dramatically! 

 

Pps you also also need to brush up on your Labour Party history as it’s only in recent times that the current Labour Party were aligned with rest of uk. Before they were a separate entity. 

The latest GERS figures show a deficit of £13B , far larger than anywhere in the UK . Over £1500 more per head of the population than the rest of the U.K. My point being , it's a hell of a lot to leave any party to sort out and run a country once the snp have done a runner . Which , btw , I agree with you , it would happen . 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

4 minutes ago, gmcf said:

The latest GERS figures show a deficit of £13B , far larger than anywhere in the UK . Over £1500 more per head of the population than the rest of the U.K. My point being , it's a hell of a lot to leave any party to sort out and run a country once the snp have done a runner . Which , btw , I agree with you , it would happen . 

To close to match to type out what’s wrong with the GERS figures and thAT nonsense that somehow we are subsidised by the rest of the uk - if that was true to that extent the uk would want to kick us out. 

[gmcf 34,127]

7 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

To close to match to type out what’s wrong with the GERS figures and thAT nonsense that somehow we are subsidised by the rest of the uk - if that was true to that extent the uk would want to kick us out. 

?yep , me too . 

[coopsleftboot 5,512]

10 hours ago, Sweetheart said:

1. Why does the definition identify Catholicism and associated football clubs?
2. Did Scottish Parliament do a survey to come to this conclusion?
3. How does naming these factions help stop Sectarianism?
4. Do these factions have some sort of Scottish Parliament protection?
5. Shouldn't tackling sectarianism be a neutral process.? 

Suggest you look for my other posts in response to others that commented ?

[Sweetheart 8,458]

On 15/09/2018 at 20:52, coopsleftboot said:

Suggest you look for my other posts in response to others that commented ?

Will do. 

I have read the whole thread Imho the main complaint is not about Catholicism but  Sinn fein/SNP  supporters who happen to be catholic

The SNP appear to have taken Scotland hostage until they can get the vote for an independent Scotland passed. If they succeed in getting this passed then it will give Sinn fein a way forward to vote for a united Ireland as that was the deal made  with AS.

The SNP appear to want anything that is pro Union dismantled e.g Rangers, OO, etc by using the sectarianism card. If the SNP wanted to tackle sectarianism then it should be done through a neutral process not one that divides the country to push for independence.

1. If SMP's are scared to challenge the SNP for fear of threats can the go to Westminster to  voice their concerns? 
2. Could Westminster then intervene before it gets out of hand?