2nd Indy Referendum?

[Jack Knave]

and hello to the tu quoque fallacy, and ignoring the point post from Jack Knave. Effectively your post is a non sequitur to the post you answered, why was that?

Don't you know? You wrote it!!!......and NS is back to his neurotic antics again.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't you know? You wrote it!!!......and NS is back to his neurotic antics again.

So no answer

[Jack Knave]

it is being added to the GRP.

Wow. Sounds like the kind of thing Erdogan would like.

[Jack Knave]

So no answer

That's your trait in these circumstances, old chap!

[Nearly Sane]

That's your trait in these circumstances, old chap!

is it? Because we can go on like this interchangeably for too long. If you actually want to deny how it was a tu quoque fallacy, then please do so.

[Jack Knave]

is it? Because we can go on like this interchangeably for too long. If you actually want to deny how it was a tu quoque fallacy, then please do so.

Did I say I did?

[Anchorman]

Look at the EU. The stronger, richer countries have taken charge. That is the fact of the matter and is just life. Do you really think Scotland would get a better, fairer deal being in the EU. For your future in the EU just look at Greece.

-
What has that to do with a woman we didn't vote for using laws which were not part of our nation to steamroller her ideas?

[Jack Knave]

-
What has that to do with a woman we didn't vote for using laws which were not part of our nation to steamroller her ideas?

This is what you said:-
 
Because the burach which is the so-called united kingdom parliament is no such thing - just the English pseudodemocracy with bits added on, rather than the 'new' parliament the 1707 Act said was supposed to happen.


In 1957, which is what the EU is celebrating this year, do you think they created the proto-EU for it to be for the Germans, and perhaps the French etc., to take control and have the dominate power? Yet that is what has happened. No, they saw it as a union of equals. Yet that is not what has happened. The EU is the 4th Reich with bits added on. Do you think Greece is equal to Germany in the EU hierarchy?

[Nearly Sane]

Did I say I did?

when you get to the room for an argument, just stay there because unless you have any interest in a discussion, which you appear not to,
Best place for you.

[Anchorman]

This is what you said:-
 
Because the burach which is the so-called united kingdom parliament is no such thing - just the English pseudodemocracy with bits added on, rather than the 'new' parliament the 1707 Act said was supposed to happen.


In 1957, which is what the EU is celebrating this year, do you think they created the proto-EU for it to be for the Germans, and perhaps the French etc., to take control and have the dominate power? Yet that is what has happened. No, they saw it as a union of equals. Yet that is not what has happened. The EU is the 4th Reich with bits added on. Do you think Greece is equal to Germany in the EU hierarchy?

My point was that May has no right to use laws belonging to a parliament which was supposed to cease to exist after the 1707 Act.
Any laws passed by an English parliament should be illegal in a UK parliament.

[Anchorman]

Nice wee comment on May's visit this afternoon. (What do you mean 'I didn't know'?) Any comment that has May and Obi Wan Kenobi in the sane sentence has to be worth reading...... http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/03/27/plan-for-britain/

[jeremyp]

The legislation of Henry VIII - definately diddly squat to do with either Scotland or britain, Rose. The Tudor maniac slaughteresd quite a few Scots - after Flodden - in an insane attempt to have Mary of Scotland married to the brat who would become Edward VI of England. Google 'Rough Wooing'.

Blimey. I thought the chip on your shoulder was only three hundred years old.

[Nearly Sane]

Blimey. I thought the chip on your shoulder was only three hundred years old.

So you support May's approach?

[Anchorman]

Blimey. I thought the chip on your shoulder was only three hundred years old.

-

Would you prefer a more 'high brow' vocabulary to discuss the relative foreign policies of Scotland and England, the precarious position of the regent Marie de Guise at court in the ferment of the nascent Reformation and the first stirrings of the iconoclasm which would define the character of religio-political thought in Scotland for the next five generations?
Or the relative poor health of the child of the Tudor who was obsessed both with prestige and grabbing as many Protestant states as allies -despite none of those states being 'his' kind of Protestant?
I could do so, if you wish.
I could also contrast the relative governmental systems of the two kingdoms, and show that the measures Henry VIII tried to subvert Commons were alien to Scotland, where monarchical power was never absolute, and royal authority frequently ignored if the main power players felt like it?
The two systems were diametrically opposite - matching the ethos and mind set of the two nations.
The Act of Union simply bolted on a handful of measures onto the English Parliament, ignoring that of Scotland entirely.
Had the takeover been complete - and all the institutions of state been incorporated into the new system, things would have been radically different today.
They were not, however - and, yes, there has been a simmering resentment for three centuries - read Scots literature over the time period and you will see that. Even the most pro-Union writers such as Scott kept that flame of resentment burning.
Recent Westminster attitudes have only fanned it.

[Jack Knave]

when you get to the room for an argument, just stay there because unless you have any interest in a discussion, which you appear not to,
Best place for you.

Try putting that into English, it makes no sense.

[Jack Knave]

-

Would you prefer a more 'high brow' vocabulary to discuss the relative foreign policies of Scotland and England, the precarious position of the regent Marie de Guise at court in the ferment of the nascent Reformation and the first stirrings of the iconoclasm which would define the character of religio-political thought in Scotland for the next five generations?
Or the relative poor health of the child of the Tudor who was obsessed both with prestige and grabbing as many Protestant states as allies -despite none of those states being 'his' kind of Protestant?
I could do so, if you wish.
I could also contrast the relative governmental systems of the two kingdoms, and show that the measures Henry VIII tried to subvert Commons were alien to Scotland, where monarchical power was never absolute, and royal authority frequently ignored if the main power players felt like it?
The two systems were diametrically opposite - matching the ethos and mind set of the two nations.
The Act of Union simply bolted on a handful of measures onto the English Parliament, ignoring that of Scotland entirely.
Had the takeover been complete - and all the institutions of state been incorporated into the new system, things would have been radically different today.
They were not, however - and, yes, there has been a simmering resentment for three centuries - read Scots literature over the time period and you will see that. Even the most pro-Union writers such as Scott kept that flame of resentment burning.
Recent Westminster attitudes have only fanned it.

You left out that the Scots had made a bad bet in Panama, I think, and needed the English to bail them out. 

[Anchorman]

Do you really wish me to enter the debate on the perfidy of William the second in choosing England over Scotland? Really?

[jeremyp]

So you support May's approach?

Sorry, I didn't realise she is advocating slaughtering a load of Scots on the battlefield and forcibly uniting the English and Scottish Royal families (which would be a spectacular failure given that they already are united).

[jeremyp]

-

Would you prefer a more 'high brow' vocabulary to discuss the relative foreign policies of Scotland and England

I'd prefer a rational approach and not one that harks back to things that were done to people five hundred years ago.

What the English parliament was like in Henry VIII's time is utterly irrelevant to the UK parliament today. In fact, it was pretty much irrelevant at the time of the Acts of Union given that, by then, we'd already executed one king for getting too big for his boots.

 I'm as upset about Brexit as you, in fact, probably more so because I have no potential escape route, I can't run away like a rat from a sinking ship, unlike the people of Scotland may be able to. It disturbs me deeply that Theresa May keeps trying to subvert the democratic process to push through this disastrous course of action. So please stop harping on about perceived injustices that were done to your ancestors by my ancestors and try to live in the present.

[Bubbles]

It disturbs me deeply that Theresa May keeps trying to subvert the democratic process to push through this disastrous course of action.

It isn't Theresa May that is trying to undermine the democratic process, but those wanting to ignore the referendum.

A course of action that dictated her actions, in BOTH cases, i.e.  the vote in Scotland determined they should stay as part of the UK.

It's all a done deal, people ( the majority) on both causes have spoken, time to move on.

[Gordon]

It's all a done deal, people ( the majority) on both causes have spoken, time to move on.

For the EU yes, but things have changed since 2014 and Scotland rejected both Brexit and the Tories who are responsible for this madness, so it isn't time to 'move on' in respect of what constitutes the UK in the long-term: the fat lady has yet to cease singing on that score, and some of us want to ensure she gets another chorus (and we'll also try to ensure it won't be of Rule Brittania).

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't Theresa May that is trying to undermine the democratic process, but those wanting to ignore the referendum.

A course of action that dictated her actions, in BOTH cases, i.e.  the vote in Scotland determined they should stay as part of the UK.

It's all a done deal, people ( the majority) on both causes have spoken, time to move on.

What does the above have to with the use of Henry VIII clauses by for Brexit?

[wigginhall]

Depends on what you mean by moving on.   The Scottish parliament is moving on by asking for a second referendum.   Very democratic. 

On Brexit,  there are plenty of worries about hard Brexit.   It's possible that this is a bluff by the British government, as in actuality, they can't really just leave the EU, with no trade agreements at all.   Then just moving goods into Europe becomes difficult, hence the prediction of 30 miles queues at Dover, as trucks and documents have to be checked manually, (at the moment, all done electronically).   I suspect May is trying to get a softish Brexit through, without alarming the Ultras. 

So, challenging a hard Brexit is surely our democratic right, in fact, so is asking for another referendum.   

[Bubbles]

What does the above have to with the use of Henry VIII clauses by for Brexit?

Henry v111 is done and dusted, irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

Henry v111 is done and dusted, irrelevant.

Not to the use of Henry VIII clauses in passing any Gexit bills which was the context of the post you replied to.