Much like the natives up against the might of the British Empire that Blackadder refers to, Kiwi fruit and guava halves ain’t gonna cut it and that’s all John Swinney has left.
Wether or not he has any plan he certainly doesn't have a plan B given that his cunning or otherwise plan is given to failure if any one of the polls are to be believed.
Swinney can't have a plan B, because his plan A kills any possible plan B. Any plan B must be one that eschews the Section 30 process. But Swinney's plan A is to affirm that the Section 30 process is the ONLY way.
No-one else here will contradict you so it falls to me as usual.
Even if a request for a Section 30 fails, Swinney could still adopt your MFI minus the Section 30 eschewment. In fact it could be argued that a refusal of a Section 30 one last time but with a clear ultimatum, is actually necessary before the Scottish Parliament asserts its electoral authority at last.
"If we don't hear from you in the affirmative by noon one week from now, the Scottish Parliament will no longer recognise that the Westminster Parliament has any authority over Scotland".
It has been repeatedly explained to you why that makes absolutely no sense. I don't intend to go through it all again, as explanations just bounce off your closed mind. I will just note that anybody other than a Swinney sycophant would ask why, if this hero of yours has a 'plan' that would work without a Section 30 request, he supposes it better to fatally compromise the most fundamental principle of Scotland's democracy with a pointless supplication.
I'll leave you to figure out the other flaws in your 'argument'. You clearly need the mental exercise.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that you are wrong, and in an abject minority of 1,000 at most of the 3,623,344 voters of Scotland who voted in our first Independence referendum in 2014.
Unless of course you mindlessly abstained? Or were one of the 3,429 invalid or blank voters? Have you forgotten in your hatred of Swinney what it's all about Peter? It's really not all about you. Or me.
Since I have five minutes before I must prepare for yet another medical appointment, I'll point out some more flaws in your 'argument'. The most obvious one being that the "ultimatum" to which you refer is a product of your imagination. Swinney has said nothing to lead any thinking person to believe he is proposing such an ultimatum.
Perhaps we should say another ultimatum. Because isn't the election result supposed to be the thing that forces the UK Government to grant Swinney the sham referendum – the pinnacle of feeble ambition?
Suppose neither of these ultimatums works. What is Swinney going to do? If he now insists independence can be restored without a Section 30 referendum, he gives the lie to pretty much every word he has ever said on the matter. What will be his line? @Ach! I was just kidding when I said all those many, many times that a Section 30 referendum is the ONLY route to independence. I knew all along there was another way that the UK Government couldn't veto. But I just didn't think to mention it."
The thing is, I'm supposed to be the one who hates John Swinney. (I don't. But in your wee imagination, I do. So, it seems true to you.) But I am the one who believes him when he tells us what he is proposing to do. In order to maintain your hero-worship of the man, you have to pretend to yourself that he is proposing something else entirely.
It can be quite entertaining to watch. But I have things to do.
"hate" is indeed an extreme word, glad you deny it so angrily. Like "sycophant", "hero-worship", "traitor", "treacherous" - "fool". In your mental eye you're either completely for Swinney or agin him.
TBTF 98% of the Indy movement are moderate and friendly, you're at one extreme. As sadly are most of the same few posters btl on the National.
Your forum is an echo chamber where the poster of any counter-view is viciously and wrongly personally attacked by you or the likes of Robert T whose totally incorrect fantasy ad hominem you personally gladly endorsed, to your eternal shame. Remember LC who was a great poster? You hounded her out with your abuse.
You are identical to WGD, but at the other 1% extreme. The two of you could be twins.
I'm pretty busy at the moment but this caught my e'e:
"Such a thing is much less of a treat for Scottish nationalists, such as myself."
It's all about WHERE the comma is or even if there is one. Where you have it implies it's " less of a treat" for "[implied ALL] Scottish nationalists", whereas if you write it without a comma at all like so:
"Such a thing is much less of a treat for Scottish nationalists such as myself."
would mean some Scottish nationalists like Stan Grodynski and Nick Cole will find it a treat (they wrote it!), and some Scottish nationalists like you, won't. And some like me will find good and bad points.
Well, you were talking about grammar which underlines understanding!
yesindyref2 exemplifying the apologist sycophantic snp CULT response, which unfortunately we / REAL independence supporters are so used to seeing , no doubt yesindyref2 is happy with devolution and subservience as that is all that these FAKE independence politicians have resulted in for the last 11 years , obviously yesindyref2 believes in Party before COUNTRY , I wonder if his Irish wife agrees with him
My only comment re swiney's ..'cunning plan' ?..'.We're in the stickiest situation since Sticky the Stick Insect got stuck on a sticky bun'....( ref :www.blackadderquotes.com)
Much like the natives up against the might of the British Empire that Blackadder refers to, Kiwi fruit and guava halves ain’t gonna cut it and that’s all John Swinney has left.
We’re Lions led by Donkeys.
He's fkn doomed!
Wether or not he has any plan he certainly doesn't have a plan B given that his cunning or otherwise plan is given to failure if any one of the polls are to be believed.
Swinney can't have a plan B, because his plan A kills any possible plan B. Any plan B must be one that eschews the Section 30 process. But Swinney's plan A is to affirm that the Section 30 process is the ONLY way.
No-one else here will contradict you so it falls to me as usual.
Even if a request for a Section 30 fails, Swinney could still adopt your MFI minus the Section 30 eschewment. In fact it could be argued that a refusal of a Section 30 one last time but with a clear ultimatum, is actually necessary before the Scottish Parliament asserts its electoral authority at last.
"If we don't hear from you in the affirmative by noon one week from now, the Scottish Parliament will no longer recognise that the Westminster Parliament has any authority over Scotland".
Bravo! And about time too.
It has been repeatedly explained to you why that makes absolutely no sense. I don't intend to go through it all again, as explanations just bounce off your closed mind. I will just note that anybody other than a Swinney sycophant would ask why, if this hero of yours has a 'plan' that would work without a Section 30 request, he supposes it better to fatally compromise the most fundamental principle of Scotland's democracy with a pointless supplication.
I'll leave you to figure out the other flaws in your 'argument'. You clearly need the mental exercise.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that you are wrong, and in an abject minority of 1,000 at most of the 3,623,344 voters of Scotland who voted in our first Independence referendum in 2014.
Unless of course you mindlessly abstained? Or were one of the 3,429 invalid or blank voters? Have you forgotten in your hatred of Swinney what it's all about Peter? It's really not all about you. Or me.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES, YES we should.
As I said, explanations are wasted on you.
Since I have five minutes before I must prepare for yet another medical appointment, I'll point out some more flaws in your 'argument'. The most obvious one being that the "ultimatum" to which you refer is a product of your imagination. Swinney has said nothing to lead any thinking person to believe he is proposing such an ultimatum.
Perhaps we should say another ultimatum. Because isn't the election result supposed to be the thing that forces the UK Government to grant Swinney the sham referendum – the pinnacle of feeble ambition?
Suppose neither of these ultimatums works. What is Swinney going to do? If he now insists independence can be restored without a Section 30 referendum, he gives the lie to pretty much every word he has ever said on the matter. What will be his line? @Ach! I was just kidding when I said all those many, many times that a Section 30 referendum is the ONLY route to independence. I knew all along there was another way that the UK Government couldn't veto. But I just didn't think to mention it."
The thing is, I'm supposed to be the one who hates John Swinney. (I don't. But in your wee imagination, I do. So, it seems true to you.) But I am the one who believes him when he tells us what he is proposing to do. In order to maintain your hero-worship of the man, you have to pretend to yourself that he is proposing something else entirely.
It can be quite entertaining to watch. But I have things to do.
"hate" is indeed an extreme word, glad you deny it so angrily. Like "sycophant", "hero-worship", "traitor", "treacherous" - "fool". In your mental eye you're either completely for Swinney or agin him.
TBTF 98% of the Indy movement are moderate and friendly, you're at one extreme. As sadly are most of the same few posters btl on the National.
Your forum is an echo chamber where the poster of any counter-view is viciously and wrongly personally attacked by you or the likes of Robert T whose totally incorrect fantasy ad hominem you personally gladly endorsed, to your eternal shame. Remember LC who was a great poster? You hounded her out with your abuse.
You are identical to WGD, but at the other 1% extreme. The two of you could be twins.
E-C-H-O . . . . e-c-h-o . . . .
I'm pretty busy at the moment but this caught my e'e:
"Such a thing is much less of a treat for Scottish nationalists, such as myself."
It's all about WHERE the comma is or even if there is one. Where you have it implies it's " less of a treat" for "[implied ALL] Scottish nationalists", whereas if you write it without a comma at all like so:
"Such a thing is much less of a treat for Scottish nationalists such as myself."
would mean some Scottish nationalists like Stan Grodynski and Nick Cole will find it a treat (they wrote it!), and some Scottish nationalists like you, won't. And some like me will find good and bad points.
Well, you were talking about grammar which underlines understanding!
Or it could be read: 'Scottish nationalists [implied IN GENERAL], such as myself [ONE OF THE MANY].
If you imagine I hadn't thought of your response before you did, you don't know me very well.
I really shouldn't be your sole target audience, hence the suggestion. You don't know me at all! You'd pass me in the street none the wiser.
yesindyref2 exemplifying the apologist sycophantic snp CULT response, which unfortunately we / REAL independence supporters are so used to seeing , no doubt yesindyref2 is happy with devolution and subservience as that is all that these FAKE independence politicians have resulted in for the last 11 years , obviously yesindyref2 believes in Party before COUNTRY , I wonder if his Irish wife agrees with him
Oh dear.
You yourself exemplify the luckily tiny extremist problem within the YES movement, which the SNP can safely ignore - and does.
The only Party I'd ever join these days is the not yet existent Sinn Fhèin
My only comment re swiney's ..'cunning plan' ?..'.We're in the stickiest situation since Sticky the Stick Insect got stuck on a sticky bun'....( ref :www.blackadderquotes.com)
For OUR Scotland and her sad weans.
Drowning men and straws come to mind.