Worst UK PM ever

Status
Closed

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,492
T'Republic of Yorkshire
They would be dealing with an Independent country.

It was you who brought it up!
Anything relating to Scotland is a non starter I see. How come you shout (and, very often, shut) me down when I try to provide a view shared by numerous people but you, seemingly, get off with spouting pro-Brexit views. One law etc. etc.
Talking about Independence in respect of the UK good but Independendence for Scotland bad. Oh the irony!
Nothing ironic about it. I'm not on this forum only to promote a pro-Brexit agenda. I simply don't care to rehash this argument with you for a while - and YOU asked why the EU wouldn't be positive towards Scotland. I've answered you as far as I care to, the search function is available for the rest.

Furthermore, Brexit is something that has been voted for and is scheduled to happen. That makes it a legitimate topic for discussion. Scottish independence is not.

If you want to shut this thread down, feel free to approach another moderator to do so. We can ban all Brexit discussion if everyone wants. I don't mind.
 
Last edited:
May 2011
1,206
Morayshire, Scotland
Nothing ironic about it. I'm not on this forum only to promote a pro-Brexit agenda
And I'm not on it to solely promote a Scottish Independence agenda. However, since I've been a member I have had to defend the Independence movement, and yes, the SNP from comments and attacks by other posters. These are allowed but my responses are frowned upon.
YOU asked why the EU wouldn't be positive towards Scotland. I've answered you as far as I care to, the search function is available for the rest
Do you think I haven't scoured the web. The point is that one can find favourable arguments on both sides.

Furthermore, Brexit is something that has been voted for and is scheduled to happen. That makes it a legitimate topic for discussion. Scottish independence is not
It may not be a topic for discussion where you live but it most certainly is in Scotland. Posters very often make reference to Scotland, why is it that I am not allowed to respond without receiving warnings. Avon used to understand where I was coming from.

If you want to shut this thread down, feel free to approach another moderator to do so. We can ban all Brexit discussion if everyone wants. I don't mind.
Who Said I want to shut it down? I just wanted to make the point that there is no difference between the UK wanting out of the EU and Scotland wanting out of the UK.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,163
Portugal
Who Said I want to shut it down? I just wanted to make the point that there is no difference between the UK wanting out of the EU and Scotland wanting out of the UK.
Albeit I understand the analogy in both cases there was a respect for the voters. Scotland stayed in the UK, the UK is in the process of getting out of the EU.

What we can argue is how much time is needed for a second referendum in any referendum.

UK made a referendum in 1975 and another one in 2016. In an analogy, Scotland just as to wait for some 40/41 years for the next one.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
3,047
Crows nest
Nothing that is happening to Johnson is prevented from happening to Blair. It just requires someone with sufficient bloody-mindedness/ideology/money/time on their hands. The law is the law. No-one is above it. Not Blair. Not Johnson. My guess is that the Johnson prosecution will fail anyway.

Anyone can stand on the street corner or internet forum formulating grand conspiracy theories to explain things which are perfectly explicable in less excitable terms.
It's hardly "excitable" to point out that a prosecution of Blair will never happen.
 
Jan 2017
798
UK
Albeit I understand the analogy in both cases there was a respect for the voters. Scotland stayed in the UK, the UK is in the process of getting out of the EU.

What we can argue is how much time is needed for a second referendum in any referendum.

UK made a referendum in 1975 and another one in 2016. In an analogy, Scotland just as to wait for some 40/41 years for the next one.
Norway had referendums in 1972 (53% against) and in 1994 (52% against) on joining the EU, by that analogy they should've had a 3rd referendum in 2016, but I don't think the politicians or public are interested.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,401
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Norway had referendums in 1972 (53% against) and in 1994 (52% against) on joining the EU, by that analogy they should've had a 3rd referendum in 2016, but I don't think the politicians or public are interested.
I've been in Norway. It's a curiosity: Norwegians would probably prefer to be directly German than be part of EU. In Norway I spoke German not English, since not a few Norwegians have worked or are working in Germany.

Norwegian politicians seem to have an "EU obsession" [it has to be a tremendous illness]. The government wants to join EU and usually the Norwegian people tells the government ... "we have already told you that ...".

P.S. I wonder which would be the result of a Norwegian referendum about joining Germany ...
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,163
Portugal
Norway had referendums in 1972 (53% against) and in 1994 (52% against) on joining the EU, by that analogy they should've had a 3rd referendum in 2016, but I don't think the politicians or public are interested.
Following my analogy it would be in 2034/5. By your analogy in 2016.

My point was: in referendums or referenda when does make sense to repeat them? How many years later? 1? 5? 10? 25? 40? Never?

I can also give you an example in my country, Portugal: There was a referendum about the regionalization in 1998. It was not binding since it had a participation lower than 50% (all the referedums in Portugal – 3 – had a participation lower than 50%, so all were not binging according to the Portuguese law). But today the party in the government talks about advancing with the regionalization, probably even without a referendum. Does it make sense to make another one? I really don’t think so. We will have elections this year. But I am not sympathetic by direct democracy, I think referedums threaten representative democracy, making elected governments and parliaments take measures that they don’t want.
 

Peter Graham

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,671
Westmorland
It's hardly "excitable" to point out that a prosecution of Blair will never happen.
I never said it was. What is excitable is the desire to see grand conspiracies of the 'They wouldn't countenance a prosecution against Blair but They are happy to countenance one against Boris' variety. It's only a short step from there to arguing that sentient Illuminati lizards control us all through the World Bank. All I was doing was pointing out that what has happened doesn't require some dark conspiracy to explain it.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
3,047
Crows nest
I never said it was. What is excitable is the desire to see grand conspiracies of the 'They wouldn't countenance a prosecution against Blair but They are happy to countenance one against Boris' variety. It's only a short step from there to arguing that sentient Illuminati lizards control us all through the World Bank. All I was doing was pointing out that what has happened doesn't require some dark conspiracy to explain it.
I've never suggested that there is any conspiracy or that a complicated reason is needed to explain why Blair will never be prosecuted, which is simply a product of how the world works. You seem to be trying to paint me as some nut job who believes in reptilians and other crap. I've had more than my fill with this crap with those who float around Egyptology like a stinking miasma.
 

Peter Graham

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,671
Westmorland
I've never suggested that there is any conspiracy or that a complicated reason is needed to explain why Blair will never be prosecuted, which is simply a product of how the world works.
I'm genuinely glad to hear that. Perhaps I misunderstood, but when you said:-

Do you really think that Blair will ever come under any form of investigation, let alone prosecution, for making such misleading lies. Anybody can stand on the street corner, or internet forum, and denounce Blair, but that's as far as it will ever be allowed to go

I took that to mean that you felt there were dark forces at work who'd protect Blair but wouldn't protect Johnson.

I never said you believed in reptilians. The point I was making (and perhaps is not a point I should be making to you in light of the above) is that it is very easy to shout 'it's all a conspiracy' , but not quite so easy to actually prove it. To that degree, those who are happy to accept great conspiracies without any actual evidence (other than the argument from common sense, which is typically no such thing) are not so far away from the tinfoil hat brigade as they might like to think.

So, my apologies if I misunderstood.
 
Status
Closed