EU: As Angus Robertson urges us not 'to turn our backs on our EU neighbours', we issue this handy map

Since November there's been a group of protestors outside Holyrood holding a permanent vigil until independence happens. The courts have finally evicted them (Buzzfeed).

Reading the judgement it seems I've missed a treat of a case (spoilered for length):

I once saw a Marks & Spencer gift box of Scottish biscuits. The tin was shaped like a London bus, and the passengers pictured at the windows included the likes of Shakespeare, the Beatles, Elizabeth the First, etc etc .

Have you seen why, though? It's a properly bullshit reason.

I couldn't reason see that a really was given. It doesn't read as if the reader writer knew what the given reason was, or there wasn't one communicated?

Which is the bullshit reason.

Which is the bullshit reason.

Is it decided on by humans or complicators?

People. Definitely not complicators.

Sturgen previews Indyref II: just when you thought it was safe to go back to the border..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... conference

Humza Yousaf, SNP Transport Minister.... nicked for driving with no insurance.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/h ... -1-4310904

Heh. Well, if people who *support* independence don't want a second referendum at any time within the next year - and all this despite Brexit and a sitting Tory government - well, that tells us all we need to know about what even they themselves think of the 'case' they've been making these last few years. Courage of convictions, much?

2017 Poll asked should there be another independence referendum within the next year, 'No' ahead by a whopping 21%

No wonder Sturgeon's panicking after having painted herself into a corner over hard Brexit. I notice 'Yes' for indy support has fallen this month, January 2017 again, too - and despite Brexit.

Heh. Well, if people who *support* independence don't want a second referendum at any time within the next year - and all this despite Brexit and a sitting Tory government

In a period of political intimidation, time has been called on Nicola Sturgeon’s threat to hold a second Scottish independence referendum. Set aside the confusion between access to the single market and staying in parts of the custom union, as Theresa May called for in her speech on the UK’s Brexit aims, it is clear she intends to give up membership of the single market.

Nicola Sturgeon has marched her party to the top of the hill. Where next?

This triggers a threat by Scotland’s first minister made as recently as 10 days ago on the Andrew Marr show that in the event of UK departure from the single market, she would hold a second referendum. She told Marr she “wasn’t bluffing” over her threat, leaving her no choice in the light of May’s declaration.

However, in her first interview since the prime minister’s speech, Sturgeon seemed to step back from the threat. She told the BBC that a Scottish independence vote was “undoubtedly” closer, and sources briefed newspapers that another referendum was “all but inevitable”.

This might best be read as buying some time while hoping that the global reaction to May’s speech also draws attention away from the Scottish question. The reason Sturgeon needs time to reflect is the awkwardness of the situation she has boxed herself into. Her mandate for resisting Brexit stems from the 62% majority in Scotland for staying in the EU in the June 2016 referendum.

The problem with political debate in Scotland is not that people aren’t well informed, it’s that the SNP ensure they’re very well misinformed.

It’s not a sophisticated strategy, but it seems to be an effective one. By using Twitter, official party representatives can basically get away with saying whatever they like by avoiding having to deal with pesky journalists who tend to like to check facts before they report them. On social media, complete lies can be read by tens of thousands of people before they’re exposed and debunked, by which time it’s too late. People seeking to give themselves permission to ignore awkward facts have been satisfied and the tweeter’s mission is accomplished.

Take the example of the Scottish Government’s own GERS figures. When these showed Scotland’s economy being a positive contributor to the UK, they were rightly quoted by the SNP as authoritative statistics. Since the figures started showing Scotland effectively receiving cash from the rest of the UK (roughly £1,700 for every man woman and child in Scotland last year) the figures have instead been cynically and systematically undermined

The SNP and their social media mouth-pieces have been so successful with their campaign of misinformation that, whenever GERS figures are debated now, the following points have to be endlessly repeated: there’s no missing whisky duty, there’s no missing export income, the figures aren’t affected by corporate head-office locations, London infrastructure costs aren’t allocated to Scotland and the figures are not guesswork compiled by HM Treasury, they’re qualified National Statistics compiled and published by the Scottish Government

...

Of course it’s obvious why an SNP MP would want to falsely suggest that Scottish export figures to the UK are over-stated and those to the EU under-stated. One of the gaping holes in the SNP’s argument for Brexit as an independence trigger is the fact that Scotland sells more than four times as much to the rest of the UK as we do to the EU3. This means - if Brexit does turn out to mean UK/EU trade barriers exist - Scotland would risk damaging four times as much trade by ending up on the EU rather than the UK side of any such barriers.

So faced with a clear logical flaw in their argument, this SNP MP resorts to the tried and tested strategy of misrepresenting the facts and spreading misunderstanding. ...

The bottom line for me is that, whatever the alleged whys and wherefores of an argument - if you resort to cherry picking, deliberate selective quoting of some bits of information but not others (and/or cite out of date information, without correcting such issues when duly called out on it), well, you've clearly lost (IMO).

Fine thanks, no sign of any seawater lapping around my ankles as yet, I'm pleased to say. It's really quite pleasant out there; both I and my daughters live to fight another day! Cool.
/starts 3.4 litre flat-six petrol engine with twin exhausts
Wrong thread though.

So the correct time to do something about it is when it's far too late?

There's no point in worrying about something until it actually happens.

It's why I've never use condoms!

Fine thanks, no sign of any seawater lapping around my ankles as yet, I'm pleased to say. It's really quite pleasant out there; both I and my daughters live to fight another day! Cool.
/starts 3.4 litre flat-six petrol engine with twin exhausts
Wrong thread though.