Scotland Vote No In Referendum – Selfish, Scared People, Well Done!

a reply to: bigman88

Well I mean I adressed the main points. Because when you said "leave them the f alone", it's the same as isolation in my book. I kinda do have a sense of manifest destiny. But not to unite all peoples under one flag. Instead, one moral code. People can have their identities and cultures, but there are identities and cultures that ought to be erased. That doesn't require killing.

Yes I kinda do think God will have to resurrect nature. You speak of Amazon and Savanna, But they're not what they used to be. Something like 10% of the amazon is already gone, and nothing seems to be stopping its eventual doom. And the Savanna is hardly what it used to be. Go onto wikipedia and go to the page of lions. Look at their historic location vs where they are today. They, too, are doomed.

Nah I don't particularly care for Columbo. But he did have any with him who rejected him, who still spread their beliefs and culture across Latin America.

Also just fyi, Jehovah, in Hebrew, kinda means God of destruction. It may mean goddammit. It could also mean God of punishment or war. A war name for God. And seeing as I view myself as evil, I'd be rather ok with God killing me. This would bring me peace.

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: bigman88

Well I mean I addressed the main points. Because when you said "leave them the f alone", it's the same as isolation in my book. I kinda do have a sense of manifest destiny. But not to unite all peoples under one flag. Instead, one moral code. People can have their identities and cultures, but there are identities and cultures that ought to be erased. That doesn't require killing.

Yes I kinda do think God will have to resurrect nature. You speak of Amazon and Savanna, But they're not what they used to be. Something like 10% of the amazon is already gone, and nothing seems to be stopping its eventual doom. And the Savanna is hardly what it used to be. Go onto wikipedia and go to the page of lions. Look at their historic location vs where they are today. They, too, are doomed.

Nah I don't particularly care for Columbo. But he did have any with him who rejected him, who still spread their beliefs and culture across Latin America.

Also just fyi, Jehovah, in Hebrew, kinda means God of destruction. It may mean goddammit. It could also mean God of punishment or war. A war name for God. And seeing as I view myself as evil, I'd be rather ok with God killing me. This would bring me peace.

You respond to one point, and forget/ignore the rest. But hey...

But i explained my mistake in choice of words already; leave them alone as in to not conquer them, and let them learn from your culture if they want to. Remember, African and south American tribes welcomed Europeans in with open arms, and expressed great interest in thema and their itemry, trading enemy captives and other various items for their shiny stuff and rifles. No isolation there. They probably would have adopted plenty of European craft and customs gladly. But European monarchies had no intentions to make friends, they wanted subjects. So they stabbed them in the back when they saw how inviting they are. If England, and the rest of Europe, truly wanted to spread their culture, they would have just commingled and traded with them. But England, and European culture was spread as a way of weakening and confusing the opposition by eradicating their heritage, culture and history, not because they wanted to help them. Any technological advancements placed in those regions were for colonial and empire building; more land, more British influence, not goodwill towards the natives.

If you are deducing that indigenous, non-first world cultures have low moral codes, where they do not punish crimes (harshly!) for stealing and murder, who do not have a strong, thick family and community bind with love and respect or one another and their property, procedural, multi-tiered adjudicatory processes for disputes and grievances, you know, societal characteristics the things that people of your mindset relegate to nations with modern technology and infrastructure, then you are seriously, woefully, dangerously ignorant of the rest of the world. Once again, how do you say "unite under one moral code" when the moral code of the British has been atrocious, and that the nations and people are as empirically moral as any other nation? I don't get it, clarify please.

Educate yourself, look up on various primitive tribes still existing today in South America and Africa. Simple bartering and monetary compensation system, roles designated for everyone based on their strengths and weaknesses, organized social and administrative classes. Community organizations and groups. And these are the but nakes, mud hut, bone piercings stuck in the nose type of tribes, ignorant shamanism, spirit worship, black magic ritual type of tribes.

The only thing your mind is stuck on is the but nakes, mud hut, bone piercings stuck in the nose type of tribes, ignorant shamanism, spirit worship, black magic ritual part, and that is probably why you think it is okay for them to be violently subjugated.

You speak of nature being destroyed by modern technology and practices as a badge of honor and progress. There is nothing good about destroying something that God has given you no authority to destroy, or something as beautiful, diverse, and VITAL to the health of this planet that God has created as nature. I know of the damage done to this earth, but are you speaking on this destruction from a point of pride? If so, that is pretty sad.

Not sure what you are saying with colombus.

Show me where Jehovah means wargod, or punisher.

And you consider yourself evil and feel at rest when God kills you? Evil in what way, and why peace through Gods killing of you?

a reply to: bigman88

Jehovah's component words are Jah, and Hova. Jah is the germanized Yah, a Hebrew nickname for YHWH (Strong's 3050). Hovah is a Hebrew word which means a ruin, or disaster, (Strong's 1943).

Because we know that putting Yah, or in German, Jah, in front or inside of a word indicates a description for God, such as:

MatisYAHu, (In English, Matthew): Gift of Yah.
EliYAHu, (In English, Elijah): My God is Yah
NetanYAHu, (In English, Nathaniel): God has Given.

...It can than me said that a word like YAHhovah, in fact, means God is ruin. Or God is a disaster. Either a curse word, or a description of God in war. I cannot tell, though the one who gave me this information believed it to be a curse word.

Perhaps, if I may suggest, you take Havah (Strong's 1933b), which means to be, and combine it with YAH, to get YAHhwah. "God is". This is also how the Syriac Christians pronounce his name.

But these things are beside the point.

You make pretty quick assumptions to what the Natives did. I know for Latin America, the Natives were no better than the Spanish. They would have sacrificed them. They worshiped death. The only peaceful Native Americans were the Inca and to the North, the tribals of the East coast lands. And both these people were quite content to isolate themselves. The only reason the natives helped the pilgrims, is because their chief had converted to Christianity years before, when one tried to enslave him, and a Christian stopped it. Similar events happened to the south, namely that the most evil pope in history, the Borgia one, still had enough good sense in him to declare slavery evil, the Spanish wrong, and uphold the priests traveling with Columbus, demanding his prosecution for his sins.

These things, simply put, are not so black and white as you would like. The interaction between worlds never is.

Oh there's plenty of technological and cultural interesting things in mud huts and spirit worship. Hell, some African tribes invented primitive forms of reinforced concrete thousands of years before Europeans. But it's the deeper cultural practices that makes them primitive, and in my opinion, inferior. The culture, remember. Not the people. Like the Inca being more superior to the Aztec and Maya, so too were some African tribes more superior to the hunter gatherer primitives in Africa. Take for instance, the similarity of some primitive art in Africa to that at Gobekli Tepe, suggesting a primitive origin.

In order to value God, you must kill God. In order to value nature, you must kill nature. Humans only ever learned to value the things they've lost.

a reply to: woogleuk

I raise you this image

a reply to: shauny

You know if you lot had gone independent the rest of us would of had to bail you out by now unless you had planned to scrap your NHS or something.
All those SNP votes have killed any chances of a Scot ever getting a job with me or my wife, I know for a fact I am not the only person feeling like this. You can't stick up 2 fingers to the rest of us and think we won't care.

a reply to: biggilo

Don't class all Scots the same I don't like the SNP view on Europe, I want out the sooner the better didn't vote for them and don't intend to.

a reply to: shauny

Which, when you actually look into the how and why of it, means sod all.

Once again, the SNP only managed to get some 1.4% of the overall vote and only 1.4 Million in absolute terms - some 1 million less than the Lib Dems who got annihilated.

The SNP benefited from the FTPT system and the fact that Scotland has too many seats for it's population - it is not lost they have now changed their tune on reforming the voting system, by the way. Hypocrites.

In fact, the SNP polled some 2.4 Million less than UKIP, who only gained one seat.

You can keep banging the SNP drum, but it's all coming out in the wash now, such as despite being in power for 8 years, Scottish Education has fallen even further behind, for example and let's not even begin to take apart their economic case which was simply deluded (link)

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: shauny

Which, when you actually look into the how and why of it, means sod all.

Once again, the SNP only managed to get some 1.4% of the overall vote and only 1.4 Million in absolute terms - some 1 million less than the Lib Dems who got annihilated.

The SNP benefited from the FTPT system and the fact that Scotland has too many seats for it's population - it is not lost they have now changed their tune on reforming the voting system, by the way. Hypocrites.

In fact, the SNP polled some 2.4 Million less than UKIP, who only gained one seat.

You can keep banging the SNP drum, but it's all coming out in the wash now, such as despite being in power for 8 years, Scottish Education has fallen even further behind, for example and let's not even begin to take apart their economic case which was simply deluded (link)

oh, i'm gonna have fun replying to this later...Ha.

originally posted by: biggilo
a reply to: shauny

You know if you lot had gone independent the rest of us would of had to bail you out by now unless you had planned to scrap your NHS or something.
All those SNP votes have killed any chances of a Scot ever getting a job with me or my wife, I know for a fact I am not the only person feeling like this. You can't stick up 2 fingers to the rest of us and think we won't care.

As far as i'm concerned Northern Ireland should be towed into the Atlantic and sunk just like it's unsinkable Titanic. Nothing but a stain on humanity. SIS was taught everything it knows by the Shankhill Butchers.

a reply to: stumason
They got almost 50% of the vote in the seats in which they stand, total UK vote share isn't relavent when you only stand in less than 10% if the seats.
Have the SNP changed their official stand on FPTP? A genuine question as I haven't seen anything saying they have?

originally posted by: biggilo
a reply to: shauny

You know if you lot had gone independent the rest of us would of had to bail you out by now unless you had planned to scrap your NHS or something.
All those SNP votes have killed any chances of a Scot ever getting a job with me or my wife, I know for a fact I am not the only person feeling like this. You can't stick up 2 fingers to the rest of us and think we won't care.

People exercising their democratic right is sticking 2 fingers to you? Do all UKIP voters hate Europeans then?

a reply to: ScepticScot

They polled 50% of the votes cast across the whole of Scotland, but I wouldn't say they they won 50% of the votes in seats in which they stood - many were won on rather slimmer majorities. But to win all but three of the seats when they only got 50% of the vote - or to win 56 seats in Westminster with only 1.4% of the overall vote while other parties who had far bigger support get much less - shows the flaw in the voting system. To keep it fair, how is it ok for the Tories to have a Parliamentary majority when they only polled 37% of the overall vote?

As for your last question, while many smaller party leaders signed the petition for changing the voting system after the last election, only 2 SNP MP's did so - the party leadership has been suspiciously quiet on this post election when before they were very vocal.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Yeah, if it's similar to your other responses to actual facts and figures Solo, I won't hold my breath. I rather suspect it will be some asinine response that barely touches on the subject matter.

a reply to: stumason
Well party policies aren't decided by petition, however contrary to your earlier post looks like the SNP do still support electoral reform. www.bbc.co.uk...
I assume you withdraw your statement?
Personally I totally agree that the current system is broken, however unless Labour or the Conservatives change policy then it is not going to change at UK level. Sounds like a good reason for independence to me!

a reply to: ScepticScot

Actions speak louder than words and there has been much less of both from the SNP regarding electoral reform since they did so well put of FPTP. Turkey's don't vote for Christmas, after all!

The SNP officially supports the single transferable vote system, which if we had used it in the 2015 election, would have meant around 36 seats for them, instead of 56. Would they sacrifice almost half their MP's now in favour of reform? I doubt it.

But yes, you're right, until the two larger parties get on board for serious attempts to reform the voting system, nothing will be done, despite the hugely successful petitions that have been done over the years.

a reply to: stumason
Well the libdems who where part of the governing coalition and had 1 more seat failed to change the voting system in 5 years so I think you might be being a bit unrealistic in your expectations of the SNP.
The point is that the SNP remain commited to changing the voting system so your assertion that they had hypocritically changed position post the last election is clearly false.
Sadly while I think most people would agree the current system is pretty ridiculous there is not enough consensus on what should replace it and few would put change at the top of their list for deciding who to vote for.

a reply to: ScepticScot

They did try but the Tories killed it with the dafter AV vote and piss poor information being fed to the electorate - it was doomed before they even printed the ballot papers.

As for your second point - if they are still committed even after doing so well out of FPTP, then why did Sturgeon et al not sign the petition? Why was it only 2 out of 56 MP's who did so? There has been precious little noise from the SNP since the election about voting reform when before hand, they made quite a meal of it.

It is sad most people couldn't care less about voting reform - ironically, it would actually give us a Government that was fairly representing the electorate and far more responsive to issues, rather than simply using a win as a mandate to do whatever they bloody well please.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

As far as i'm concerned Northern Ireland should be towed into the Atlantic and sunk just like it's unsinkable Titanic. Nothing but a stain on humanity. SIS was taught everything it knows by the Shankhill Butchers.

Bit harsh considering such a large amount of Scots are Irish immigrants......

Is it Ireland in general you dislike, or just the UK side (Northern)?

a reply to: stumason
I assume you are taking your figure from the independent or bbc article. Both say signatories including the two SNP mps. Including does not mean an exhaustive list. The articles also says was signed by the five party leaders which would include sturgeon and mentions support from Angus Robertson the Westminster party leader.
The two SNP mps are one of the original supporters if the online petition and one who delivered it to downing street hence why they are mentioned.
If you have something that says they are the only two to sign then please share however I think you may be misinterpreting the article.
Regardless the SNP still support electoral reform and statements otherwise are demonstrably false.
The libdems in clearly messed up what may have been their only chance. Real electoral and constitutional reform should have been a must in the coalition agreement.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Yeah, if it's similar to your other responses to actual facts and figures Solo, I won't hold my breath. I rather suspect it will be some asinine response that barely touches on the subject matter.

Says the Man who just quoted The daily Rectum for facts and figures on anything SNP. Daily rectum = pro Unionist Labour anti SNP rag who have lost half their readership in the past 5 years.

I'll reply if and when i can be bothered or maybe i wont. In the grand scheme of things, What the DR says aint that important up here...Independence is inevitable.