Jump to content

Scottish Independence Referendum 2


Henry

Should Scotland be an independent country?  

271 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Scotland be an independent country?

    • Yes
      196
    • No
      75


Recommended Posts

A cursory view of history shows that the construct of deity figures was introduced entirely by organised religions at the advent of urbanised societies after the agricultural revolution. Prior to this there is no historical record of reverence to God figures.

Spiritualist belief systems are believed to have been prevalent among hunter gatherer societies as were they in relatively modern non urbanised societies. Its patently shite to claim humanity has searched for connection to deity figures through its entire history - its been spiritualist based for the majority of its history

Link to comment

18 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I think the evidence shows clearly that its natural for human beings to wonder about and seek God.  Sometimes in history we have seen this manifest in ways that reflect the ignorance of the time, but it would be a mistake to write them all off on that basis.  If one bottle of wine tasted like pish, you wouldn't condemn all wine on that basis.

I strongly disagree that people would not consider the concept without some outside influence.  On the contrary.  Man has been so successful over 1000s of years precisely because he *does* think about things - and his own origins are surely among the most fundamental things to wonder about.

People are curious and inquisitive,  about all manner of things. Being curious about how the world came into existence isn't the same as believing in a god. Every culture has drank alcohol,  does that mean you are born with an innate liking for alcohol?  Of course not,  you're a product of your environment. 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

A historical fact.  Look at:

- the aztecs with their panoply of Gods (even openly copying other peoples Gods) which they would try to please with human sacrifices

- various native American religions

- pagan beliefs: norse mythology, roman and greek gods

- hinduism / eastern mantras

- arbrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Thats a good few 1000 years worth anyway.  Just with those few examples, it shows religion - an effort to know God - occurs among all people, across the globe, in all times.

If it is not innate then that is remarkable set of coincidences.

 

Firstly you can’t state that all citizens of those societies believed in god just that the majority “claimed” too. Religion is a great system for control and it’s beneficial for many to use it and proclaim to believe in it for various social and economic reasons.

Secondly it’s quite simple that when you don’t understand things a higher being is an easy way to convince yourself you do.

As science progressed (and continues to) more and more people seen believing in a god figure was ridiculous.

This shift was always going to be gradual due to a fear of change and love of tradition but it will continue. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

What version?

On what grounds do you consider yourself qualified to reject Christianity?

Always find it funny that a person who thinks Scotland is the only country in the world that cant do anything but believes in an invisible guy in the sky should get any respect.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 1/19/2021 at 12:22 AM, maryhilldon said:

People are curious and inquisitive,  about all manner of things. Being curious about how the world came into existence isn't the same as believing in a god. Every culture has drank alcohol,  does that mean you are born with an innate liking for alcohol?  Of course not,  you're a product of your environment. 

Sorry that is incorrect, alcohol was far from universal, prior to globalism.

To say nothing of Islamic nations, even today some cultures (Indian / asians) struggle with alcohol because its relatively new to them.

Whereas people of european descent have bodies with enzymes which can process alcohol easily - because we have been drinking it for 100s or 1000s of years - other people do not have that capability and so find alcohol absolutely devastating to their system.

Link to comment
On 1/19/2021 at 12:11 AM, rocket_scientist said:

It is impossible to debate with you. Your presumptions are offensive and your interpretations are rigid.

These words of yours were when I should have switched off: -

I was discussing with others, not you.

Your insult was noted, ignored but a few minutes later, on top of further rigidly-and wrongly-held presumptions, they were a further sign (from above) that effective and meaningful communication between us on religion is impossible and would only be counterproductive. Your mind is too fixed. Your maps can't change.

So, basically, you dont want to talk about it because I wont let you win a debate?

And complaining about fixed minds would suggest you are open to persuasion?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
On 1/19/2021 at 12:19 AM, frankie_mac's_4 said:

A cursory view of history shows that the construct of deity figures was introduced entirely by organised religions at the advent of urbanised societies after the agricultural revolution. Prior to this there is no historical record of reverence to God figures.

Spiritualist belief systems are believed to have been prevalent among hunter gatherer societies as were they in relatively modern non urbanised societies. Its patently shite to claim humanity has searched for connection to deity figures through its entire history - its been spiritualist based for the majority of its history

Patent nonsense.

The Egyptians had Gods, for example, considerably prior to the agricultural revolution and Christianity had been present in the UK for centuries prior to that period.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Patent nonsense.

The Egyptians had Gods, for example, considerably prior to the agricultural revolution and Christianity had been present in the UK for centuries prior to that period.

There not something like 3000 different human "Gods"?

But only yours is real?

Surely that should tell you it's a heap of shite?

Link to comment
On 1/19/2021 at 12:34 AM, Redforever86 said:

Firstly you can’t state that all citizens of those societies believed in god just that the majority “claimed” too. Religion is a great system for control and it’s beneficial for many to use it and proclaim to believe in it for various social and economic reasons.

Secondly it’s quite simple that when you don’t understand things a higher being is an easy way to convince yourself you do.

As science progressed (and continues to) more and more people seen believing in a god figure was ridiculous.

This shift was always going to be gradual due to a fear of change and love of tradition but it will continue. 

I didn't make any claims about individuals, only observed that religion has occurred in all times, places and cultures.

I acknowledged before that some religions previously were limited by the ignorance of the time, but Christianity is mainly about how to live (and die) as opposed to a convenient trope to explain the unknown.

And given the Catholic Church has made the single most hefty contribution to the advancement of science in human history, the manufactured portrayal of religious people as being simple jars with reality.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

 I felt you were unable to understand where I was coming from,

But just the other day I posted to say I thought I could appreciate your point of view (and I really thought I did).

On this topic, I will strongly advocate the Catholic faith and rubbish everything else - that's no more rigid or inflexible than someone who takes the view its all rubbish.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, NEM said:

There not something like 3000 different human "Gods"?

But only yours is real?

Surely that should tell you it's a heap of shite?

I have no idea how many false Gods people have created, a good few I should imagine.

A logical analysis of the word "God" indicates that there can only be one of them.

This touches on something that RS said the other day, his discomfort about people thinking they had got it all right, whereas others were all wrong (a reasonable stance).

The reason the Catholic faith is the "right" one is because it alone was divinely instituted and consists of things - not which we made up - but which God has revealed to us.

Edit - some religions are a lot of shite, but we cannot infer that all are, purely  on that basis.

 

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Just now, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I have no idea how many false Gods people have created, a good few I should imagine.

A logical analysis of the word "God" indicates that there can only be one of them.

This touches on something that RS said the other day, his discomfort about people thinking they had got it all right, whereas others were all wrong (a reasonable stance).

The reason the Catholic faith is the "right" one is because it alone was divinely instituted and consists of things - not which we made up - but which God has revealed to us.

 

Ha ha come on now what has God revealed?

If he does exist a walk round a children's cancer word would reveal he's a cunt

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I have no idea how many false Gods people have created, a good few I should imagine.

A logical analysis of the word "God" indicates that there can only be one of them.

This touches on something that RS said the other day, his discomfort about people thinking they had got it all right, whereas others were all wrong (a reasonable stance).

The reason the Catholic faith is the "right" one is because it alone was divinely instituted and consists of things - not which we made up - but which God has revealed to us.

Edit - some religions are a lot of shite, but we cannot infer that all are, purely  on that basis.

 

Did he reveal anything about abusing kids at the same time?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jocky Balboa said:

While some are straying further from the topic and disappearing down a sky pixie-themed rabbit hole, the noose is tightening around the stinking corruption of the Murrell Mafia's inner circle. Surely the FM can't survive now?

 

5 hours ago, maryhilldon said:

What's happened?  Nothing in the MSM about it all. 

Fucked over Celtics 10IAR.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Jocky Balboa said:

While some are straying further from the topic and disappearing down a sky pixie-themed rabbit hole, the noose is tightening around the stinking corruption of the Murrell Mafia's inner circle. Surely the FM can't survive now?

You make it sound like a synopsis for an upcoming Taggart episode. 

Link to comment
On 1/22/2021 at 7:46 AM, Parklife said:

You make it sound like a synopsis for an upcoming Taggart episode. 

Nothing so dramatic, but attempting to put an innocent man in jail for the rest of his natural life, on sex charges which were so ridiculous the FM and her administration were advised not to proceed on, is pretty corrupt, is it not? It's also a huge slap in the face to the many genuine victims of sex assault (both male and female) who struggle to be heard, far less see justice.

If the FM and her husband don't see the inside of a jail cell at the end of this, it will be a disgrace to Scottish justice.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jocky Balboa said:

Nothing so dramatic, but attempting to put an innocent man in jail for the rest of his natural life, on sex charges which were so ridiculous the FM and her administration were advised not to proceed on, is pretty corrupt, is it not? It's also a huge slap in the face to the many genuine victims of sex assault (both male and female) who struggle to be heard, far less see justice.

If the FM and her husband don't see the inside of a jail cell at the end of this, it will be a disgrace to Scottish justice.

I was just making a joke, trying to inject some humour. 

I agree that it looks very much like Salmond was set up (Ive said so on here several times). Quite how high that goes, I don't know. I don't believe it goes as high as Sturgeon. She may have lied about when she was told things but I don't believe she was part of any conspiracy to set him up. 

Maybe I'm naive and will be proved wrong. 

Link to comment

In a new plan for indyref2 – revealed exclusively by The National today – the SNP are set to tell the Prime Minister that he’ll need to take legal action if he wants to stop Scots voters having their say on the constitution. Michael Russell outlines how they will do it

1. The Scottish Parliament has already passed two bills that lay the groundwork for a referendum on independence. The first was the Referendums (Scotland) Bill which became law on January 29, 2020. The Scottish Elections (Franchise & Representation) Bill was then passed in February and gained Royal Assent on April 1. 
 
2. These two bills set out the general rules for any referendum and the franchise that would apply to all referendums held in Scotland. 
 
3. This approach, which is different from that taken in 2013/4 require details of any particular referendum – question, timescale and some specific regulations – to be passed by the Parliament and accordingly only a further short bill is required to complete the legislative preparations for a second independence referendum 
 
4. Work on that bill and on other independence-related tasks was suspended on March 16, 2020 as a result of the need to deploy as many civil servants as possible to work on Scotland’s response to the pandemic. 
 
5. The SNP Scottish Government announced in the Programme for Government in September 2020 that a draft bill for an independence referendum, to give people in Scotland the right to choose their own future, would be published before the Holyrood election in May 2021 and would be enacted if an SNP Scottish Government is re-elected with a majority to do so (either as a result of gaining an overall majority or if it had such a majority as a result of support from another pro-independence party). 

 

READ MORE: SNP unveils plan to hold indyref2 – even if Boris Johnson says no
 

6. The draft bill will be published as planned and the SNP Scottish Government will include the promise to enact the bill in its manifesto. 
 
7. The SNP Scottish Government continues to maintain that a referendum must be beyond legal challenge to ensure legitimacy and acceptance at home and abroad. This is the surest way by far of becoming an independent country. It should be held after the pandemic, at a time to be decided by the democratically elected Scottish Parliament. The SNP believes that should be in the early part of the new term. 

8. If the SNP takes office the Scottish Government will again request a Section 30 order from the UK Government believing and publicly contending that in such circumstances there could be no moral or democratic justification for denying that request. If the UK Government were to adopt such a position its position would be unsustainable both at home and abroad. 
 
9. However, in the election, the SNP’s proposition, for which we will be seeking the express authority of the Scottish people, will be clear and unambiguous – if there is a parliamentary majority so to do, we will introduce and pass a bill so that the necessary arrangements for the referendum can be made and implemented thereafter once the pandemic is over.

The National:

Nicola Sturgeon will hold a legal referendum if Westminster says no

10. In these circumstances, in which there has been an unambiguously expressed democratic decision by the people of Scotland and their Parliament to have a legal referendum the choice of the UK Government will be clear; to either (1) agree that the Scottish Parliament already 
has the power to legislate for a referendum or (2) in line with precedent, agree the Section 30 order to put that question beyond any doubt or (3) take legal action to dispute the legal basis of the referendum and seek to block the will of the Scottish people in the courts. Such a legal challenge would be vigorously opposed by an SNP Scottish Government.


11. The issue of whether there should be such a referendum is different from the issue of whether Scotland should be independent. A national campaign of information and education on independence. Hopefully within the 
context of a renewed and widely 
based Yes campaign, will take place in parallel with the work being done to organise the referendum during and after the bill’s passage.

* The National recently hit 11,000 digital subscribers. Every single subscriber who signs up means we can better make the case for independence. Join us today at www.thenational.scot/subscribe

 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 

 

Link to comment

Sturgeon is 100% guilty of trying to fit up Salmond .If anybody has watched the last few times she has been asked about this on her tv show ,the expression on her face spelled out GUILTY.Like a toddler caught with their hand in the sweetie box.

I think she has believed her own hype and thought she was indestructible and could do what she wanted.The SNP are run like a gangster outfit who think there is no comeback on them no matter what they get up to.

She has shown how devious she is by trying to force a court case on Salmond even though the advice was to drop it.This alone should get her sacked as Salmond had to be paid £550,000 legal costs for a wrongful prosecution..

They have hindered the Parliamentary committee that are investigating this at every opportunity by refusing to hand over evidence and even though they have now been forced into revealing this,a lot of texts,messages and documents could have already been deleted.

Looks like her spin is finally falling apart.

  • Upvote 2
  • Dildo 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...