Comments by "Andy Monaghan" (@229andymon) on "CaspianReport" channel.

  1. 51
  2. 43
  3. 16
  4. 11
  5. 10
  6. 8
  7. 8
  8. 7
  9. 7
  10. 6
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32.  @wholelifeahead  Firstly - who’s talking about having lots of referendums? We’re only going to need one more. But, even if we did need 10 or 50 more as long as there’s enough democratic support for 10 more then that’s what we should have. The key is support, which is the bedrock of any functioning democracy. However messy the people’s vote may be, it must be heard. And yes, I’d say that if it was unionists campaigning to re-unify with UK (they won’t, btw). Second - You’ve ticked another unionist BS bingo box with your - it’s an “emotional” decision. It’s bugger all to do with emotion, you’ve been propagandised by the outrageously biased unionist Brit media into believing we all paint our faces blue and have swords above our mantle pieces. Do the SNP strike you as painting their faces blue? It’s a carefully considered (and intelligent) decision arrived at over many years. Give us some basic credit for Christ sake..! Lastly. What is notably absent from the Scottish Indy debate is any feeling of Scottish exceptionalism. Which, let’s face it, doesn’t exactly sit well with your (forgiven) accusation we’ve got a chip on our shoulder, does it? I wish I could say the same for British (aka English) politics right now. We will be content with our status as a small European nation that is part of the EU. like Denmark or Ireland etc. I have zero problem with that. The UK has lasted 300 years. Long enough. Let me ask you a question that I would appreciate if you to answer thoughtfully and 100% truthfully. Is your concern about us leaving because of what the effects will be for Scotland, or UK? Because they aren’t the same.
    2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38.  @_blanding  You make many points, but your central argument is the usual one of "basket case Scotland". Apart from being offensively insulting, unsubstantiated and typically Brit unionist, I don't accept it. The subject is hugely complex as opposed to the blithe dismissal you provide and just how well Scotland will do once free of the dead hand of London control is dependent on many factors, some of which can only be estimated. If I asked you to elaborate your opinion regarding our economic hopelessness (be unable to do what many nations have done that have far less than our advantages), I fully expect we'd end up with the notorious GERS unionist mantra. Spoiler is I don't accept that either. But let me rather pick up on a couple of your other mistakes. Firstly, our indy will not "end" Scotland and England (I note you typically forget the other 2 nations). That is frankly absurd. However, it will end the UK, which I expect you are, again typically, equating with England, so perhaps that's what you mean. Secondly your suggestion to try to make the unfair, undemocratic, unequal and now involuntary UK union more tolerable via a bunch of reforms no Westminster regime will make and a "British Council" will neither happen nor is any kind of substitute for Scots running Scotland, which we'll do far better than any London based unionist mob that does not have our best interests at heart. How would you propose this Camelot style "Council" would work anyway? How would you avoid the critical problem of England outvoting the rest of us put together several times over?. You also make a fundamental error directly comparing Brexit with Scexit. The motivations and consequences of both are very different and if you don't understand that I seriously suggest you make a further effort to. The English made a drastic mistake with Brexit, for negative reasons and with drastic consequences, please don't tar us with their nationalistic, isolationist brush. I'm happy to discuss further how each exit will differ, but perhaps you could reflect further on some of the obvious differences first. Lastly, I'll just mention that we will have no need of a UK style defence profile as we won't conduct an aggressive foreign policy bent on "promoting UK interests". Nor will we want your nuclear WMD 30 miles from our biggest population centre. I suggest you rather park them in the Thames, after all, you've been telling us how safe they are for decades. It is UK that will lose in that regard when we leave (not our fault) and if you really need proof, have a look at a map. But, I'll end with a simple, direct question - is your "concern" around what's best for Scotland, or for UK, because I can categorically assure you they are not the same.
    2
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1