grianach

[grianach @grianach2]

@D14J88 It was a punishment for a rebellion, but the method chosen was explicitly cultural. When a government bans your clothing, language, and social structure to pacify you, that is literally a cultural war.
Also, lowlanders wore plaid just not highland plaid so we're spared the ban.

[grianach @grianach2]

@dylan04gla Swinney didn't smear voters; he called out Reform for hiding behind a policy which they know is reserved to Westminster to drop dog-whistles right after Glasgow faced disorder. Calling out inflammatory language isn't "whipping up division"

[grianach @grianach2]

@BristolGalt Source?
For context, the entire annual budget for the NHS (healthcare) is roughly £180 billion, and the total welfare bill (which includes state pensions, universal credit, disability benefits, etc.) is around £300 billion. The maths ain't mathing.

[grianach @grianach2]

@Malcolm_Offord You should match it. In fact you could double it be the bigger man instead of bitching on social media about it. It's a good cause is it not?

[grianach @grianach2]

@KingdomEngland1 @pat11060 You're inventing legal history. 'Citizenship' didn't exist in 1707; everyone was a subject of the Crown.
You still haven't explained how different legal systems stop Westminster from acting today when they didn't stop them in 1707."

[grianach @grianach2]

@KingdomEngland1 @pat11060 You have the history backward. The Treaty was signed in 1706, and the Acts were passed afterward to ratify it.
More importantly, Article 1 of the Act of Union literally says the two kingdoms are united 'into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain.' They aren't separate things.

[grianach @grianach2]

@KingdomEngland1 @pat11060 "You didn't answer the question. You said the UK cannot act because Scots and England have different legal systems. But you just admitted that in 1707, with different legal systems they created the UK. So which is it? Do different legal systems stop parliament,or don't they?

[grianach @grianach2]

@chazul11 @Anderson_JSA @ScotNational You appear to be unable to answer the question. So show the information that backs the claim 250 people pay 60% of the income tax.

[grianach @grianach2]

@thisisgoradio So what's the source of this figure.?

[grianach @grianach2]

@implausibleblog @ChildOfAlba He probably has a good point. Malnutrition is a major drain on the health budget and people really don't know the full extent of it.

[grianach @grianach2]

@FrankLeeBrian @afneil What's bollocks?

[grianach @grianach2]

@FrankLeeBrian How is HS2 funded?

[grianach @grianach2]

@rgsneddon There is nothing divisive about stating military history. If we are aligned on protecting heritage, then we have to look at the whole picture including the decisions made in Whitehall that dismantled the local regiments in the first place.

[grianach @grianach2]

@rgsneddon You can't talk about the current state of a regiment without talking about how it was created. Denying the history doesn't change it. Some of us were actually there while it happened.

[grianach @grianach2]

@rgsneddon It is the same topic. You're upset about the erosion of local military heritage. I'm pointing out the actual root cause of that erosion: the UK government amalgamation of historic local regiments and replacing them with a massive super regiment.

[grianach @grianach2]

@SteveSayersOne Since you can't have a separate legal system without separate rights, your own argument completely collapsed.
England had its own Bill of Rights The Claim of Right didn't 'extend' anything to the English in 1707. I think we both know why you get blocked have a nice day. 😂

[grianach @grianach2]

@SteveSayersOne If you admit the 1689 Act 'was explicitly preserved as part of Scotland's separate legal system,' how can you simultaneously claim it gives Scots 'ZERO separate rights'?
You can't have an active law protecting a separate legal system without that law securing separate rights.