Donald Trump threatens to pull £700m investment from Scotland

Donald Trump has threatened to withhold £700m of investment in Scotland if he is banned from entering the UK.

MPs will debate later this month whether the US presidential hopeful should be refused entry.

It follows the billionaire property tycoon calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US.

More than half a million people backed a petition calling on the tycoon to be barred for his comments, triggering a debate in the Commons.

However, there will be no vote at the end of the debate and it will be up to Home Secretary Theresa May to decide whether or not Mr Trump should be excluded from the UK.

MPs to debate calls to ban Donald Trump
Could Trump really be US president?
22 things that Donald Trump believes

Mr Trump owns the Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire as well as Trump International Golf Links near Aberdeen.

In a statement, his Trump Organisation said it had planned to invest more than £200m at Turnberry and a further £500m at the Aberdeenshire course.

But it warned that any action to restrict travel would force it to "immediately end these and all future investments we are currently contemplating in the United Kingdom".

It added: "Westminster would create a dangerous precedent and send a terrible message to the world that the United Kingdom opposes free speech and has no interest in attracting inward investment.

"This would also alienate the many millions of United States citizens who wholeheartedly support Mr Trump and have made him the forerunner by far in the 2016 presidential election.

"Many people now agree with Mr Trump that there is a serious problem that must be resolved. This can only be achieved if we are willing discuss these tough issues openly and honestly."

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon last month joined the calls for Mr Trump to be considered for exclusion from the UK.

Prime Minister David Cameron has previously labelled Mr Trump's comments "stupid" but said he did not support a ban, telling MPs the tycoon would "unite us all against him" if he visited the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35246991

i am sure i speak for many Scots when i say Trump can go and fuck him self

Why should he be banned? He's allowed to say what he likes: freedom of speech

We had that Muslim tosser over here who was spouting shit for years.

That seems fair enough. I wouldn't expect anyone to invest any money in a country they were banned from.

eddie wrote:Why should he be banned? He's allowed to say what he likes: freedom of speech

We had that Muslim tosser over here who was spouting shit for years.

And for years we tried to get rid of him  regardless of freedom of speech

And i know the RW like to cite freedom of speech as a justification to say anything they want, however freedom of speech does have  its limits for example

Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation

I'm not right wing KD

eddie wrote:I'm not right wing KD

er...i said THE RW
i did not say you did i ?

This seem very petty to me -- threatening to take revenge against someone who isn't even involved with his possible ban from entry ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:This seem very petty to me -- threatening to take revenge against someone who isn't even involved with his possible ban from entry ...

Would you like to pay money to a club from which you were banned? Nicola Sturgeon would like to see him banned actually, and she does seem to represent a lot of Scots.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:This seem very petty to me -- threatening to take revenge against someone who isn't even involved with his possible ban from entry ...

Would you like to pay money to a club from which you were banned? Nicola Sturgeon would like to see him banned actually, and she does seem to represent a lot of Scots.

Really?
So guilt by association based off half a million people out of 62 million people is a reason to withold money is it?

korban dallas wrote:

eddie wrote:Why should he be banned? He's allowed to say what he likes: freedom of speech

We had that Muslim tosser over here who was spouting shit for years.

And for years we tried to get rid of him  regardless of freedom of speech

And i know the RW like to cite freedom of speech as a justification to say anything they want, however freedom of speech does have  its limits for example

Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation

And yet the left do little in regards to Muslim hate preachers coming to the uk?
Freedom of Speech does not have limits, when they are said outside the uK.
What you need is when that person speaks there is someone in opposition to them to counter their views.
That is how you counter hate speech.
The point is these people are going to say what they want no matter whether you ban them or not and it is having people there to counter their views.
Hence why nobody should be banned but to counter hate speech of those that do come.

To be honest lets face it over half a million is pitiful when you think about it that we have 3 million Muslims and the vast majority of them are not bothered to even sign such a petition.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Would you like to pay money to a club from which you were banned? Nicola Sturgeon would like to see him banned actually, and she does seem to represent a lot of Scots.

Really?
So guilt by association based off half a million people out of 62 million people is a reason to withold money is it?

I don't see why not. It's his money, and it's only going towards golf courses anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Really?
So guilt by association based off half a million people out of 62 million people is a reason to withold money is it?

I don't see why not. It's his money, and it's only going towards golf courses anyway.

Really?
So making the vast majority cuplable for something they never even signed is fair to you then?
The other 61 million plus people?
So yes he is being utterly childish throwing his dummy out, which will further work against him.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Would you like to pay money to a club from which you were banned? Nicola Sturgeon would like to see him banned actually, and she does seem to represent a lot of Scots.

Really?
So guilt by association based off half a million people out of 62 million people is a reason to withold money is it?

I don't see why not. It's his money, and it's only going towards golf courses anyway.

Raggs, really. Nobody is saying it's not his money. Nobody's saying he doesn't get to do with it as he pleases.

But the fact is, he made agreements to invest these -- not out of the kindness of his heart, but to make more money -- and now he's saying he won't go through with it if the London-based government bans his entry. Your analogy really does not work, unless my payment to the club is an investment and I'm threatening to stop paying it because the police of the city the club is in don't like me.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
And for years we tried to get rid of him  regardless of freedom of speech

And i know the RW like to cite freedom of speech as a justification to say anything they want, however freedom of speech does have  its limits for example

Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation

And yet the left do little in regards to Muslim hate preachers coming to the uk?
Freedom of Speech does not have limits, when they are said outside the uK.
What you need is when that person speaks there is someone in opposition to them to counter their views.
That is how you counter hate speech.
The point is these people are going to say what they want no matter whether you ban them or not and it is having people there to counter their views.
Hence why nobody should be banned but to counter hate speech of those that do come.

To be honest lets face it over half a million is pitiful when you think about it that we have 3 million Muslims and the vast majority of them are not bothered to even sign such a petition.

i disagree for one they are subject to the country's laws in which the comments are made ,and as i recall he would not be the first the first person  denied entry to the uk because of there hate-full rhetoric

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't see why not. It's his money, and it's only going towards golf courses anyway.

Really?
So making the vast majority cuplable for something they never even signed is fair to you then?
The other 61 million plus people?
So yes he is being utterly childish throwing his dummy out, which will further work against him.

I don't have a problem with it. It's his money.

The other thing is in this day and age of technology, where you want to make a speech, you do not even have to be physically there.
They can set up a video link on a big screen.
Like I say I would rather they were invited to speak but with people in opposition to make people like Trump look utterly small and simple.
Better to have the publicity of people show up how absurd views are than to allow other ways for them to speak that will go completely unchecked.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Really?
So making the vast majority cuplable for something they never even signed is fair to you then?
The other 61 million plus people?
So yes he is being utterly childish throwing his dummy out, which will further work against him.

I don't have a problem with it. It's his money.

But your reasoning as to why is flawed.

The United Kingdom has a very explicit policy of not allowing hate preachers and inciters of violence to enter their nation. It is in this vein that the UK has announced another massive blow to the merchants of Islamophobic hate and fear; Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer and his close companion Pamela Geller have been banned from entering the UK to speak at a rally for the extremist English Defence League.

Guardian political columnist Sunny Hundal has the initial details,

   Both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been banned from entering the UK by the Home Office, after a campaign by the anti-racist group Hope Not Hate.

   Both bloggers posted letters to their websites today, from the Home Office, stating that they had been banned from entering.

   Letter to Robert Spencer

   Letter to Pamela Geller

   The duo were invited to speak at a rally by the English Defence League.

   The letter stated:

       After careful consideration, she [the Home Secretary] personally directed that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence here is not conducive to the public good.

       The Home Secretary has reached this decision because you have brought yourself within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

   Pamela Geller has been exposed as repeatedly publishing false stories about Muslims in order to stir up hatred.

The BBC and Huffington Post have also covered the story.

Hope Not Hate presented a dossier to the Home Office on the anti-Muslim Crusader ideology that spurs both Spencer and Geller as well as a petition signed by 10,000 concerned UK citizens that decisively persuaded the Home Office to condemn and ban the pair.

The work of Loonwatch and Spencerwatch were also used by the Home Secretary as major sources that informed them of the vile, Islamophobic nature of the two hate group leaders, aiding in today’s outcome.

Of course the predictable reaction from Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller has been to madly rant and rave at Hope Not Hate and its founder Nick Lowles about “darkness” and “untold misery” and “subjugation and enslavement.” They just cannot countenance that their brand of hate is continuously being defeated and relegated to the dustbin of hate history–where it belongs.


http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/06/rev-deacon-robert-spencer-and-pamela-geller-banned-from-the-uk-for-inciting-hatred/


however the big difference between them and trump is trump has lots of money they do not

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

And yet the left do little in regards to Muslim hate preachers coming to the uk?
Freedom of Speech does not have limits, when they are said outside the uK.
What you need is when that person speaks there is someone in opposition to them to counter their views.
That is how you counter hate speech.
The point is these people are going to say what they want no matter whether you ban them or not and it is having people there to counter their views.
Hence why nobody should be banned but to counter hate speech of those that do come.

To be honest lets face it over half a million is pitiful when you think about it that we have 3 million Muslims and the vast majority of them are not bothered to even sign such a petition.

i disagree for one they are subject to the country's laws in which the comments are made ,and as i recall he would not be the first the first person  denied entry to the uk because of there hate-full rhetoric

Which will only gain them publicity further and how we shy away from someone who will can easily show up in debate, the point you miss.
Again  you counter hate speech bu showing how wrong it is, not by trying to silence it, which you will never have a hope in hell of doing so. All you end up doing is providing him with further PR.
You stand united to reason his views are poor.
Censurship never works.

I once thought the same Korben, but today more than anything you only gain further publicity by banning such people.
I would rather they came and were humilitated in a very public areana, by people intelligent, witty and able to show and reason why such views held are hateful by those of hate.

Catch you later

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't have a problem with it. It's his money.

But your reasoning as to why is flawed.

I don't agree. He's making an investment, and if he's not allowed into the country where he's doing that, I can see his point.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't see why not. It's his money, and it's only going towards golf courses anyway.

Raggs, really. Nobody is saying it's not his money. Nobody's saying he doesn't get to do with it as he pleases.

But the fact is, he made agreements to invest these -- not out of the kindness of his heart, but to make more money -- and now he's saying he won't go through with it if the London-based government bans his entry. Your analogy really does not work, unless my payment to the club is an investment and I'm threatening to stop paying it because the police of the city the club is in don't like me.

It's up to him if he decides he doesn't want to invest after all. Scotland is part of the UK, and any ban would be decided in London, not on a golf course in Scotland. What if he wanted to visit the place which he invested in? It would be a bit silly to invest in something you can't actually visit wouldn't it?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I once thought the same Korben, but today more than anything you only gain further publicity by banning such people.
I would rather they came and were humilitated in a very public areana, by people intelligent, witty and able to show and reason why such views held are hateful by those of hate.

Catch you later

i am not saying your wrong and there is some merit in them coming and then being being humiliated
however try that and 9/10 times there security rushes you out or you denied entry to the event
ironically thereby limiting the free speech they justify there own rhetoric with

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggs, really. Nobody is saying it's not his money. Nobody's saying he doesn't get to do with it as he pleases.

But the fact is, he made agreements to invest these -- not out of the kindness of his heart, but to make more money -- and now he's saying he won't go through with it if the London-based government bans his entry. Your analogy really does not work, unless my payment to the club is an investment and I'm threatening to stop paying it because the police of the city the club is in don't like me.

It's up to him if he decides he doesn't want to invest after all. Scotland is part of the UK, and any ban would be decided in London, not on a golf course in Scotland. What if he wanted to visit the place which he invested in? It would be a bit silly to invest in something you can't actually visit wouldn't it?

pretty sure its a Scottish decision not an English one and London has little say in the matter

he can visit England as much as he wants and i am pretty sure we didn`t want his scabby golf course anyway
And we have the worlds premier golf courses anyway

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


But your reasoning as to why is flawed.

I don't agree. He's making an investment, and if he's not allowed into the country where he's doing that, I can see his point.

Again he is making a point againt a whole nation off a decision only a few people made.
That is called throwing his dummy out making himself look very stupid
He has no point other than being childish

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's up to him if he decides he doesn't want to invest after all. Scotland is part of the UK, and any ban would be decided in London, not on a golf course in Scotland. What if he wanted to visit the place which he invested in? It would be a bit silly to invest in something you can't actually visit wouldn't it?

pretty sure its a Scottish decision not an English one and London has little say in the matter

he can visit England as much as he wants and i am pretty sure we didn`t want his scabby golf course anyway
And we have the worlds premier golf courses anyway

No, it would be up to Theresa May, and it would include the whole of the UK.

However, there will be no vote at the end of the debate and it will be up to Home Secretary Theresa May to decide whether or not Mr Trump should be excluded from the UK.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree. He's making an investment, and if he's not allowed into the country where he's doing that, I can see his point.

Again he is making a point againt a whole nation off a decision only a few people made.
That is called throwing his dummy out making himself look very stupid
He has no point other than being childish

So what? Those few people represent the UK.

I really don't get why you and others have a problem with this. Why should he invest in a country which he is banned from? That's just stupid.

Well if Trump does decide to pull out of any invetsment it will further damage his reputation and future of being elected.
You seem to neglect Rags, the door swings both ways in those who can either assist or hinder him in his Presentential election, but hey, you advocate making countless culpable for something they never did, thus backing what can only be described as an immature act by Trump.

Banning him will send out a wrong message to other investors, then again, that hairdo, 3 Shredded Wheat???????? he should be banned for that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree. He's making an investment, and if he's not allowed into the country where he's doing that, I can see his point.

Again he is making a point againt a whole nation off a decision only a few people made.
That is called throwing his dummy out making himself look very stupid
He has no point other than being childish

So what? Those few people represent the UK.

I really don't get why you and others have a problem with this. Why should he invest in a country which he is banned from? That's just stupid.

To make money?

preempt the tit. seize the investments he already has here

THAT would f**k with his tiny brain, indeed can you imagine the fury........

Anyway I very much doubt he would be ommitted from being able to come to the UK, even more so when he looks like being the next Republican Presidential Candidate. The Uk would have to be mad to do so, if in the unlikely event he did get electe. Even more so if the Uk does exit the EU. It would not be the brightest of moves to leave the EU and then have banned the next possible US President. All hypothetical but which is why it would damage his reputation further if Trump did pull his investment as it just looks like sour grapes, where he would look far in better stead if he went ahead even if banned.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Well if Trump does decide to pull out of any invetsment it will further damage his reputation and future of being elected.
You seem to neglect Rags, the door swings both ways in those who can either assist or hinder him in his Presentential election, but hey, you advocate making countless culpable for something they never did, thus backing what can only be described as an immature act by Trump.

I don't know what else I can say really. He's investing in a couple of golf courses - that's hardly going to have an impact on most of the population. I certainly wouldn't invest in something I wasn't allowed to visit, but hey ...

I don't see why the people of the US would care if he invested in a golf course or not.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So what? Those few people represent the UK.

I really don't get why you and others have a problem with this. Why should he invest in a country which he is banned from? That's just stupid.

To make money?

So what's the problem with him deciding he doesn't want to make money that way?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Well if Trump does decide to pull out of any invetsment it will further damage his reputation and future of being elected.
You seem to neglect Rags, the door swings both ways in those who can either assist or hinder him in his Presentential election, but hey, you advocate making countless culpable for something they never did, thus backing what can only be described as an immature act by Trump.

I don't know what else I can say really. He's investing in a couple of golf courses - that's hardly going to have an impact on most of the population. I certainly wouldn't invest in something I wasn't allowed to visit, but hey ...

I don't see why the people of the US would care if he invested in a golf course or not.

See my last post
It will be what effect it has on votes for him, being as there is no doubt also other American Scottish descent investors. If you think people would not care in the US it shows how little you know of how proud many are of their heritage
Evert act has consequences.

Think he might be getting the message by now, only a month ago he was:

stripped of his role as a Scottish business ambassador by Nicola Sturgeon after she says 'obnoxious and offensive' presidential candidate is 'no longer fit' for the post 

Now that is the Pot calling the Kettle black if ever I saw one lol.
Sturgeon is about as obnoxious and offensive as they get

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Now that is the Pot calling the Kettle black if ever I saw one lol.
Sturgeon is about as obnoxious and offensive as they get

+1 the poison dwarf

Seems you both hate strong women who could wipe the floor with both of you at the same time and not break out into a sweat lol

sassy wrote:Seems you both hate strong women who could wipe the floor with both of you at the same time and not break out into a sweat lol

Where did I say I hate her?
She maybe a strong woman, so was Maggie a strong woman, of which you most certainly hated.
I rightly think she is obnoxious and offensive, which does not require me to hate her, but rather pity her
Claiming she could wipe the floor is your opinion based on nothing grounded.

Also why on earth do you make this a view to claim as if either myself or Victor are being sexist, when neither of us made a view on her gender.
That is again trying to invent and steer the debate onto both of us as posters as if we hate strong women, which is completely false.
As why would I admire Maggie?
Sturgeon's gender has nothing to do with me viewing her as obnoxious and offensive.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Also why on earth do you make this a view to claim as if either myself or Victor are being sexist, when neither of us made a view on her gender.
That is again trying to invent and steer the debate onto both of us as posters as if we hate strong women, which is completely false.
As why would I admire Maggie?
Sturgeon's gender has nothing to do with me viewing her as obnoxious and offensive.

offensive ? in what way ?

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Also why on earth do you make this a view to claim as if either myself or Victor are being sexist, when neither of us made a view on her gender.
That is again trying to invent and steer the debate onto both of us as posters as if we hate strong women, which is completely false.
As why would I admire Maggie?
Sturgeon's gender has nothing to do with me viewing her as obnoxious and offensive.

offensive ? in what way ?

In how she belittles others, as if her own shit smells better than most.
I think she is fundementally offensive towards the English also and has utterly no care for the unity of this country

sturgeon is a lefty...you shouldnt be surprised that sassy see's her as a "strong woman"

yet recons maggie...who's politics I equally despised isnt ???????????

christ...if a rat voted left, sassy would see it admirable and strong.

the fact is that ANYONE who gets anywhere in politics has some meaure of the twat in them, and the further up the scale the larger the amount of twatery there is, and the top dog HAS to be 100% twat
its the nature of the beast.

all that matters to the voter is that they vote for "their kind of twat"...or alternatively (if they can think hard enough) who they consider to be the least worst of the twats available....

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
offensive ? in what way ?

In how she belittles others, as if her own shit smells better than most.
I think she is fundementally offensive towards the English also and has utterly no care for the unity of this country

belittles others ? who

And fundamentally offensive towards the English? No more than the English towards the Scots IMO
and she wants the best for her/our country because Scotland IS a separate country regardless of the geographical connection and she like many scots thinks that is devolution and i agree with her

And in my opinion the unity of the country was destroyed long before her or indeed Alex salmon hence the reason more scots what devolution

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

In how she belittles others, as if her own shit smells better than most.
I think she is fundementally offensive towards the English also and has utterly no care for the unity of this country

belittles others ? who

And fundamentally offensive towards the English? No more than the English towards the Scots IMO
and she wants the best for her/our country because Scotland IS a separate country regardless of the geographical connection  and she like many scots thinks that is devolution and i agree with her

And in my opinion the unity of the country was destroyed long before her or indeed Alex salmon hence the reason more scots what devolution  

Yes that is your opinion, but to me she belittles more than most in how she views the Scottish against the English, when we are meant to be all British. Scottish is like English and British a conception, its not anything geographic, but how a history is formed around a people. What she claims to be best for a nation may not indeed be best at all for them. An Independent Scotland has much to obtain to enter into the world to trade with. If they were a right wing Party the SNP, most would have no hesitatiin in calling them Far right based on their nationalism, and that is what is so poor. A left wing nationalistic party is not seen as racist, even though it seeks to seperate by nationality and be apart from others from within a landmass. Its up to them if they want independence as I back self determinatiion, but the language often crosses over into prejudice and discrminating views.

Of course a lot of Scottish people will admire Nicola Sturgeon because she puts Scotland before England, or the rest the UK. I might admire her if I was in Scotland. If you're not in Scotland, you're less likely to admire someone who clearly doesn't give a toss about the rest of the UK. It stands to reason really.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
belittles others ? who

And fundamentally offensive towards the English? No more than the English towards the Scots IMO
and she wants the best for her/our country because Scotland IS a separate country regardless of the geographical connection  and she like many scots thinks that is devolution and i agree with her

And in my opinion the unity of the country was destroyed long before her or indeed Alex salmon hence the reason more scots what devolution  

Yes that is your opinion, but to me she belittles more than most in how she views the Scottish against the English, when we are meant to be all British. Scottish is like English and British a conception, its not anything geographic, but how a history is formed around a people. What she claims to be best for a nation may not indeed be best at all for them. An Independent Scotland has much to obtain to enter into the world to trade with. If they were a right wing Party the SNP, most would have no hesitatiin in calling them Far right based on their nationalism, and that is what is so poor. A left wing nationalistic party is not seen as racist, even though it seeks to seperate by nationality and be apart from others from within a landmass. Its up to them if they want independence as I back self determinatiion, but the language often crosses over into prejudice and discrminating views.

but belittles who exactly ?
And no Scottish is not like English not at all

And as far as trade goes we are ok thanks  
Agriculture and forestry
Fishing
Oil and gas
Energy
Manufacturing
Whisky
Textiles
Construction ect


Top 10 export destinations,
United States Increase£3.5 billion
Netherlands Increase£2.7 billion
France                Increase £1.9 billion
Germany                 Increase £1.4 billion
Belgium                Increase £1 billion
Republic of Ireand Increase £0.8 billion
Norway                Increase £0.8 billion
Spain                Increase £0.7 billion
Switzerland       Increase£0.6 billion
Italy                 Increase£0.6 billion

to be honest England need Scotland more than Scotland needs England Scotland is the third most prosperous in terms of output per head – behind only London and the South East of England

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course a lot of Scottish people will admire Nicola Sturgeon because she puts Scotland before England, or the rest the UK. I might admire her if I was in Scotland. If you're not in Scotland, you're less likely to admire someone who clearly doesn't give a toss about the rest of the UK. It stands to reason really.

A fair point but from the scots point of view England  doesn't give a toss about Scotland and really never have and we are seen as second class citizens

There lies your problem here Koben, "we"
That "we" does not include many others, who were once "we" as a nation.
Its no good having many exports when you need to draft new treaties or have to be accepted into the EU, which independence does not auto provide Scotland with.
You see you make arguments to make people different in English and Scottish and leave out of the equation the Northern Irish and the Welsh, as if they are insignificant. There again lies the problem, with the concept of "we", because then it becomes, "them" and "us". It was the Union that brought an end to  "them" and "us".
Its fine having such identities and independence but not when played off a view of  "them" and "us", of which the SNP fundementally play off, just as you just did.

Anyway have to go, so goodnight